A19563:1933
An answerAn aunsvvere
An answer by the Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and blood of our saviour Jesus Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Here is also the true copy of the book written, and in open court delivered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...
London: printed by John Daye, 1580London: printed by Iohn Daye, 1580
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not staid by §7Gods word, but shooteth at rovers or runneth at large, as it were a young colt without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidents, this is denied. Then would I fain learn of this great wise man, (that so well can dissever substances from accidents) what substance it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, (saith he, for that is whole in every part) nor the bread is not broken (saith he, for our faith teacheth us contrary) then must it be either Christs divinity or soul, that is broken, or else is some other substance there which never man heard of before.
But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not stayd by §7Gods word, but shooteth at rouers or runneth at large, as it were a young colte without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidentes, this is denied. Then would I fayne learne of this great wise man, (that so well can disseuer substaunces from accidentes) what substaunce it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, (sayth he, for that is whole in euery part) nor the bread is not broken (sayth he, for our fayth teacheth vs contrary) then must it be either Christes diuinity or soule, that is broken, or els is some other substance there which neuer man heard of before.
Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himself, which within a little compass denieth so many things, and affirmeth the same again. For first he saith, that to separate substances from the accidents, is to bring it to nothing, and yet he separateth from their accidents as well the substances of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he said, that nothing was broken, but the accidents, now he denieth it. Before he saith, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he saith that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appeareth how falsehood neither agreeth with truth nor with it self.