A19563:1934
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.
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.
Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himselfe, which within a little compasse denieth so many thinges, and affirmeth the same agayne. For first he sayth, that to seperate substaunces from the accidentes, is to bring it to nothing, and yet he seperateth from their accidents as well the substaunces of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he sayd, yt nothing was broken, but the accidēts, now he denieth it. Before he sayth, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he sayth that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appereth how falsehood neyther agreeth with truth nor with it selfe.
1And where you allege, that in the book of Common prayer it is set §8forth, how in each part of that is broken of the consecrated bread is the whole body of our saviour Christ, what could you have alleged more against your self? For if the consecrated bread be broken in parts, how can you answer truly by faith, as a believing man (which answer you make straight ways after) that that which is broken, is no bread? And if you would answer (as you be wont to do) that the accidents of bread be called bread, yet that collusion will not serve you in this place. For seeing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, answer me to this, whether the substance or accidence be consecrated? And if you say the accidents, then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conversion, it must follow that the accidents of bread be converted, and not the substance, and so should you call it Transaccidentation, and not Transubstantiation, and if you say, that the substance of bread is consecrated, then forasmuch as that which is consecrated is divided into parts, and in every part is the whole body of Christ, you must confess, that the substance of bread remaineth with the parts thereof, wherein is received the body of Christ.