A19563:1935
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.
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.
1And where you alleadge, that in the booke of Common prayer it is set §8forth, how in ech part of that is brokē of the consecrated bread is the whol body of our sauiour Christ, what coulde you haue alleadged more agaynst your selfe? For if the consecrated bread bee broken in partes, how can you aunswere truely by fayth, as a beleuing man (which aunswere you make streight wayes after) that that which is broken, is no breade? And if you would aunswere (as you be wont to doe) that the accidentes of bread bee called bread, yet that collusiō will not serue you in this place. For seing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, aūswere me to this, whether the substaunce or accidence be consecrated? And if you say the accidentes, then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conuertion, it must follow that the accidents of bread bee conuerted, and not the substaunce, and so should you call it Transaccidentation, and not Transubstantiation, and if you say, that the substaunce of bread is consecrated, then for asmuch as that which is consecrated is deuided into partes, and in euery part is the whole body of Christ, you must confesse, that the substaunce of bread remaineth with the partes thereof, wherein is receiued the body of Christ.