A19563:1957
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.
Winchester.
True believing men are not ashamed to confess the trueth of their faith, whatsoever arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christs works we know to be true by a most certain faith, what mouldeth in bread, or soureth in wine, we be not so assured, or whereon worms engender, it is not so fully agreed on among men. The learned lawyer Ulpian writeth (as I have before alleged) that wine and vinegar have in manner one substance, so as when wine soureth and is vinegar, in manner the same substance remaineth, in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that means that the accidents only sower. And if we agree with the Philosophers that there is Materia prima, which in all things is one and altereth not, but as a new form cometh, taketh a new name, fancying that as one wave in the water thrusteth away an other, so doth one form an other. It should seem by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, the same Materia prima, being as it were substantia, that altereth not. And this I write that may be said as it were to make a title to this authors certainty, which is ⟨p. 355⟩not so sure as he maketh it. Amongst men have been marvellous fancies in consideration of natural things, and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therefore to our certain faith. But to come nearer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirm worms to be engendered of accidents, but when the worms be engendered, we grant the worms to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, then to say that substance is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as entreat those chances and accidents do not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably avoid it. And yet by the way in moulding and souring it should me seemeth be properly said that the accidents mould, and the accidents sower, because we call mould bread, bread: sower wine, wine, and in wine as I said before,