A19563:1967
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 to return to you again, such philosophy as you make here, learned I never in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny, nor I trow none such to be found in any that ever wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and have made strange divinity, so must you invent as strange philosophy. For who ever heard the Terminus a quo is changed, or Terminus ad quem? And whatsoever seemeth to you (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to ⟨p. 356⟩no man else) yet it seemeth to no man else that ever was learned, that accidents be properly changed, but that the substances or subjects be changed from accidence to accidence.
But to returne to you agayne, such philosophy as you make here, learned I neuer in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny, nor I trow none such to bee found in any that euer wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and haue made strange diuinity, so must you inuēt as strange philosophy. For who euer heard the Terminus a quo is chaunged, or Terminus ad quem? And whatsoeuer semeth to you (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to ⟨p. 356⟩no man els) yet it seemeth to no man els that euer was learned, that accidēts be properly changed, but that the substaunces or subiectes be chaunged from accidence to accidence.
And it is the simplest reason that ever was made, that the accidents §3mole and sower, because the substance remaineth, so as moulded bread is called bread, and sower wine is called wine. For so is cold water and hot water both, called water. And yet it is the water that is now hot now cold, and not the accidents. For neither can hot be cold nor cold be hot, nor heat go into coldness, nor coldness into heat, but the subject that receiveth them, is now hot, now cold by alteration, as iron that is now cold, is soon made hot, but coldness can never be hotness by no art nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise pureness can not moll, nor sweetness cannot be sower, but wine that is sweet may turn into sower wine, & bread that is pure may be changed into mouldy bread. But the more you strive in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignorance therein, even as it did before in the matters of our faith. And who can condemn your doctrine more clearly then your own Ulpian