A19563:1976
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.
It hath vene heard without fables of certain men that have lived and been nourished with savours only. And in gold and certain precious stones, that they give a kind of nurture to an other substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath showed it so, and therefore the principle or maxim that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it, as he noteth, to say that substance is nourished without substance. But when vermin by chance happen to devour any host, as I am sure they cannot violate Christs most precious body, so what effect followeth of the rest, what needeth it to be discussed? If it nourisheth, then doth that effect remain, although the substance be not there. If every nurture must needs be of substance, then would those that discuss those chances say the substance to return, but hell gates shall not make me speak against my faith. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacrament nourish. I will answer, yea Ergo saith he, there is substance, I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physic, I shall disprove the conclusion by the §2authority of faith, who is it most meet should yield to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the general rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that the only substance being changed, all other parts, properties and effects may remain? Is it an absurdity for a maid to have a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher saith: Of nothing cometh nothing? The principle of nature is that whatsoever hath a beginning, hath an end, and yet it is no absurdity to believe our souls to have a beginning without end, and to be immortal. Wherefore to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absurdity in our faith, which repugneth only to the principles of philosophy, or reason, when that is only to be accounted for an absurdity, that should repugn to the scripture and gods will, which is the standard to try the rule of our faith.