A19563:1046
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.
So do all English men understand by these words sensibly ⟨p. 162⟩substantially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spiritually, and such like, the manner and form of being, and not the thing it self without the said forms and manners. For when Christ was borne, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these things naturally, because the mean & manner was not after a natural sort, although it was the self same Christ in nature: But we say that he did eat, drink, sleep, labour, and sweat, talk, and speak naturally, not because only of his nature, but because the manner and fashion of doing was such as we use to do.1 Likewise when Jesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them, their eyes being letted in such sort, that they could not see and perceive him. And so in all the rest of your adverbs, the speech admitteth not to say that Christ is there substantially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substantial, corporal, carnal, and sensual form and manner. This the husband man at his plough, and his wife at her rock is able to judge, and to condemn you in this point, and so can the boys in the grammar school, that you speak neither according to the english tongue, grammar, nor reason, when you say that these words and adverbs (sensibly, corporally and naturally) do not signify a corporal, sensible, and natural manner. I have been here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me: for this subtle and evil devise of your own brain without ground or authority, containeth such absurdities, and may cast such mists before mens eyes to blind them that they should not see, that I am constrained to speak thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much used and accustomed to lye, do not yet know what lye meaneth.
So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sensibly ⟨p. 162⟩substancially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spiritually, and such like, the maner and forme of being, and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners. For when Christ was borne, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these thinges naturally, bicause the meane & maner was not after a naturall sort, although it was the selfe same Christ in nature: But we say that he did eat, drinke, sleepe, labour, and sweat, talke, and speake naturally, not bicause onely of his nature, but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do.