A19563:1077
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 I trow it be your chance to light upon false books. For whereas in this sentence (Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse) one false print for (naturaliter) hath (non naturaliter) it seemeth that you chanced upon that false print.1 ⟨p. 168⟩For if you have found Hilary truly corrected (as you say you have) your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an untrue translation. And if you have so done, then by putting in a little pretty (not) where none ought to be, with that little pretty trip you have clean overthrown your self. For if it be an error to deny that Christ is not naturally in us, (as it his rehearsed for an error) then must it be an error to affirm that Christ is naturally in us. For it is all one thing, that he is not, and to affirm that he is naturally in us. And so by your own translation you overthrow your self quite and clean, in that you say in many places of your book, that Christ is naturally in us, and ground your saying upon Hilary. Whereas now by your own translation, Hilary rejecteth that clearly as an heinous error.
But I trow it be your chaunce to light vpon false bookes. For wheras in this sentence (Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, negit prius naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse) one false print for (naturaliter) hath (non naturaliter) it seemeth that you chaunced vpō that false print.1 ⟨p. 168⟩For if you haue found Hilary truely corrected (as you say you haue) your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an vntrue translation. And if you haue so done, then by putting in a little prety (not) where none ought to be, with that little prity trip you haue cleane ouerthrowne your selfe. For if it be an errour to deny that Christ is not naturally in vs, (as it his rehersed for an errour) then must it be an errour to affirme that Christ is naturally in vs. For it is all one thing, that he is not, and to affirme that he is naturally in vs. And so by your owne translation you ouerthrow your selfe quite and cleane, in that you say in many places of your book, that Christ is naturally in vs, and ground your saying vpon Hylarie. Whereas now by your owne translation, Hylary reiecteth that clearely as an haynous error.