A19563:1215
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.
Now followeth (as it is entitled) Theophilact being the words in deed not of ⟨p. 196⟩Theophilact as he writeth upon Mark,1 and therefore they were not alleged as his words, but as the words of Theophilus Alexandrinus, wherein this author traverseth a falsehood on the alleger's part to wrong name the author. In which allegation I say if there be a fault as I know none, it is no lye but a probable error, for a man to believe an other better learned then him self, and as I found it alleged. I reported it again, so as having mine author learned whom I followed, I am discharged of malice §1being the author such, whom I followed as might possibly have had such a work of Theophilus containing those words as they be alleged, the negative whereof how this author should prove I can not tell, because of the common saying (Bernardus non vidit omnia) and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus, having these words alleged in their form, for any demonstration this author can make to the contrary. Whither there be or no any such to be showed, it is not material, being so many testimonies besides.2 As for Theophilacts words, I grant they be not, for he wrote his mind more plainly in an other place of his works, as I shall hereafter show, and by the way make an issue with this author, that no catholic writer among the greeks §2hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christs body in the sacrament, then Theophilact hath, as shall appear by and by after I have noted to the reader this, how of Germany, about a two year before he impugned the truth of Christs presence in the sacrament,3 he translated out of Greek into Latin, the works of the said Theophilact, and gave the Latin church thereby some weapon wherewith to destroy his wicked folly afterward not unlike the chance in this author, translating into english, two years bye past, the Catechism of Germany, And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madness against the sacrament confessed (as appeareth) that