A19563:1229
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 now as your translation is untrue, so is the meaning also untrue, and unexcusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference between the verity of Christs body, and the virtue thereof? Who can pretend ignorance in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of every thing the virtue is one, and the substance an other? Except in God only, who is of that simplicity without multiplication of any thing in him, or diversity, that his virtue, his power, his wisdom, his justice, and all that is said to be in him, be neither qualities, nor accidents, but all one thing, with his very substance. And neither the right hand of God, nor the virtue of God (which you bring for an example, and serveth to no purpose, but to blind the ignorant reader) be any thing else, but the very substance of God (although in diversity of respects and considerations, they have diversity of names) except you will divide the most single substance of God into corporal parts and members, following the error of the A•cropomorphites. But the like is not in the body of Christ, which hath distinction of integral parts, and the virtue also and qualities distinct from the substance.
But now as your translation is vntrue, so is ye meaning also vntrue, and vnexcusable. For what man is so far destitute of all his senses, that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body, and the vertue therof? Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing? Doth not all men know, that of euery thing the vertue is one, and the substance an other? Except in God onely, who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him, or diuersitie, that his vertue, his power, his wisdome, his iustice, and all that is sayd to be in him, be neyther qualites, nor accidentes, but all one thinge, with his verie substaūce. And neyther the right hand of God, nor the vertue of God (which you bring for an example, and serueth to no purpose, but to blind the ignoraūt reader) be any thing els, but the very substaunce of God (although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations, they haue diuersitie of names) except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members, following the errour of the A•cropomorphites. But the like is not in ye body of Christ, which hath distinctiō of integrall partes, and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance.