A19563:1232
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.
And it seameth to be a strange thing, that you have so quick an eye to espy other mens faults, and cannot see in Theophilact his plain §9answer, but to take upon you to teach him to answer. For when he asketh the question, why doth not the flesh appear? He should have answered (say you) that the flesh is not there in deed, but the virtue of the flesh, I pray you doth not he answer plainly the same effect? Is not his answer to that question this (as you confess your self) that the forms of bread and wine be changed into the virtue of the body of Christ? And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the virtue of the flesh is there but not the substance corporally and carnally?
And it seameth to be a strange thing, that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes, and cannot see in Theophilact his playne §9aunswer, but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer. For when he asketh the question, why doth not the flesh appeare? He should haue aunswered (say you) that the flesh is not there in deed, but the vertue of the flesh, I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect? Is not his aunswer to that question this (as you confesse your selfe) that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ? And what would you require more? Is not this as much to say, as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally?
And yet another third error is committed in the same sentence, because one sentence should not be without three errors at the least in your translation. For whereas Theophilact hath but one accusative case, your put thereto other two mo of your own head. And as you once taught Barnes, so now you would make Theophilact your scholar, to say what you would have him. But that the truth may appear what Theophilact said, I shall rehearse his own words in Greek, [Greek or Hebrew]. which words translated into latin be these.