A19563:1236
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 where to excuse your error in translation, you say that the words by you alleged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, be not Theophilactes words, and I deny that they be Theophilus words, so then be they no bodies words, which is no detriment to my cause at all, (because I took him for none of my witness) but it is in a manner a clear overthrow of your cause, which take him for your chief & principal witness saying that no catholic writer among the Greeks, hath more plainly set forth the truth of the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, then Theophilactus hath, and here upon you make your issue.
And where to excuse your errour in translation, you say yt the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus, be not Theophilactes wordes, and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes, so then be they no bodies wordes, which is no detriment to my cause at all, (bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes) but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause, which take him for your cheif & principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among ye Grekes, hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, then Theophilactus hath, and here vpon you make your issue.
And yet have I a good cause to call them Theophilactes words, for as much as I find them in his works printed abroad, saving one word which you have untruly corrupted, because that word pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witness is named Theophilus, except you have better proofs thereof then this, that one saith, he hath him in a corner, and so allegeth him. It is your part to prove your own witness, and not my part that stand herein only at defence. And yet to every indifferent man I have showed sufficient matter to reject him. Hear now my answer to S. Hierom.
And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes, for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode, sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted, bycause that worde pleaseth you not. And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus, except you haue better proofes therof then this, that one sayth, he hath him in a corner, and so alleadgeth him. It is your parte to proue your owne witnes, and not my parte that stand herein only at defence. And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him. Heare now my answer to S. Hierom.