A19563:1530
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 then you must needs confess, that you have nothing to defend your self, but only one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say your self, where in deed the Evangelists and Apostles (being true rehearsers of the story in this matter) did put those words in the right place. But you (having none other shift to defend your error) do remove the words, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that loveth the truth, give his ears to hear you, that turn up side down, both the order and sense of Christs words, contrary to the true narration of the Evangelists, contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approved faith of Christs Church, even from the beginning, only to maintain your wilful assertions and Papistical opinions? So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Divines, it had the right sense, but when it came to the handling of ignorant Lawyers and Sophistical Papists, such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture, and old Catholic writers, might declare and defend the truth at their perils: but the Papistical Sophisters and Lawyers, would ever define and determine ⟨p. 262⟩all matters as pleased them.
And then you must needes confesse, that you haue nothing to defend your selfe, but onely one sentence, and that put out of order, and from his right place, as you say your selfe, where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles (being true rehearsers of the story in this matter) did put those wordes in the right place. But you (hauing none other shift to defend your errour) do remoue the wordes, both out of the right place and the right sense. And can any man that loueth the truth, giue his eares to heare you, that turne vp side downe, both the order and sense of Christes wordes, contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes, contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors, and the approued faith of Christes Church, euen from the beginning, onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions? So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines, it had the right sence, but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes, such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture, and old Catholicke writers, might declare and defend the truth at their perils: but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers, would euer define and determine ⟨p. 262⟩