A19563:1723
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.
S. Chrysostoms words in deed,1 if this author had had them either truly translated unto him, or had taken the pains to have truly translated them himself, which as Peter Martyr saith, be not in print but were found in Florence a copy whereof remaineth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Canterburies hands, or else if this author had reported the words as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs book, wherein some point the translator in English, seemeth to have attained by guess the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr uttereth it himself, if either of this had been done, the matter should have seemed for so much the more plain. But what is this to make foundation of an argument upon a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in divers senses? I shall touch one special point, Peter Martyr saith in Latin, whom the translator in English therein followeth, that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lords body. This author Englishing the same place, termeth it (exalted to the name of the Lords body) which words of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author §2to have the bread but a figure and therewith never the holier of it self. But a figure can never be accounted worthy the name of our Lords body, the very thing of the Sacrament, onles there were the thing in deed, as there is by conversion, as the church truly teacheth. §1Is not hear reader a marvellous diversity in report, and the same so set forth, as thou that canst but read English mayst evidently see it? God ordering it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appear, where the truth is impugned? §3Again this author maketh Chrysostom to speak strangely in the end of this authority, that the divine nature resteth in the body of Christ, as though the nature of man were the stay to the divine nature, where as in that union the rest is an ineffable mystery, the two natures in Christ to have one substance called and termed an hipostasie, and therefore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus: The divine constitution the nature of the body adjoined, these two both together, make one son and one person.