A19563:1994
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.
1Finally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not the body, simulation and dissimulation, wherein when you have well practised your self in all your book through, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue between Chrysostom, Theodoret and me. But Chrysostom, Theodoret and I shall agree well enough,2 for they tell §3not what in no wise may be, but what was commonly used, that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered, what I wrote in my §4book concerning figurative speeches, and negatives by comparison (which you also have allowed) you should have well perceived your labour here spent all in vain. For in all figures and sacraments, the signs remaining in their own proper natures, change nevertheless their names,3 and be called by the names of the more high and excellent things which they signify. And both Chrysostom and Theodoret show a cause thereof which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacraments and figures, but lift up our minds to the things that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacraments is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figurative speeches, simulation, and say that Christ simuled, when he said, he was a vine, a door, a herdsman, the light of the world, and such like speeches. But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit (being now so sore travailed with impugning of the truth) to devise a pretty merry dialog ⟨p. 361⟩of Quoth he and quoth he. And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation, of quoth he and quoth you, even between you and Christ.
1Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the body and not the body, simulation and dissimulation, wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome, Theodoret and me. But Chrysostome, Theodoret and I shall agree well enough,