A19563:305
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.
Which because they speak the thing so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can devise nothing to answer these Authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his ear saying nothing to all these authors, but that they prove not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answer let the Reader be judge, for in such sort I could make a short answer to Smiths whole book in this one sentence that nothing that he saith proveth his purpose. And as for proofs of his saying, Smith hath utterly none but only this fond reason: That if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread have been crucified for us, because Christ added these words: this is my body, which shall be given to death for you. If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loaf in his hand made of wheat that came out of Danske, and say this is wheat that grew in Danske, but it must follow, that the loaf grew in Danske. And if the wife shall say: this is butter of my own cow, Smith shall prove by this speech that her maid milked butter. But to this fantastical or rather frantic reason, I have spoken more in mine answer to Smiths preface.
Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors, but that they proue not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge, for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose. And as for proofes of his saying, Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason: That if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread haue been crucified for vs, because Christ added these words: this is my body, which shalbe geuē to death for you. If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske, and say this is wheate that grew in Danske, but it must follow, that the loafe grew in Danske. And if the wife shall say: this is butter of my own cow, Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter. But to this fantasticall or rather frantike reason, I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface.