A19563:1059
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.
Next in my book of Hilarius.
But Hylarius (think they) is plainest for them in this matter, whose words they translate thus.
But Hylarius (thinke they) is playnest for them in this matter, whose words they translate thus.
If the word were made very flesh, and we verily receive the word being flesh,1 in our lords meat, how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in us? Who being borne man, hath taken unto him the nature of our flesh, that can not be severed, & hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity under the sacrament of the communion of his flesh unto us. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in us. Wherefore whosoever will deny the father to be naturally in Christ, he must deny first either himself to ⟨p. 165⟩be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in us, maketh us to be one in them. And therefore if Christ have taken verily the flesh of our body, and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ, and also we receive under the true mystery the flesh of his body, by means whereof we shall be one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in us) how shall that be called the unity of will, when the natural property, brought to pass by the Sacrament, is the sacrament of unity?
If the word were made very flesh, and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh,