A19563:1066
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.
This answer to Hilary, in the lxxviii. leaf requireth a plain precise issue, worthy §1to be tried apparent at hand. The allegation of Hilary toucheth specially me, who do say and maintain that I cited Hilary truly (as the copy did serve) and translate him truly in English after the same words in latin. This is one issue which I qualify with the copy,1 because I have Hilary now better correct, which better correction setteth forth more lively the truth then the other did, and therefore that I did translate was not so much to the advantage of that I alleged Hilary for, as is that in the book that I have now better correct. Hilary's words in the book newly corrected be these.2 Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus, quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est: qui & naturam carnis nostrae jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit, & naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit? Itae enim omnes unum sumus, quia & in Christo pater est, & Christus in nobis est. Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, neget prius non naturaliter §2vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater, & Christus in nobis unum in ijs esse nos faciunt. Si vere igitur, carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit, & verè homo ⟨p. 166⟩ille qui ex Maria natu• fuit Christus est, nosque vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc unum erimus, quia pater in co est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis unitas asseritur, cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si unitatis? My translation is this. If the word was made verily flesh, and we verily receive the word being flesh, 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, and 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, must deny first either himself to be naturally in Christ, or Christ not 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.