A19563:1115
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.
And where you say that Christ uniteth himself to us as man, when he giveth his body in the sacrament to such as worthily receive it, if you will speak as Cyril and other old authors use to do, Christ did unite himself to us as man at his incarnation. And here again you give evidence against your own issue, affirming our unity unto Christ no further than we receive the sacrament worthily. And then they that receive it unworthily, ⟨p. 176⟩be not united corporally unto Christ, nor eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, which is the plain mind both of Hilary & also of Cyril, and directly with the state of my fourth book, & against your answer to the same.
And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vs as man, when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it, if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do, Christ did vnite himselfe to vs as man at his incarnation. And here agayne you geue euidence agaynst your owne issue, affirming our vnity vnto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely. And then they that receaue it vnworthely, ⟨p. 176⟩be not vnited corporally vnto Christ, nor eate his flesh, nor drincke his bloud, which is the playne mynd both of Hilary & also of Cirill, and directly with ye state of my fourth booke, & agaynst your āswer to the same.
And here you pretending to declare again what is meant by this word §5(corporal) do tell the negative, that there is no grossness meant thereby, but the affirmative, what is meant thereby, you declare not as you promised. But if you mean plainly, speak plainly, whether Christs body being in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, have head, feet, arms, legs, back and belly, eyes, ears and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lack, the simplest man or woman knoweth, that it can not be a perfect corporal mans body, but rather an imaginative or fantastical body, as Martion and Valentine taught it to be. Express here fully and plainly, what manner of body you call this corporal body of Christ.