A19563:1116
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 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.
And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word §5(corporall) do tell the negatiue, that there is no grosenes ment therby, but the affirmatiue, what is ment therby, you declare not as you promised. But if you meane playnly, speake playnly, whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnder the fourmes of bread and wine, haue head, feete, armes, legges, backe and bely, eyes, eares and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lacke, the simplest man or woman knoweth, that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body, but rather an imaginatiue or phantasticall body, as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be. Expresse here fully and playnly, what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ.
And where you say that I allege Cyril to deny in words the eating §6of a man, and to affirm the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith, and yet it shall appear by further discussing (say you) that Cyril saith not so. If you had not rubbed shame out of your forehead, you would not have said, that he saith not so, and be taken with so manifest an untruth. For although you like a Grammarian, ruffle in your cases, Genders, numbers, and persons, (and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to show your self learned) corrupting the Greek, Latin and English, to draw them to your purpose, yet shall you never prove that Cyril speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by faith.