A19563:1117
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 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.
And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating §6of a man, and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth, and yet it shall appeare by further discussing (say you) that Cirill sayth not so. If you had not rubbed shame out of your forehed, you would not haue sayd, that he sayth not so, and be taken with so manifest an vntruth. For although you like a Gramarian, ruffle in your cases, Genders, numbers, and persons, (and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to shew your selfe learned) corrupting the Greeke, Latin and English, to draw them to your purpose, yet shall you neuer proue that Cirill speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by fayth.
And to make the matter plain (which it seemeth you yet understand not) I shall shortly rehearse, as well the argument of Nestorius, as the answer of Cyril. Nestorius the heretic said,1 that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he had but a common body such as other men have, whereunto the Godhead was only assistant, as it is to other men. And to prove the same, he alleged Christs own words, when he said, He that eateth my flesh &c. and he that eateth me, and as the living father sent me.