A19563:1118
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 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.2 And forasmuch as Christ said, that he had flesh, and was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent (said Nestorius) therefore concluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent: whose gross argumentation Cyril confuting saith, that by his rude reasoning of eating, he draweth mens minds wickedly to phansy of the eating of mans flesh (meaning of the eating thereof with tooth and mouth) and so to imagine carnally and grossly such things, of Christ, as be understand to be done with an only and pure faith. And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of mans flesh, even so did Cyril make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commixtion thereof. For unto what purpose should commixtion serve in that place and whereunto should Christs body be commixted? Or why should Cyril charge Nestorius with commixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the clean contrary (as you say) that he separated the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixt them? And furthermore, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and Cyril had made his answer of the commixtion, they had fought Andabatarum more (as the proverb saith) like two blind men, that when the one striketh in one ⟨p. 177⟩place, the other holdeth up his buckler to defend in an other place. Therefore may all men judge, that have any judgement at all, how unjustly you judge and condemn that godly and excellent learned man. Decolampadius for this word [Greek or Hebrew], which you say would be [Greek or Hebrew], which word in Greek I think was never read, nor hath in that place neither sense nor reason.
And to make the matter playne (which it semeth you yet vnderstand not) I shall shortly reherse, as well the argument of Nestorius, as the answer of Cirill. Nestorius the hereticke sayd,