A19563:1120
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.
Nevertheless if I should divine without the book (as you do) I would rather think that [Greek or Hebrew] should be [Greek or Hebrew] (for such small errors in one letter, be easily committed in the printing) and than concluding with an Interrogation (as you would have it) the sense of the Greek should be this in English. Doth not Nestorius affirm, that he who was seen and sent, is an other son and Christ beside the word which is God of God? doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, unreverently leading faithful minds unto vain and gross imaginations? and going about to compass with mans fantasy those things, which be received only with a pure and simple faith? Where Cyril in these words reproveth Nestorius, in that he said, that our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himself affirm the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I said in my book? For else why should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not Cyril say also, that this sacrament is received only with a pure and simple faith? And yet you find fault with me, because I say, that Cyril affirmeth the receiving in this sacrament to be only by faith, which, your saying being so manifest contrary to Cyril's words, I refer me to the judgement of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be given to you in this matter. And as for Decolampadius if the Printer in the steed of [Greek or Hebrew] made [Greek or Hebrew] and for [Greek or Hebrew] printed [Greek or Hebrew] (which may soon chance in printing) than may [Greek or Hebrew] be the nominative case, notwithstā ding all your vehement inueying & vain babbling against Decolampadius.
Neuerthelesse if I should diuine without the booke (as you do) I would rather thinke that 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 should be 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 (for such smal errours in one letter, be easely committed in the printing) and than concluding with an Interrogation (as you would haue it) the sence of the Greeke should be this in English. Doth not Nestorius affirme, that he who was seene and sent, is an other sonne and Christ beside the word which is God of God? doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, vnreuerently leading faythfull myndes vnto vayne and grose imaginations? and going about to compasse with mans phantasy those thinges, which be receaued onely with a pure and simple fayth? Where Cirill in these wordes reproueth Nestorius, in that he sayd, that our sacrament is the eating of a man. Doth not he himselfe affirme the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I sayd in my booke? For els why should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not Cirill say also, that this sacrament is receaued onely with a pure and simple fayth? And yet you fynde faulte with me, bicause I say, that Cirill affirmeth the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth, which, your saying being so manifest cōtrary to Cirills wordes, I referre me to the iudgement of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be geuen to you in this matter. And as for Decolampadius if the Printer in the steed of made and for printed (which may soone chāce in printing) thā may be ye nominatiue case, notwithstā ding all your vehemēt inueying & vayne babling agaynst Decolāpadius.