A19563:1367
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.
Now come you in with your addition and gloss, made of your own head, putting thereto this word (effectually.) If I should say that Christ was never conceived nor borne, could not I avoid all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word (apparently) and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Ualentinians, Marcionists and other that said that Christ dyed not for us, defend their error with addition (as they did,) of this word (putative) to all the scriptures that were brought against them? And wat heresy can be reproved, if the heretics may have the liberty that you do use, to add of their own heads to the words of scripture?1 contrary unto God's word directly, who commandeth us to add nothing to his word, nor to take any thing away.
Now come you in with your addition and glose, made of your owne head, putting therto this word (effectually.) Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne, could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word (apparantly) and defend my saying stoutly? And might not the Ualentinians, Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs, defend their errour with addition (as they did,) of this word (putatiue) to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them? And wat herisie can be reproued, if the heretikes may haue ye liberty that you do vse, to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture?1 contrary vnto Godes word directly, who cō maundeth vs to adde nothing to his word, nor to take any thing away.
- 1Deu. 12.
And yet more over, the authorities which I have brought to approve my doctrine, do clearly cast away your addition, adding the cause why evil men can not eat Christs flesh nor drink his blood. And you have taught almost in the beginning of your book, that Christs body is but a spiritual body, and after a spiritual manner eaten by faith. And now you have confessed, that who so fedeth upon Christ spiritually, must needs be a good man. How can you than defend now, that evil men eat the body of Christ? except you will now deny that which you granted in the beginning (and now have forgotten it) that Christs body cannot be eaten but after a spiritual manner by faith? Wherein it is marvel, that you having so good a memory, should forget the common proverb, Mendacem memorem esse oportet.