A19563:2132
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 the controversy in the council Ephesine, was not of the uniting of Christs flesh to the forms of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the uniting of his flesh to his divinity at his incarnation in unity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretic denied, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature: which heresy, that holy council confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so joined in person, to the divine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the son of God, and flesh that gave life: but that the said flesh was present in the sacrament corporally, and eaten with our mouths, no mention is made thereof in that council.
And the controuersy in the councell Ephesine, was not of the vniting of Christes flesh to the formes of bread and wine in the sacrament, but of the vniting of his flesh to his diuinity at his incarnation in vnity of person. Which thing Nestorius the heretike denyed, confessing that Christ was a godly man as other were, but not that he was very God in nature: which heresy, that holy counsell confuting, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ was so ioyned in person, to the dyuine nature, that it was made the proper flesh of the sonne of God, and flesh that gaue life: but that the sayd flesh was present in the sacramēt corporally, and eaten with our mouthes, no mention is made therof in that councell.
And here I require D. Smith (as proctor for the Papists) either to bring forth some ancient council or doctor, that saith as he saith, that Christs own natural body is eaten corporally with our mouths (understanding the very body in deed, and not the signs of the body as Chrysostom doth or else let him confess that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third time, as he hath done twice already.
And here I require D. Smith (as proctor for the Papists) eyther to bring forth some auncient councell or doctor, that sayth as he sayth, that Christs own naturall body is eaten corporally with our mouthes (vnderstanding the very body in deed, and not the signes of the body as Chrisostome doth or els let him confesse that my saying is true, and recant his false doctrine the third tyme, as he hath done twise already.