A19563:245
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.
Here is also a fault in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place. For my flesh is verily meat and my blood is verily drink. In which speech, the verb that coupleth the words (flesh) and (meat) together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as the flesh of Christ is verily meat, and not figuratively meat, as the author would persuade. And in these words of Christ may appear plainly, how Christ taught the mystery of the food of his humanity which he promised to give for food, even the same flesh that he said he would give for the life of the world, and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholly brought forth, that is to say, and the bread which I shall give you is my flesh which I shall give for the life of the world, and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sense that S. John speaketh in, saying: The word was made flesh, signifying by flesh the whole humanity. And so did Cyril agree to Nestorius, when he upon these texts, reasoned how this eating is to be understanded of Christs humanity, to which nature in Christs person, is properly attribute to be ⟨p. 17⟩eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispensed and given in the Sacrament. And between Nestorius and Cyril was this diversity in understanding the mystery,1 that Nestorius esteeming of each nature in Christ a several person, as it was objected to him, and so dissolving the ineffable Unity, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man separate. Cyril maintained the body of Christ to be eaten as a body inseparable united to the Godhead, and for the ineffable mystery of that Union, the same to be a flesh that giveth life. And then as Christ saith. If we eat not the flesh of the §6Son of man, we have not life in us, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood, to nourish such as be by his holy Spirit regenerate. And as in Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ,2 for the renewing of our life, so §5do were in this Sacrament of Christs most precious body and blood, receive Christs very flesh, and drink his very blood, to continue and preserve, increase and augment, the life received.