A19563:764
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.
The third is, that you say the speech of Christ is noted figurative in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man, which is utterly untrue. For the authors note not the figurative speech in that respect: but as christ spake of his own flesh joined unto his divinity (whereby it giveth life) even so do the authors note a figurative speech in respect of Christs own flesh, and say thereof, that the letter can not be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very mans flesh, and his blood is truly mans blond (as is the flesh & blood of his blessed mother) and therefore can not be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the body, to be eaten corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be digested in the stomach: but he is the meat of the soul, to be received spiritually in our harts & minds, and to be chewed and digested by faith.
The third is, that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man, which is vtterly vntrue. For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect: but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity (wherby it geueth lyfe) euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh, and say therof, that the letter can not be true without a figure. For although Christ be both God and man, yet his flesh is a very mans flesh, and his bloud is truely mans blond (as is the flesh & bloud of his blessed mother) and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly, but by a figure. For he is not meat and drink of the body, to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth, and to be dygested in the stomack: but he is the meat of the soule, to be receaued spiritually in our harts & minds, and to be chawed and digested by fayth.
And it is untrue that you here say, that the proper and special name of §3a figure, diminisheth the truth of the mystery. For then Christ in vain did ordain the figures, if they diminish the mysteries.