A19563:1681
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.
Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sects, which said, that he was a very natural man, but not very God, although in giving the blind their sight, the dumb their speech, the deaf their hearing, in healing suddenly with his word all diseases, in raising to life them that were dead, and in all other works of God, he showed himself as he had been God.
Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Marcellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sectes, which sayd, that he was a very naturall man, but not very God, although in geuing the blind their sight, the dumbe their speach, the deafe their hearing, in healing sodenly with his word all diseases, in raysing to life them that were dead, and in all other workes of God, he shewed himselfe as he had bene God.
Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plain in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one time. For before his incarnation (said they) he was God only, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, and became a man only, and ⟨p. 295⟩not God, until his resurrection or ascension, and then (say they) he left his manhood, and was only God again, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was man, he was not God: and when he was God, he was not man.
Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation (sayd they) he was God onely, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, and became a man onely, and ⟨p. 295⟩not God, vntill his resurrection or ascension, and then (say they) he left his manhod, and was onely God agayne, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was manne, he was not God: and when he was God, he was not man.