A19563:1741
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.
Winchester.
1Now followeth to answer to Gelasius, who abhorring both the heresies of Eutiches and Nestorius, in his treatise against the Eutychians forgetteth not to compare with their error in extremity in the one side, the extreme error of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally intendeth the confusion of the Eutychians, with whom he was specially troubled. These two heresies, were not so gross as the author of this §1book reporteth them, wherein I will write what Uigilius saith. (Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris, se dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis ne foriam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperavit, ut utrumque sine utriusque periculo, plerique vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat, Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere: rursum dumb Eutichianae haeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere.) These be Uigilius words in his first book, which be thus much in English. Between the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometime not ruler but waster, not pastor, but pray searcher, of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches, the craft of the devils spoiling so fashioned it self, that men could not avoid any of the secrets without danger of the other: So as whiles any man condemneth the falseness of Nestorian, he may be thought fallen to the error of the Eutychian, and whiles he destroyeth the wickedness of the Eutychian, and whiles be destroyeth the wickedness of the Eutychians heresy, he may be challenged to relieve the teaching of the Nestorian. This is the sentence of Uigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtle conveyed, without so plain contradiction, as this author either by ignorance or of purpose feigneth, as though the Nestorian should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the Eutychian clean contrary, very God, but not man. For if the heresies had been such, Uigilius had had no cause to speak of any such ambiguity, as he noteth that a man should hardly speak against the one, but he might be suspected to favour the other.