A19563:1743
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 yet I grant that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God, because they would two distinct different natures, to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one only man, and the other only God, so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene saith, man deitate, for so he is termed to say.
And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God, bicause they would two distinct different natures, to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one onely man, and the other onely God, so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth, man deitate, for so he is termed to say.
The Eutychians as S. Augustine saith reasoning against the Nestorians, became heretics themselves, and because we confess truly by faith but one Christ the son of God very God: The Eutychians say, although there were in the virgins womb before §2the adunation, two natures, yet after the adunation, in that mystery of Christs incarnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fancy transfused and so confounded, whereupon by implication a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remain in Christ after the adunation in the virgins womb. Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in §3his process uttereth a catholic meaning against them both, but he directeth special arguments of the two natures in man, & the two natures in the Sacrament, chiefly against the Eutychians, to prove that nature of man to continue in Christ after the adunatiō, being no absurdity for two different natures to constitute one person: the same two natures remaining in their property, and yt natures to be (aliud,) & (aliud,) which signifieth different, and yet in that not to be (alius,) & (alius,) in person, which alius and alius in person, the Eutychians §4