A19563:1744
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 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 §4abhorred, and catholicly, for so much against the Nestorians, who by reason ⟨p. 309⟩of two natures would have two persons, and because those Nestorians fancied the person §5of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therefore they denied Christ conceived God or borne God, for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the unity of Christs person, the blessed virgin was called [Greek or Hebrew], deipara, gods mother, which the Nestorians deluded by an exposition, granting she might so be called, because her son they said was afterward God, and so she might be called gods mother, as an other woman may be called a bishops mother, if her son be made a bishop afterward, although he departed no bishop from her.
The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians, became heretiques themselues, and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God: The Eutichians say, although there were in the virgins wombe before