A19563:1745
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 hereof I write thus much, because it should appear that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to prove that the godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this book would have it, for the Nestorian said the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and therefore with them there was no talk of remaining, when they esteemed Christs nature in his conception singular and only by gods power conceived but only man. And again the Eutychian so affirmed the continuance of the divine nature §5in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to prove that was granted, that is to say, the remain of the divine nature, but on the other side to prove the remain of the humane nature in Christ, which by the Eutychians was by implication rather denied. Nestorius divided God and man, and granted always both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man increased, so Christ God dignified him and so divided one Christ into two persons, because of the two natures so different, which was against the rules of our faith, and destroyed thereby the mystery of our redemption. And the Eutychians affirming catholicly to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accounting by implication the humane nature transfused into the divine nature and so confounded. And to show the narrow passage, Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholic author, because writing of the unity of Christs person, he expressed his meaning by the word (nature)1 signifying the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word person doth express.2 The Eutychians would by that word after gather that he favoured their part, so taking the word at a vantage.
And hereof I write thus much, bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his arguments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this booke would haue it, for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite, and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning, when they estemed Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man. And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature