A19563:1746
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 because the same Cyrillus used the word subsistence to signify substance,1 and therefore said in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the divine substance and humane substance,2 forasmuch as the word subsistence is used to express the person, that as to say hipostasie: There were that of that word frowardly understanded, would gather he should say, that there were two persons in Christ, which was the Nestorians heresy that he impugned. Such captiousness was there in words, when arrogant men §7cared not by what mean to maintain their error. These were both pernicious heresies, and yet subtle, and each had a marvellous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, even as is now pretended against the Sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable appearances for that they said, so as he that were not well §8exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our faith, might be easily circumvented. Nestorius was the great Archbishop of Constantinople, unto whom Cyril that condemneth his heresy writeth, that seeing he slandereth the whole Church with his heresy, he must resist him, although he be a father, because Christ saith, he that loveth his father above me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth although he used it ilfavordly, had much learning and cloaked his heresy craftily, denying the gross matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christs, and other specialities laid to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyril, and professing his own faith in his own terms, could not hide his heresy so, but it appeareth to be and contain in effect that he was charged with, and therefore an admonishing was given by a catholic writer. Believe not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should hear ask what is this to the purpose to talk so much of these sects? I Answer, this knowledge shall generally serve to note the manner of them that go about to deceive the world with false doctrine, which is good to learn.
And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance,1 and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce,