A19563:1747
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.
An other special service is to declare how the author of this book, either doth not ⟨p. 310⟩know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or else misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall give light of the truth of the mystery of the Sacrament, who against the Eutychians useth two arguments of examples, one of the two different natures to remain in one person of man, and yet the Eutychians defamed that conjunction, with remain of two different natures, and called it [Greek or Hebrew], double nature, and Gelasius to encounter that term saith, they will with their [Greek or Hebrew] one nature reserve not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say, soul and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to show (Gelasius saith) two divers qualities in the same man, & not to divide the same into two men, and so intendeth to show there ought to be no scruple to grant two different natures to remain in their propriety, for fear that every divers nature should make a divers person, and so in Christ divide the unity concluding that the integrity of Christ can not be but both the natures different remaining in their property Carnal imagination troubled the Eutychians to have one person of two such different natures remaining in their property, which the Nestorians relieved with devise of two persons, and the Eutychians by confusion of the humane nature.
An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke, eyther doth not ⟨p. 310⟩know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or els misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament, who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two arguments of examples, one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man, and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction, with remayne of two different natures, and called it 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, double nature, and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth, they will with their 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say, soule and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to shew (Gelasius sayth) two diuers qualities in the same man, & not to deuide the same into two men, and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two different natures to remayne in their propriety, for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person, and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property, which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons, and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature.