A19563:1756
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.
But where you say, that these heresies of Nestorius & Eutiches were §1not so gross as I report, that the one should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the other should say clean contrary, that he was very God, but not man: of the grossness of these two heresies, I will not much contend. For it might be, that they were of some misreported (as they were in deed if credit be to be given to divers ancient histories) but this I dare say, that there be divers authors, that report of them as I do write, and consequently you grant the same in effect. For you report of the Eutychians, that they did perniciously say, that there was but [Greek or Hebrew], one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say, that they denied Christ to be conceived God or borne God, but only man, and than could not he be naturally God, but only man. And therefore neither by ignorance nor of purpose do I report them otherwise, than you confess your self, and then I have learned of other that were before my time. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him,1 hath these words of Nestorius, Dogmatizare ausus est, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum hominem tantum, he presumed to teach (saith S. Augustine) that our Lord Jesus Christ was but man only. And of Eutiches he saith, Humanitatis in Christo denegavit veritatem, he denied the truth of Christs manhood. And Gelasius writeth also thus. Eutichiani dicunt unam esse naturam, id est divinam, ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem, 2The Eutychians say, that there is but one nature in Christ, that is to say, the Godhead: and also Nestorius saith, there is but one nature, meaning the manhood. By which words of S. Augustine and Gelasius, appeareth as plainly as can be spoken, the plain contradiction between, the Nestorians and the Eutychians, that the one denied the humanity ⟨p. 313⟩of Christ, and the other his divinity (as I have written in my book) so that neither of ignorance nor of purpose have I feigned any thing, but you, either of malice, or of your accustomed manner to calumniate and find fault with every thing that misliketh you (be it never so well) seek occasion likewise hereto carp and reprehend where no fault is: being like unto Momus, which when he could find no fault with Venus person, yet he picked a quarrel to her slipper.