A19563:1758
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 yet this bye matter (which you bring in of the grossness of these two errors) helpeth little your intent, but rather helpeth to fortify my saying against your doctrine of transubstantiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a plain way for the Nestorians & the Eutychians to defend their errors. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures, and after the consecration in that mystery is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your fantasy is transformed and confounded, and if also this mystery be an example of the mystery of Christs incarnation (as the old authors report) why may not then the Eutychians say, that before the adunation in the virgins womb, the Godhead & manhood were two natures, & yet after the adunation in that mystery of Christs incarnation, there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fantasy transfused and confounded? And thus have you made by your transubstantiation a goodly pattern and example for the Eutychians to follow in maintenance of their error.
But yet this bye matter (which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours) helpeth litle your intēt, but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation, that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians & the Eutichians to defend their errours. For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures, and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature, and that is the body of Christ, into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded, and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation (as the old authours report) why may not then the Eutichians say, that before the adunation in the virgins wombe, the Godhead & manhode were two natures, & yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation, there was but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded? And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour.