A19563:1761
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 that this was Nestorius opinion, that Christ from his Nativity was but man only, & had his godhead after by adoption or accession, is evident of your own words, when you say, that the Nestorians denied Christ conceived God, or borne God, & that the Godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merit, and that he was conceived but only man, although shortly after you go from the same, saying that both the Godhead & manhood were always in Christ: such constancy is in your dreamed phantasies.
And that this was Nestorius opinion, that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely, & had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession, is euident of your own wordes, when you say, that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God, or borne God, & that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite, and that he was cōceiued but onely man, although shortly after you go from the same, saying that both the Godhead & manhode were alwayes in Christ: such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies.
And where you have written thus much (as you say) because it should §6appear, that Gelasius by his Arguments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures of man, went about to prove that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation, you might have bestowed your time better, than to have lost so much labour, to impugn the truth. For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denied the Godhead of Christ to remain, yet Gelasius went not about only to confute them, but also to set out plainly the true catholic faith, that Christ being incarnated, was perfect God and perfect man, and how that might be, both the said natures and substances remaining with all their natural proprieties and conditions, without transubstantiation, abolition, or confusion of any of the two natures. And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament, as of the body and soul of man. Wherefore as true as it is, that the body and soul of man, and Godhead and manhood of Christ, remain in their proper substances, natures and properties, without transubstantiation or perishing of any of them, so must it be in the Sacrament.