A19563:1767
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.
First you would shake him of by this pretence that he useth his two Arguments of the two examples of man, and the Sacrament, against the Eutychians only. But Gelasius will not so easily leave his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutychians, declaring by these two examples, how two different natures may remain in Christ, and that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both the different natures remain in their properties, which condemneth both the foresaid heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutychians his divinity, and the Nestorians his humanity. And yet if he had used these examples against the Eutychians only, they byte you as sore, as if they were used against them both. For if he conclude by these two examples, against the Eutychians (as you say he doth) that the integrity of Christ can not be but both natures different, (that is to say, his manhood and Godhead) must remain in their property, then must it needs be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures, with their natural properties, neither perishing, but both remaining, and as man hath in him two natures (the soul and the body) both remaining still, so ⟨p. 316⟩must in the Sacrament also, the nature of bread and wine remain without Transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, according to the said words of Gelasius, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceaseth not to be.
First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Argumentes of the two examples of man, and the Sacrament, agaynst the Eutichians onely. But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians, declaring by these two examples, how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ, and that the integritie of Christ can not be, except both the different natures remaine in their properties, which cōdemneth both the foresayd heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutichians his diuinitie, and the Nestorians his humanitie. And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely, they byte you as sore, as if they were vsed agaynst them both. For if he conclude by these two examples, agaynst the Eutichians (as you say hee doth) that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different, (that is to say, his manhode and Godhead) must remaine in their propertie, then must it nedes be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures, with their naturall properties, neither perishing, but both remainyng, and as man hath in him two natures (the soule and the body) both remainyng still, so