A19563:1775
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 to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (because §14you were loth to commit but one horrible error in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christs body and blood his divine substance.
And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (bicause §14you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance.
This is a goodly hearing for the Eutychians, who say, that in Christ is no moe natures but his divine substance, which by your interpretation must be true. For if his godhead be a divine substance, and his body and blood also a divine substance, why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than divine substance? And so shall we bring to pass, that either Christ hath but one substance, or two divine substances (although not of like sort) and so not one human substance. And is it like, that Gelasius, (who so long contended against Eutiches for two distinct substances in Christ, human and divine) would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yield unto the heretic, to grant that Christs human substance should be a divine substance?
This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians, who say, that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance, which by your interpretation must be true. For if his godhead be a diuine substance, and his body and bloud also a diuine substance, why should Eutiches be reprehended for denying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce? And so shall we bring to passe, that either Christ hath but one substaūce, or two diuine substaunces (although not of like sorte) and so not one humaine substaunce. And is it like, that Gelasius, (who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ, humaine and diuine) would in the conclusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke, to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce?