A19563:1784
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.
Winchester.
1And if that I have here said be well considered, there may appear the great ignorance of this author in the alleging of Theodoret, the applying of him and the speaking of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutychians reasoning (as S. Augustin saith) to confound the Nestorians, fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ: so Theodoretus reasoning against the Eutychians, fell in a vehement suspicion to be a Nestorian, like as S. Augustine reasoning against the Manichees for defence of free will, seemed to speak that the Pelagians would allow, and reasoning against Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would allow, such a danger it is to reduce extremities to the mean, wherein S. Augustine was better purged then Theodoret was, although Theodoret was reconciled. But for example of that I have said,§1 this argument of Theodoretus against the Eutychians to avoid confusion of natures in Christ showeth how in the Sacrament where the truth of the mystery of the two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible creatures. This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to prove distinct persons, against whom Cyril travailed to show that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was given to be eaten was given, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God, whereby appeared the unity of the godhead to the manhood in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodoretus doth by his argument declare. But whether the Printers negligence, or this authors §2oversight hath confounded, or confused this matter in the uttering of it, I can not tell. For the author of this book concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the premises, that even so the body of Christ was after the ascension changed into the godly substance. I ween the Printer left out a (not) and should have said not changed, into the godly substance, for so the sense should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. And yet the triumph this author maketh against them, he calleth for his pleasure Papists, with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt, whether he wist what he said, or no: