A19563:671
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.
For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming divers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in divers respects, but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. And they affirm plainly that the diversity whereof they spake, cannot be in one nature (as you say it is) but must needs argue & prove diversity of natures. And therefore by that diversity and instinctiō in Christ, they prove against the heretics, that Christ hath two natures in him, which were utterly no proof at all, if one nature in divers respects might have that diversity. For the heretics should have had a ready answer at hand, that such diversity proveth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may have such diversity (if it be true that Smith saith.) And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in the heretics hands, to fight against the catholic faith. This (good Reader) thou shalt easily perceive if thou do no more but read the authors which I have in this place alleged.
For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, affirming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes, but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhode. And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake, cannot be in one nature (as you say it is) but must needes argue & proue diuersity of natures. And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ, they proue against the heretickes, that Christ hath two natures in him, which were vtterly no proofe at all, if one nature in diuers respectes might haue that diuersity. For the heretickes should haue had a ready answere at hand, that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may haue such diuersity (if it be true that Smith saith.) And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in ye hereticks hands, to fight against the catholick faith. This (good Reader) thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I haue in this place alleadged.
And yet for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them, as concerning this matter.