A10777:226
Certe[n] godly, learned, and comfortable conferences, between the two reverend fathers, and holy martyrs…Certe[n] godly, learned, and comfortable conferences, betwene the two reuerende fathers, and holye martyrs…
Certe[n] godly, learned, and comfortable conferences, between the two reverend fathers, and holy martyrs of Christ, D. Nicolas Ridley late Bishop of London, and M. Hugh Latimer sometime Bishop of Worcester, during the time of their imprisonments. Whereunto is added. A treatise against the error of transubstantiation, made by the said reverend father D. Nicolas Ridley. M.D.LVI.Certe[n] godly, learned, and comfortable conferences, betwene the two reuerende fathers, and holye martyrs of Christe, D. Nicolas Rydley late Bysshoppe of London, and M. Hughe Latymer sometyme Bysshoppe of Worcester, during the tyme of their emprysonmentes. Whereunto is added. A treatise agaynst the errour of transubstantiation, made by the sayd reuerende father D. Nicolas Rydley. M.D.LVI.
Strasbourg: printed by the heirs of W. Rihel, 1556
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.
1And yet this soe plain a place some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it / Saying we grant the nature of bread remaineth still thus / for that it may be seen / felt / and tasted / ⟨p. 60⟩and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone / lest two bodies be confused together / and Christ should be thought impanate.
1And yet this soe plaine a place some are not ashamed thus shamefullye to elude it / Saiynge wee graunte the nature of breade remaineth still thus / for that it maie be seen / fealte / and tasted / ⟨p. 60⟩and yet the corporall substaunce of the breade therfore is gone / lest two bodies be confused together / and Christ shoulde be thoughte impanate.
- 1Vuin. in his aunsvucre to the 201. objection.Vuin. in his aunsvucre to the 201. obiection.
What contrariety and falsehood is in this answer / the simple man may easily perceive / is not this a plain contrariety to grant that the nature of bread remaineth so still / that it may be seen / felt / and tasted / and yet to say the corporal substance is gone / to avoid absurdity of Christs impanation?
What contrarietie and falsehoode is in this answeare / the simple manne maye easilie perceiue / is not this a plaine contrarietie to graunt that the nature of breade remaineth so still / that it maie bee seen / fealte / and tasted / and yet to saie the corporall substance is gone / to auoide absurditie of Christes impanation?