A57277:108
A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning…
A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument by the same author / written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London during his imprisonment ; to which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book entitled Diallacticon, written by Dr. John Poynet.A brief declaration of the Lords Supper with some other determinations and disputations concerning the same argument by the same author / written by Dr. Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London during his imprisonment ; to which is annexed an extract of several passages to the same purpose out of a book intituled Diallacticon, written by Dr. John Poynet.
London: printed for Richard Chiswell, 1688
A BRIEF DECLARATION OF THE Lords Supper.A BREEFE DECLARATION OF THE Lordes Supper.
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.
These be Chrysostoms words: wherein I pray you, what can be 1said or thought more plain against this error of Transubstantiation, then to declare, that the bread abideth so still: And yet to this so plain a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we grant that nature of bread remaineth still thus, for that it may be seen, felt, and tasted, and yet the corporal substance of the bread therefore is gone, lest two bodies should be confused together, and Christ should be thought impanate.
These be Chrisostoms woords: wherin I praye you, what can be 1said or thoughte more plaine against this errour of Transubstantiation, then to declare, that the breade abideth so still: And yet to this so plaine a place, some are not ashamed thus shamefully to elude it, saying: we graunt that nature of bread remaineth stil thus, for that it may be seene, felte, and tasted, and yet the corporal substance of the bread therfore is gone, leaste two bodies shoulde be confused together, and Christe shoulde be thought impanate.
- 1Gardener to the 202. Objection.Gardener to the 202. 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? And what manifest falsehood is this, to say or mean, that if the bread should remain still, then must follow the inconvenience of impanation?
What contrarietie and falsehood is in this answere, the simple man may easily perceiue. Is not this a plain contrarietye to graunt that the nature of bread remaineth so still, that it may be séene, felte, and tasted: and yet to saye the corporall substance is gon, to auoid absurdity of Christs impanation? And what manifest falshood is this, to saye or mean, that if the breade should remain still, then must followe the inconuenience of impanation?