A68658:61
A brief declaration of the Lords Supper, writtenA brief declaracion of the Lordes Supper, written
A brief declaration of the Lords Supper, written by the singular learned man, and most constant martyr of Jesus Christ, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxford, a little before he suffered death for the true testimony of ChristA brief declaracion of the Lordes Supper, written by the syngular learned man, and most constaunt martir of Iesus Christ, Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London prisoner in Oxforde, a litel before he suffred deathe for the true testimonie of Christ
Emden: printed by E. van der Erve, 1555
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.
Or else undoubtedly in such a matter, his saying should have ben impugned of some that wrote in his time,1 or near unto the same. Nay (sayeth an other) if this solution will not serve, we may say, that Chrysostom did not speak of the vessels of the Lords cup, or such as were than used at the Lords table, but of the vessels used in the temple in the old law. This answer will serve no more than the other. For here Chrysostom speaketh of such vessels, wherein was the which was called the body of Christ, although it was not the true body (sayeth he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christs body. Now of the vessels of the old law, the writers do use no such manner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christs body. For than Christ was not but in shadows and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body revealed. Erasmus which was a man that could understand the words and sense of the writer, although he would not be seen to speak against this error of transubstantiation, because he durst not: yet in his time declareth plainly that this saying of this writer is ⟨image 30⟩non otherwise to be understanden.
Or elles vndoubtedly in suche a mater, his sayeng shoulde haue bē impugned of som yt wrote in his tyme,1 or nere vnto the same. Naye (sayeth an other) if this soluciō will not serue, we maye saye, that Chrisostome did not speake of the vesselles of the Lordes cuppe, or such as were than vsed at the Lordes table, but of the vesselles vsed in the temple in the olde lawe. This answer will serue no more than the other. For here Chrisostome speaketh of suche vesselles, wherin was ye which was called the body of Christ, although it was not ye true body (sayeth he) of Christ, but the mystery of Christes bodye. Now of the vessels of the olde lawe, the wrytours doo vse no suche maner of phrase: for their sacrifices were not called Christes body. For than Christ was not but in shadowes and figures, and not by the Sacrament of his body reuealed. Erasmus which was a mā that coulde vnderstande the wordes and sense of the wrytour, although he wolde not be sene to speake agaynst this errour of transubstanciacion, bicause he durst not: yet in his tyme declareth playnely that this sayeng of this wrytour is ⟨image 30⟩