A01760:1037
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
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.
Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the Suppers which Christ did eat with his Disciples, that night wherein he was betrayed: And whichsoever of them the reader please to follow, it shall be most easy to break all the strength of the Argument, which Paybody opposeth unto us.
Whereunto we answer, that there are two opinions touching the Suppers which Christ did eate with his Disciples, that night wherein he was betrayed: And whichsoever of them the reader please to followe, it shall bee most easie to breake all the strength of the Argument, which Paybody opposeth unto us.
First then, there are some who think that Christ having kept the Passover according to the Law, (which is not particularly related, Sect. IV but supponed by the Evangelists,) did sit down to an common or ordinary Supper, at which he told the Disciples that one of them should betray him. And of this judgment are Calvin and Beza upon Math. 26. 20. Pareus upon Math. 26. 21. Fulke and Cartwright against the Rhemists upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. Tolet and Maldonat upon Joh. 13. 2. Cornelius Jansenius Conc. Evang. cap. 131. Balthasar Meisnerus, Tractat die fest virid pag. 256. Johannes Forsterus conc. 4. de pass. p. 538. Chrystophorus Pelargus in Joh. 13. quaest. 2. and others. The reasons whereby their judgment is confirmed are these,
First then, there are some who think that Christ having kept the Passeover according to the Law, (which is not particularly related, Sect. IV but supponed by the Evangelists,) did sit downe to an common or ordinary Supper, at which he told the Disciples that one of them should betray him. And of this judgment are Calvine and Beza upon