A01760:1044
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.
If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawn together Sect. VI into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sate down after the washing of his Disciples feet, was (for the substance of it) a common Supper, but yet it hath been and may be rightly called the second service of the Paschal Supper, for that it was eaten the same night wherein the Paschal lamb was eaten: So should all the difference be taken away. But if the maintainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed, let the Reader consider to which of them he will adhere.
If those two opinions could be reconciled and drawen togither Sect. VI into one, by holding that that second course whereunto Christ sate downe after the washing of his Disciples feet, was (for the substance of it) a commone Supper, but yet it hath beene and may be rightly called the second service of the Paschall Supper, for that it was eaten the same night wherein the Paschall lambe was eaten: So should all the difference be taken away. But if the mantainers of these opinions will not be thus agreed, let the Reader consider to which of them he will adhere.
If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to Paybody, that hInter caenamdum instituta fuit Eucharistia, cum jam rursum mensae accubuissent. Sed post caenam Paschalem, & usum agni legalis. When Matthew and Mark say, As they did eat, Jesus took bread, they speak of the common or ordinary Supper. But when Luke and Paul say, that he took the Cup after Supper, they speak of the Paschal Supper, which was eaten before the common Supper.
If the first opinion be followed, then it will be most easily answered to Paybody, that hInter caenamdum instituta fuit Eucharistia, cum jam rursum mensae accubuissent. Sed post caenam Paschalem, & usum agni legalis. When Mathewe and Marke say, As they did eate, Iesus tooke bread, they speake of the commone or ordinary Supper. But when Luke and Paule say, that he tooke the Cup after Supper, they speake of the Paschall Supper, which was eaten before the commone Supper.