A14212:236
A14212:236
A collection of certain learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary Ursine; doctor and professor of divinity in the noble and flourishing schools of Neustad. For explication of divers difficult points, laid down by that author in his catechism. Lately put in print in Latin by the last labour of D. David Parry: and now newly translated into English, by I.H. for the benefit and behoof of our Christian country-manA collection of certaine learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary Ursine; doctor and professor of divinitie in the noble and flourishing schools of Neustad. For explication of divers difficult points, laide downe by that author in his catechisme. Lately put in print in Latin by the last labour of D. David Parry: and now newlie translated into English, by I.H. for the benefit and behoofe of our Christian country-man
Oxford: printed by Joseph Barnes, 1600Oxford: printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1600
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.
In this also there is a mutual consent of all; that the bread and wine are given and received visibly & corporally by the hand and month of the minister & communicants: but the body & blood of our Lord with all the benefits of his passion are invisible and spiritually given and received by them both.
In this also there is a mutuall consent of all; that the bread and wine are giuen and receiued visibly & corporally by the hand and month of the minister & communicants: but the body & bloud of our Lord with all the benefits of his passion are invisible and spiritually giuen and receiued by them both.
In all these, I say, there is a joint agreement between all divines which profess the Gospel: as for vain brabblers, whose brawls and jars may not be the measure whereby to judge of the consent, or controversies of the churches professing the Gospel, they neither agree in these, nor in any other.
In all these, I say, there is a ioynt agreement betweene al diuines which professe the Gospell: as for vaine brablers, whose brawles and iaries may not be the measure wherby to iudge of the consent, or controverses of the churches professing the Gospell, they neyther agree in these, nor in any other.
What is the union of the Sign signifying or the Thing signified in the Lords supper: whether it be Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, or only a mystical reference or relation of the one to the other.
What is the vnion of the Signe signifying or the Thing signified in the Lordes supper: whether it be Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, or only a mysticall reference or relation of the one to the other.
To this question we make an answer consonant to the Catholic faith in three several propositions, the two of which are Negative, and third Affirmative.
To this question we make an answere consonant to the Catholicke faith in three seuerall propositions, the two of which are Negatiue, and third Affirmatiue.
The Sig•es and the Things are not united by Transubstantiation, that is, by such a charge as in which the substance of •he Sign are transformed into the substance of the Things, the accidents only remaining.
The Sig•es and the Things are not vnited by Transubstantion, that is, by such a charge as in which the substance of •he Signe are transformed into the substāce of the Thinges, the accidents onely remaining.
1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two things which have a Sacramentary proportion in the Eucharist, which the Accidents of bread and wine, & the substance of the body and blood of Christ can by no means have.
1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which haue a Sacramentary proportiō in the Eucharist, which the Accidents of bread and wine, & the substance of the body and bloud of Christ can by no meanes haue.
2 The second reason is deduced out of the words of Christ who said. This is my body, not, let this be, or, be made my body.
2 The second reason is deduced out of the wordes of Christ who saied. This is my body, not, let this bee, or, bee made my body.
3 The third reason is because the bread is termed bread both before the action of Consecration, in the action, and after the action.
3 The third reason is because the bread is termed bread both before the action of Consec••tion, in the action, and after the action.
4 The fourth reason is because the sounder Fathers retain the name of bread in the Lords Supper; and when they speak by way of Hyperbole of changing of the bread, 1they will be understood to speak Sacramentally As Theodore• Diolog. 1. witnesseth saying; it was the will of Christ that they who use the Sacraments should not bend and set their minds on the nature of the things which are seen, b•t should believe that which was made through grace by alteration of the names. Here in the same dialogue he teacheth that we must understand a sacramental change in these words; Christ honoured the visible signs with the title and name of his body and blood, NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME, but by adding grace to the nature.
4 The fourth reason is because the sounder Fathers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Supper; and when they speake by way of Hype•b•le of chāging of the bread, 1they will be vnderstood to speake Sacramentally As Theodore• Diolog. 1. witnesseth saying; it was the will of Christ that they who vse the Sacraments should not bend and set their mindes on the nature of the thinges which are seene, b•t should beleeue that which was made through grace by alteratiō of the names. Here in the same diologue he teacheth that we must vnderstand a sacramentall change in these wordes; Christ honoured the visible signes with the title and name of his body and bloud, NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME, but by adding grace to the nature.