A14212:250
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.
II. The Signs and things signified are not united by Consubstantiation, that is, by a real Existence of two bodies in the same place, or, by the close conveyance of one within the other, such as we see is of the corn in a sack, ⟨p. 157⟩of […] in a mans purse, of an Infant in his cradle, or of […] in a roundlet. For this is a likelihood of things united in substance.
II. The Signes and things signified are not vnited by Consubstantiation, that is, by a reall Existence of two bodies in the same place, or, by the close conveiance of one within the other, such as we see is of the corne in a sacke, ⟨p. 157⟩of 〈…〉 in a mans purse, of an Infant in his cradell, or of 〈…〉 in a roundler. For this is a likelihood of things vnited in substance.
1 The first reason is, because the words of Christ, This is my body do signify unto us, not where Christs body is, neither what it is IN, WITH▪ or UNDER the bread: but what the bread it self is▪ and ought to be unto the godly in this use.
1 The first reason is, because the words of Christ, This is my bodie doe signifie vnto vs, not vvhere Christs body is, neither what it is IN, WITH▪ or VNDER the bread: but what the bread it selfe is▪ and ought to be vnto the godly in this vse.
2 The second Reason is, because the body of Christ is a true instrumental, finite, & visible body; after his ascension no longer present on the earth or every where, but conversant and remaining in heaven, even until his last coming.
2 The second Reason is, because the body of Christ is a true instrumentall, finite, & visible body; after his ascension no longer present on the earth or every where, but cōversant and remaining in heaven, even vntil his last comming.
3 The third Reason is, because the sounder Fathers do teach that the body and blood of Christ is in the bread & wine, not as in a cave ordain, but as in a mystery, and by a mystery. Chrysostom opers imperfecto Math. Homil 11. saith In hallowed and sanctified vessels is contained not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of Christs body.
3 The third Reason is, because the sounder Fathers do teach that the body and bloud of Christ is in the bread & wine, not as in a caue orden, but as in a mystery, and by a mystery. Chrysostome opers imperfecto Math. Homil 11. saith In holied and sanctified vessels is conteined not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of Christs body.
III. The Signs and Things have their coherence in the Lords Supper by a Sacramental union. Now this union is of like quality with that union which is common to the whole kind of Sacraments; otherwise it should not be a sacramental union, but by a title of distinction should be termed, The union in the Lords Supper. But in all the other Sacraments their is an union of Relation and respect, to wit. A ⟨p. 158⟩mystical signification of the Thing signed by the Sign, a sealing, exhibiting, & receiving thereof after a lawful use, which is not without the faith and repentance of them which approach unto it to use it.
III. The Signes and Things haue their coherence in the Lords Supper by a Sacramental vnion. Now this vnion is of like quality with that vnion which is commō to the whole kinde of Sacraments; otherwise it should not be a sacramentall vnion, but by a title of distinction should be tearmed, The vnion in the Lords Supper. But in al the other Sacraments their is an vnion of Relation and respect, to wit. A ⟨p. 158⟩mysticall signification of the Thinge signed by the Signe, a sealing, exhibiting, & receiving thereof after a lawful vse, which is not without the faith and repentance of thē which approach vnto it to vse it.
1 The first is drawn from the nature of the whole kind, in this sort; There is such an union in all Sacraments; Therefore in the Supper also.
1 The first is drawne from the nature of the whole kinde, in this sort; There is such an vnion in all Sacraments; Therefore in the Supper also.
The Antecedent or former proposition of this argument is manifest out of the definition & principal end of the Sacraments.
The Antecedent or former proposition of this argumēt is manifest out of the definition & principal end of the Sacraments.
2 The second is framed on this manner; The bread is the body of Christ either in the truth of the thing (as Augustine according to Prospers opinion speaketh) or in a mystery signifying it. But it is not the body of Christ essentially & […] the truth of the thing▪ because there is no Transubstantiation. Therefore it is the body of Christ in a mystery so signifying.
2 The second is framed on this manner; The bread is the body of Christ either in the truth of the thing (as Augustine according to Prospers opinion speaketh) or in a mysterie signifying it. But it is not the body of Christ essentially & 〈…〉 the truth of the thing▪ because there is no Transubstantiation. Therefore it is the body of Christ in a mysterie so signifying.
3 The third reason is, because all the arguments by which the sacramental speech in the words of the Supper is proved are hithervnto belonging. For a sacramental union requireth sacramental phrases and terms.
3 The third reason is, because al the arguments by which the sacramentall speech in the wordes of the Supper is proved are hithervnto belonging. For a sacramental vnion requireth sacramentall phrases and termes.
4 The fourth is, because we have the testimonies of the Fathers, that the bread is a sign, figure ⟨p. 159⟩and sacrament of the body of Christ no longer absent, but present; and yet present not in the outward and visible elements of bread and wine, but in the word joined with them; present, I say, not to the mouth, but to the heart; not locally and in place, but mystically, and spiritually.
4 The fourth is, because we haue the testimonies of the Fathers, that the bread is a signe, figure ⟨p. 159⟩and sacrament of the body of Christ no longer absent, but present; and yet present not in the outward and visible elements of bread and wine, but in the worde ioyned with them; present, I say, not to the mouth, but to the heart; not locally and in place, but mystically, and spiritually.
