A14212:256
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.
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.
The objection of Papists for their Transubstantiation drawn out of the words of the Supper.
The obiection of Papists for their Transubstantiation drawne out of the words of the Supper.
The argument holds from the rule of things different; as if a man should say, This is a man, therefore it is not an Ox.
The argument holdes from the rule of thinges different; as if a man should say, This is a man, therfore it is not an Oxe.
We deny that this argument is framed, as you say,1 from the inducing of one special by the removing of the contrary of the same kind: because it is rather a faulty process in argumentation from the inducing of a sacramental respect which is but an Accident, to the displacing and denial of the subject & substance; such as this is, if I should say, This man is a Father; Therefore he is not a man. For so they argue, This bread is the body of Christ therefore it is not bread. There is therefore in this argument a Fallacy of Accident no less absurd the if you should thus conclude▪ This thing is a table▪ therefore it is not wood. For although the body of Christ be not the form or Accident of bread• yet the Relation and respect which the bread ⟨p. 160⟩hath by virtue of the promise unto the body of Christ is the form of a Sacrament: Whence it is a weak kind of reasoning to say; A dove is the holy Ghost; therefore it is no longer a dove Circumcision is the covenant of God; therefore it is no longer Circumcision. The cup is the New Testament; therefore it is no longer a cup.
Wee deny that this argument is framed, as you say,1 from the inducing of one speciall by the remouing of the contrarie of the same kinde: because it is rather a faulty processe in argumentation frō the inducing of a sacramētal respect which is but an Accident, to the displacing and deniall of the subiect & substance; such as this is, if I should say, This man is a Father; Therefore he is not a man. For so they argue, This bread is the body of Christ therefore it is not bread. There is therefore in this argument a Fallacie of Accident no lesse absurd the if you should thus conclude▪ This thing is a table▪ therefore it is not wood. For although the body of Christ bee not the forme or Accident of bread• yet the Relation and respect which the bread ⟨p. 160⟩
The answer to all the testimonies of the Fathers which the Papists allege for the change of the signs is common; that they are all to he understood of the Sacramental not of an essential and real mutat on, which is apparent out of the consent of foundest Fathers in this point of the sacrament.
The answere to all the testimonies of the Fathers which the Papists alleadge for the change of the signes is common; that they are all to hee vnderstood of the Sacramentall not of an essentiall and reall mutat on, which is apparant out of the consent of foundest Fathers in this point of the sacrament.
