A14212:291
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.
Ob. To whatsoever instrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth, to the same the eating of the other ought to appertain. But the eating of one body, that is the bread, in the Lords Supper appertaineth to the mouth. Therefore the eating of the other, which is Christs body, appertaineth to the same.
Ob. To whatsoeuer instrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth, to the same the eating of the other ought to appertaine. But the eating of one body, that is the bread, in the Lordes Supper appertaineth to the mouth. Therefore the eating of the other, which is Christs body, appertaineth to the same.
Ans. 1 The Major is true in such meats as are naturally conjoined, of contain one the other, of the which sort is a a Pie. Now the bread and the body of Christ are not so joined together. In these then it is false.
Ans. 1 The Maior is true in such meates as are naturally conioined, of containe one the other, of the which sort is a a Pye. Now the bread and the body of Christ are not so ioined togither. In these then it is false.
The Major thus he proves; ⟨p. 164⟩Whosoever includeth in the same word of eating both bread and wine, & the body & blood of Christ affirmeth also that they are both received with the same instrument. But Christ includeth both bread & wine, & his body & blood in one & the same word of eating. Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the same instrument of eating.
The Maior thus he proues; ⟨p. 164⟩Whosoeuer includeth in the same worde of eating both bread and wine, & the body & blood of Christ affirmeth also that they are both receiued vvith the same instrument. But Christ includeth both bread & wine, & his body & bloud in one & the same worde of eating. Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the same instrumēt of eating.
Ans. 1. The proof of the Major faileth, because an universal affirmative should be concluded in Barbara.
Ans. 1. The proofe of the Maior faileth, because an vniuersal affirmatiue should be concluded in Barbara.
2 The Major beggeth that which is in controversy and is denied. The falseness thereof appeareth John the third, where CHRIST includeth in the same word of birth the spirit and the flesh: and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the same manner, or by the same instrument.
2 The Maior beggeth that which is in controversie and is denyed. The falsenesse thereof appeareth Iohn the third, where CHRIST includeth in the same worde of birth the spirit and the flesh: and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the same manner, or by the same instrument.
3 The Minor also is false. For this word of eating is referred to the hallowed bread, not to the body, but by way of consequence. For it properly pertaineth unto that, which the Lord took in his hands and brake, which was bread, and not his body. This reason is worthy the marking for that according to the Papists and such as simply maintain Consubstantiation the body of CHRIST is not there before the words of consecration (as they call them) are ⟨p. 165⟩pronounced, but beginneth to be there in the very last instant of the pronouncing of these words, This is my body. But according to the Ubiquitaries, which are as it were chemical consubstantiators, it is there indeed, as in any other bread, but it is not yet edible until after consecration. CHRIST then commanded not to eat that with our mouth in the bread, which as yet was not in the bread, or as yet was not edible.
3 The Minor also is false. For this worde of eating is referred to the hollyed breade, not to the bodie, but by way of consequence. For it properly pertaineth vnto that, which the Lord tooke in his handes and brake, which was bread, and not his body. This reason is vvorthy the marking for that according to the Papistes and such as simplie mainetaine Consubstantiation the bodie of CHRIST is not there before the wordes of consecration (as they call them) are ⟨p. 165⟩pronounced, but beginneth to bee there in the very last instante of the pronouncing of these wordes, This is my bodie. But according to the Vbiquitaries, which are as it were chymicall consubstantiators, it is there indeede, as in any other breade, but it is not yet edible vntill after consecration. CHRIST then commaunded not to eate that with our mouth in the breade, which as yet was not in the breade, or as yet was not edible.
Then again he proves the Major of his former syllogism.
Then againe he proues the Maior of his former syllogisme.
A word having but one signification is to be taken but in one. But eating both of the bread and of the body of Christ hath but one signification, viz. with the mouth. It is then to be taken in one signification of both.
A word having but one signification is to be taken but in one. But eating both of the breade and of the body of Christ hath but one signification, viz. with the mouth. It is then to bee taken in one signification of both.
Ans. 1. Here again faileth the proof of the Major, being an universal affirmative, which should have bin concluded in Barbara.
Ans. 1. Heere againe faileth the proofe of the Maior, being an vniversall affirmatiue, which should haue bin concluded in Barbara.
2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in controversy.
2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in cō troversie.
Hereunto is there made answer in two ⟨p. 166⟩Propositions, both being affirmative.
Heereunto is there made aunswere in tvvo ⟨p. 166⟩Propositions, both being affirmatiue.
