A14216:2176
The Sum of Christian Religion
The sum of Christian religion: delivered by Zacharias Ursinus in his lectures upon the Catechism authorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parry, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supply of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of divinity, and with correction of sundry faults & imperfections, which are [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latin.The summe of Christian religion: deliuered by Zacharias Vrsinus in his lectures vpon the Catechism autorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolued the questions of whatsoeuer points of moment, which haue beene or are controuersed in diuinitie. Translated into English by Henrie Parrie, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supplie of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of diuinitie, and with correction of sundrie faults & imperfections, which ar [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latine.
Oxford: printed by Joseph Barnes, 1587Oxford: printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1587
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.
7 The conceit of a corporal presence of Christ under the bread ⟨p. 751⟩is wholly different and divers from the formal consideration of a sacrament. Therefore it is to be rejected. The antecedent is proved: because it cannot be accounted either for the sign, or the thing signed. It is not the sign or sacrament because it is not object unto the senses. And further, it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing, that is, with the spiritual eating. Neither can it be said to be the thing signed, seeing the scripture no where preacheth of an essential transfusion, and real commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies, neither can there be any, except we entertain the follies and dreams of Eutychians and Schwenkfeldians. For the sacraments testify of those blessings only, and them only do they seal unto us, which are contained in the promise of the Gospel. Therefore no place is left for a substantial presence of the body in the bread, as being altogether fruitless and unprofitable.
7 The conceit of a corporal presence of Christ vnder the bread ⟨p. 751⟩is wholie different and diuers from the formal consideration of a sacrament. Therefore it is to be rejected. The antecedent is proued: because it cannot bee accounted either for the signe, or the thing signed. It is not the signe or sacrament because it is not obiect vnto the senses. And further, it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing, that is, with the spiritual eating. Neither can it be said to be the thing signed, seeing the scripture no where preacheth of an essentiall transfusion, and real commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies, neither can there be anie, except wee entertaine the follies and dreames of Eutychians and Schuenkfeldians. For the sacraments testifie of those blessings onelie, and them onlie doe they seale vnto vs, which are conteined in the promise of the Gospel. Therefore no place is left for a substantial presence of the bodie in the bread, as being altogether fruitles and vnprofitable.