A64611:2040
The sum of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism, and then afterwards more enlarged by a sound and judicious exposition, and application of the same : wherein also are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment have been, or are controversed in divinity / first Englished by D. Henry Parry, and now again conferred with the best and last Latin edition of D. David Pareus, sometimes Professor of Divinity in Heidelberg ; whereunto is added a large and full alphabetical table of such matters as are therein contained ; together with all the Scriptures that are occasionally handled, by way either of controversy, exposition, or reconciliation, neither of which was done before, but now is performed for the readers delight and benefit ; to this work of Ursinus are now at last annexed the Theological miscellanies of D. David Pareus in which the orthodoxall tenets are briefly and solidly confirmed, and the contrary errors of the Papists, Ubiquitaries, Antitrinitaries, Eutychians, Socinians, and Arminians fully refuted ; and now translated into English out of the original Latin copy by A.R.The summe of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism, and then afterwards more enlarged by a sound and judicious exposition, and application of the same : wherein also are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment have been, or are controversed in divinitie / first Englished by D. Henry Parry, and now again conferred with the best and last Latine edition of D. David Pareus, sometimes Professour of Divinity in Heidelberge ; whereunto is added a large and full alphabeticall table of such matters as are therein contained ; together with all the Scriptures that are occasionally handled, by way either of controversie, exposition, or reconciliation, neither of which was done before, but now is performed for the readers delight and benefit ; to this work of Ursinus are now at last annexed the Theologicall miscellanies of D. David Pareus in which the orthodoxall tenets are briefly and solidly confirmed, and the contrary errours of the Papists, Ubiquitaries, Antitrinitaries, Eutychians, Socinians, and Arminians fully refuted ; and now translated into English out of the originall Latine copie by A.R.
London: printed by James Young, 1645
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.
1. Like phrases have a like sense and interpretation. But all these phrases are accounted for like; namely, for sacramental forms of speech, wherein the names or proper effects of the things signified, are attributed to the sign: as, Circumcision is the Govenant of God. The Lamb is the Passover of the Lord. 1The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Levitical sacrifices are an expiation or doing away of sin. The blood of sacrifices is the blood of the Covenant. The covering of the Ark is the mercy seat. The Rock was Christ. The bread is the body of Christ. The cup is the New Testament. Baptism washeth away sin. Baptism is the washing of the new birth. Baptism saveth us, &c. Therefore their interpretation is alike. Now God himself interpreteth some of them thus; Circumcision is a sign of the Covenant. The Lamb is a sign and memorial of the Passover. The Sabbath is a sign of the Covenant: Therefore we may justly interpret the rest on the same manner. The Levitical sacrifices signify the atonement for sins, made by the Messiah. The blood of sacrifices is a Sacrament ⟨p. 446⟩or sign confirming the Covenant; or a sign of Christs blood, whereby the Covenant was established. The covering of the Ark signifieth the Mercy-seat. The Rock signifieth Christ. The bread is a Sacrament of the body of Christ. The cup is a Sacrament sealing the new Covenant. Baptism is a Sacrament of the washing away of sins, and of our regeneration and salvation.
1. LIke phrases have a like sense and interpretation. But all these phrases are accounted for like; namely, for sacramentall formes of speech, wherein the names or proper effects of the things signified, are attributed to the signe: as, Circumcision is the Govenant of God. The Lamb is the Passeover of the Lord. 1The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Leviticall sacrifices are an expiation or doing away of sinne. The bloud of sacrifices is the bloud of the Covenant. The covering of the Arke is the mercy seate. The Rock was Christ. The bread is the body of Christ. The cup is the New Testament. Baptisme washeth away sinne. Baptisme is the washing of the new birth. Baptisme saveth us, &c. Therefore their interpretation is alike. Now God himselfe interpreteth some of them thus; Circumcision is a signe of the Covenant. The Lamb is a signe and memoriall of the Passeover. The Sabbath is a signe of the Covenant: Therefore we may justly interpret the rest on the same manner. The Leviticall sacrifices signifie the attonement for sinnes, made by the Messias. The bloud of sacrifices is a Sacrament ⟨p. 446⟩or signe confirming the Covenant; or a signe of Christs bloud, whereby the Covenant was established. The covering of the Arke signifieth the Mercy-seate. The Rock signifieth Christ. The bread is a Sacrament of the body of Christ. The cup is a Sacrament sealing the new Covenant. Baptisme is a Sacrament of the washing away of sins, and of our regeneration and salvation.
2. As the cup is the New Testament, so is the blood of Christ the New Testament. The cup is the New Testament Sacramentally; that is, it is a sign of the New Testament: Therefore Christs blood is a sign of the New Testament. The Major is apparent, because without doubt the words of Luke and Paul, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; and the words of Matthew and Mark, This is my blood of the New Testament, have all one meaning. The Minor is proved before in the first argument, and cannot be taken otherwise. For the New Testament is no external thing or ceremony, but a free reconciliation with God, promised in the Gospel, through the blood and death of Christ. The cup then is either the thing promised, or the seal of the promise; but it is not the promise, nor the thing promised: Therefore it is the seal of the promise.
2. As the cup is the New Testament, so is the bloud of Christ the New Testament. The cup is the New Testament Sacramentally; that is, it is a signe of the New Testament: Therefore Christs bloud is a signe of the New Testament. The Major is apparent, because without doubt the words of Luke and Paul, This cup is the New Testament in my bloud; and the words of Matthew and Marke, This is my bloud of the New Testament, have all one meaning. The Minor is proved before in the first argument, and cannot be taken otherwise. For the New Testament is no externall thing or ceremony, but a free reconciliation with God, promised in the Gospel, through the bloud and death of Christ. The cup then is either the thing promised, or the seale of the promise; but it is not the promise, nor the thing promised: Therefore it is the seale of the promise.
3. The bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is it not the communion of the body of Christ? As bread is the communion of the body of Christ, so also it is the body of Christ. The reason is clear, because Pauls words and Christs have both one meaning; seeing Paul interpreteth Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or sign of our spiritual communion with Christs body. For properly and literally, bread cannot be termed a communion: Therefore, bread also is Christs body sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or sign of Christs body. Now that the communion or communication of Christs body is spiritual, is thus proved: 1. Paul speaketh of such a communion, as whereby we being many, are made one bread, one body. But we being many, are one body spiritually: Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is spiritual. 2. The communion of Christ, whereof he speaketh, cannot stand with the communion of Devils:1 Ye cannot (saith he) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of the Devils. The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency, as some fondly tell us,2 but from an impossibility: as that of Christ, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Where the words [Greek or Hebrew], ye are not able; or, ye have no possibility, are likewise used, as well as in this place:3 and as that of the same Apostle else-where; What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the Believer with the Infidel? 3. This communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, is spiritually expounded in Scripture,4 Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. If we say, that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lye, and do not truly. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Neither do we in the Creed believe any other communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, but that which is spiritual. 5
And a little after, Why call I it communion? Yea, we are the self-same body of Christ. What is the bread? even the body of Christ. What are they made, who receive the body of Christ? not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread is kneaded of many grains, so we also are joined with Christ.
And a little after, Why call I it communion? Yea, we are the selfe-same body of Christ. What is the bread? even the body of Christ. What are they made, who receive the body of Christ? not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread is kneaded of many graines, so we also are joyned with Christ.
4. Out of the words of Christ:1 What then if ye should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. In these words Christ expressly rejecteth all eating of his flesh with our mouths, and overthroweth by two arguments, which we have heretofore declared: and on the other side he approveth and confirmeth our spiritual eating his flesh. Wherefore we may not forge any corporal eating of Christs body in the Supper, when such a kind of eating is precisely reproved in the Gospel. Object. The sixth chapter of John treateth not of the Supper: ⟨p. 447⟩Therefore this testimony maketh nought against the eating of Christs body with our mouths instituted in the Supper. Answ. Here our Adversaries deceitfully argue from the denial of a part, to the denial of the whole. This Chapter, we grant, pertaineth not to the Ceremony of the Supper: But hence it followeth not, that simply it pertaineth not to the Supper. For it concerneth the promise; This is my body, which is given for you: because this promise is desumed out of this Christs Sermon registered in this sixth of John, and is ratified and confirmed by the signs of bread and wine. Wherefore it cannot be understood of any other eating of Christs body in the Supper, then of that which is delivered in the sixth of John, which is spiritual. For, bodily eating is in that Sermon condemned. Repl. It is not simply the eating with the mouth that is there condemned, but a Capernaiticall eating. Answ. All eating with the mouth is Capernaiticall. For, a Capernaiticall eating is not a bloody renting only and eating of Christs flesh, and chewing it between the teeth, but simply any eating with the mouth. For the Capernaites say not among themselves: How can this man give us his flesh to devour, to gnaw on with our teeth, to rend asunder? &c. But they say: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 2Neither doth Christ re-call them from a gross eating with the mouth, to a subtle kind of eating with the mouth; but to his ascension into Heaven, which should shortly come to pass, and thereby his body should be far removed from their mouths, and trained them to a spiritual eating, which is with the heart by faith.
5. Out of the same sixth Chapter of John, To eat Christs flesh, and, To drink his blood, signifieth, To believe in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, 1To have Christ dwelling in us: as appeareth, because he attributeth the same effect of eternal life to both; namely, to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him: But in the Supper this eating is authorised: (For no other purpose besides this can be showed in the whole Gospel, for sealing whereof the Supper was instituted.) Therefore, To eat Christs body, and, To drink his blood, is, To believe in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, To have him dwelling in us.
5. Out of the same sixth Chapter of John, To eate Christs flesh, and, To drinke his bloud, signifieth, To beleeve in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, 1To have Christ dwelling in us: as appeareth, because he attributeth the same effect of eternall life to both; namely, to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him: But in the Supper this eating is authorised: (For no other purpose besides this can be shewed in the whole Gospel, for sealing whereof the Supper was instituted.) Therefore, To eate Christs body, and, To drink his blood, is, To beleeve in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, To have him dwelling in us.
6. By one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Grecians, 1whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit. Hence we draw two arguments: 1. Such as is the drinking of Christ, such is the eating of him in the Supper. The drinking of him is spiritual: Therefore the eating of him is spiritual. 2. The eating of Christs body, and drinking his blood, is common to all the faithful, even to the Fathers of the Old Testament. For we have all bin made to drink into one spirit. But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithful: (For the Fathers before Christs birth could not, and at this day Infants, and many of ripe years, having not liberty to partake of the Supper, cannot eat his flesh with their mouths.) Wherefore, this mouthy eating of Christs flesh, urged by our Adversaries, is not that true eating which the Gospel promiseth, and which the Supper sealeth.
6. By one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Grecians, 1whether we be bond or free, and have beene all made to drink into one spirit. Hence we draw two arguments: 1. Such as is the drinking of Christ, such is the eating of him in the Supper. The drinking of him is spirituall: Therefore the eating of him is spirituall. 2. The eating of Christs body, and drinking his bloud, is common to all the faithfull, even to the Fathers of the Old Testament. For we have all bin made to drink into one spirit. But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithfull: (For the Fathers before Christs birth could not, and at this day Infants, and many of ripe yeeres, having not liberty to partake of the Supper, cannot eate his flesh with their mouthes.) Wherefore, this mouthy eating of Christs flesh, urged by our Adversaries, is not that true eating which the Gospel promiseth, and which the Supper sealeth.
Unto these arguments drawn out of the sacred Scripture, and the ground of our faith, may be added testimonies of the Fathers, and the purer Church; who, if we look into their writings, we shall find, that they plainly teach the same doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper, which we do. Among many we will produce only some few notable and clear in this point. Irenaeus saith,1 The earthly bread, taking his name from the word of God, is no longer common bread, but becometh the Eucharist or Sacrament, which consisteth of two things; an earthly, and an heavenly thing. Tertullian, The bread which he took and distributed among his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is, The figure of my body.2 Clemens of Alexandria, This is to drink Christs blood, to be partaker of Christs immortality. Cyprian, Neither can his blood, wherewith we are redeemed and justified, seem to be in the Chalice, when the wine faileth in the Chalice, wherein Christs blood is showed, which is spoken of in every Sacrament and testimony of Scripture. Again, the same Father saith, As often as ⟨p. 448⟩we do this, we sharpen not our teeth to bite withal, but we break and part the sanctified bread with a sincere faith, whilst we distinguish and separate that which is divine, from that which is humane, and joining them again after their separation, confess one God and man: yea, we our selves are made his body by this Sacrament, and knit and united to our head by the thing signified by the Sacrament. 3The Canon of the Nicene Council: Again, here also is the Lords Table: Let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but lifting up our minds on high, by faith, let us consider, that on that Table is set the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, which is offered of the Priests without killing: and let us, truly receiving his precious body and blood, believe that they are SIGNS of our resurrection. For therefore we receive not much, but little; thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to satisfy, 4but to sanctify us. Basil: We have set on the Table the figures of the sacred body and blood. Hillary: The bread and wine received, and drunk, effect and work that both we are in Christ,
being mindful thereof, in eating, and drinking we Signify, (or Represent) the flesh and blood that were offered up for us. 1Again, This oblation is the FIGURE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD of our LORD Jesus CHRIST. Augustine: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a TOKEN of his body. Again, The Lord admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he ministered and gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his body and blood. The same Father saith: Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things, whereof they be Sacraments, without question they were no Sacraments. And in consideration of this likeness, oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of CHRIST is AFTER A CERTAIN MANNER the body of Christ: and the Sacrament of Christs blood is his blood: so the Sacrament of faith is faith. 2Again, As then the celestial bread, Christs flesh, is IN SOME SORT called Christs body, whereas indeed it is a Sacrament of Christs body; namely, that visible, palpable, and mortal body which was nailed on the Cross, and the sacrificing of his flesh, done by the hands of the Minister, is called Christs Passion, death, and crucifying, NOT IN THE TRUTH OF THE THING, but in a mystery SIGNIFYING it: So the Sacrament of faith, by which is meant Baptism, is faith. 3Also: These, my brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. That which is seen hath a bodily form: that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit or benefit. 4Chrysostom: This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins; which Christ said, to show that his Passion and Cross was a mystery, and to comfort his disciples. 5Theodoret: Our Saviour verily changed the names of the signs and the things signified, and gave the same name to the body, which is proper to the sign; and that to the sign which is proper to the body. The cause of this change is manifest to them that are entered into the first principles of divine mysteries. For he would that they who use the Sacraments should not bend and set their minds on the nature of the things which are seen, but, for the alteration of the names, should believe that alteration which is made through grace.
For he who termed that by name of corn and bread, which is by nature a body, and called himself a vine, he honoured the signs, which are seen, with the title and name of his body and blood, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. Macarius the Monk hath a famous saying to this purpose:1 Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh, and they who receive the bread which is showed, eat the flesh of Christ spiritually. Other testimonies for briefness sake we omit.
For he who tearmed that by name of corne and bread, which is by nature a body, and called himselfe a vine, he honoured the signes, which are seene, with the title and name of his body and bloud, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. Macarius the Monke hath a famous saying to this purpose:1 Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh, and they who receive the bread which is shewed, eate the flesh of Christ spiritually. Other testimonies for briefenesse sake we omit.
3. The bread which we breake (saith the Apostle) is it not the communion of the body of Christ? As bread is the communion of the body of Christ, so also it is the body of Christ. The reason is cleere, because Pauls words and Christs have both one meaning; seeing Paul interpreteth Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or signe of our spirituall communion with Christs body. For properly and literally, bread cannot be termed a communion: Therefore, bread also is Christs body sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or signe of Christs body. Now that the communion or communication of Christs body is spirituall, is thus proved: 1. Paul speaketh of such a communion, as whereby we being many, are made one bread, one body. But we being many, are one body spiritually: Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is spirituall. 2. The communion of Christ, whereof he speaketh, cannot stand with the communion of Divels:1 Ye cannot (saith he) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the Divels: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of the Divels. The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency, as some fondly tell us,2 but from an impossibility: as that of Christ, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Where the words 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, ye are not able; or, ye have no possibility, are likewise used, as well as in this place:3 and as that of the same Apostle else-where; What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the Beleever with the Infidell? 3. This communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, is spiritually expounded in Scripture,4 Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. If we say, that we have fellowship with him, and walke in darkenesse, we lye, and do not truely. But if we walke in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne. Neither doe we in the Creed beleeve any other communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, but that which is spirituall. 54. Lastly, Chrysostome interpreteth Pauls words of a spirituall communion. Why said he not participation? That he might manifest unto thee somewhat more excellent then it, to wit, the strongest and mightiest union that can be.
UNto these arguments drawne out of the sacred Scripture, and the ground of our faith, may be added testimonies of the Fathers, and the purer Church; who, if we looke into their writings, we shall finde, that they plainly teach the same doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper, which we do. Among many we will produce onely some few notable and cleere in this point. Irenaeus saith,1 The earthly bread, taking his name from the word of God, is no longer common bread, but becometh the Eucharist or Sacrament, which consisteth of two things; an earthly, and an heavenly thing. Tertullian, The bread which he tooke and distributed among his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is, The figure of my body.2 Clemens of Alexandria, This is to drinke Christs bloud, to be partaker of Christs immortality. Cyprian, Neither can his blood, wherewith we are redeemed and justified, seeme to be in the Chalice, when the wine faileth in the Chalice, wherein Christs bloud is shewed, which is spoken of in every Sacrament and testimony of Scripture. Againe, the same Father saith, As often as ⟨p. 448⟩we doe this, we sharpen not our teeth to bite withall, but we breake and part the sanctified bread with a sincere faith, whilst we distinguish and separate that which is divine, from that which is humane, and joyning them againe after their separation, confesse one God and man: yea, we our selves are made his body by this Sacrament, and knit and united to our head by the thing signified by the Sacrament. 3The Canon of the Nicene Councell: Againe, here also is the Lords Table: Let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but lifting up our minds on high, by faith, let us consider, that on that Table is set the Lamb of God taking away the sinnes of the world, which is offered of the Priests without killing: and let us, truely receiving his precious body and bloud, beleeve that they are SIGNES of our resurrection. For therefore we receive not much, but little; thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to satisfie, 4but to sanctifie us. Basil: We have set on the Table the figures of the sacred body and blood. Hillarie: The bread and wine received, and drunke, effect and worke that both we are in Christ, 5and Christ in us. Gregory Nazianzene: The figures of the precious body and bloud of Christ. Ambrose: Because we are delivered by our LORDS death;
being mindfull thereof, in eating, and drinking wee Signifie, (or Represent) the flesh and bloud that were offered up for us. 1Againe, This oblation is the FIGƲRE OF THE BODY AND BLOƲD of our LORD Jesus CHRIST. Augustine: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a TOKEN of his body. Againe, The Lord admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he ministred and gave to his disciples the FIGƲRE of his body and bloud. The same Father saith: Ʋnlesse Sacraments had a certaine likenesse of the things, whereof they bee Sacraments, without question they were no Sacraments. And in consideration of this likenesse, oftentimes they beare the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of CHRIST is AFTER A CERTAINE MANER the body of Christ: and the Sacrament of Christs bloud is his bloud: so the Sacrament of faith is faith. 2Againe, As then the celestiall bread, Christs flesh, is IN SOME SORT called Christs body, whereas indeed it is a Sacrament of Christs body; namely, that visible, palpable, and mortall body which was nailed on the Crosse, and the sacrificing of his flesh, done by the hands of the Minister, is called Christs Passion, death, and crucifying, NOT IN THE TRƲTH OF THE THING, but in a mysterie SIGNIFYING it: So the Sacrament of faith, by which is meant Baptisme, is faith. 3Also: These, my brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seene, another understood. That which is seene hath a bodily forme: that which is understood, hath a spirituall fruit or benefit. 4Chrysostome: This is my bloud, which is shed for the remission of sinnes; which Christ said, to shew that his Passion and Crosse was a mysterie, and to comfort his disciples. 5Theodoret: Our Saviour verily changed the names of the signes and the things signified, and gave the same name to the body, which is proper to the signe; and that to the signe which is proper to the body. The cause of this change is manifest to them that are entred into the first principles of divine mysteries. For he would that they who use the Sacraments should not bend and set their minds on the nature of the things which are seene, but, for the alteration of the names, should beleeve that alteration which is made through grace.
