A64611:2067
The sum of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…The summe of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…
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
Title page: Internet Archive scan of the Early English Books microfilm
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.
Of Consubstantiation.
The Papists feigned that two great miracles were wrought in the Eucharist by the virtue of Consecration, namely, the changing of the substances of bread and the Lords body, and the subsisting of Accidents without any subject: of which two, the former subverteth the Analogy of the whole Christian faith; the later contradicteth all sound Philosophy. And that force of Consecration they boast of, is nothing else but a magical device of the Devil,1 and an invention of mans brain. This, when of ancient some Doctors espied, to avoid these so absurd miracles, in stead of Transubstantiation they coined Consubstantiation: that is, The co-existence of two substances in one place; or, the presence of Christs body and blood, not under the forms of bread and wine, but under the bread and wine it self. These therefore were of opinion that the signs were not transubstantiated, that is, changed not their substance, but consubstantiated, that is, that the bread and wine remained, but with, in, and under the bread and wine: Christs body and blood were really and substantially present, and eaten and drunken with the month of the Receivers.2 This opinion Lombard relateth, and testifieth that it was before his time maintained by some; but he calleth it a Paradox, a strange or wonderful opinion. Guitmund fathereth it on Berengarius, after his ⟨p. 451⟩recantation, and termeth it Impanation. Others impute it to one Walrame, against whom Anselm hath two books extant. Some fasten it on Rupert Abb. Tuit, who lived not long after Guitmond, about the year of the Lord 1124. Petrus de Alliaco, Cardinall of Cambray, saith,3 that he had rather defend Consubstantiation the Transubstantiation, unless the Church of Rome had defined the contrary. He lived about the year of our Lord 1416.