A64611:2097
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
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.
Whereas Christ saith in spirit, not in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, he doth plainly take away worship tied and restrained to any certain place on earth. Wherefore we must also take away, and have in detestation this impious invention of Christs corporal presence in the Mass, or in the bread and wine, which is the foundation of idolatrous adoration or worship. For this being put, that Christ is in body present in the bread (whether it be said to be done by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation) the Popish adoration standeth fast. For as in ancient times, before the Ascension, it was not only lawful, but behoovefull also to worship Christ wheresoever he was; so now also, if he be in the bread, he must be worshipped in the bread, whether he be there seen, or not seen. For much more were we to believe the voice of God, then any sense of ours, if it expressed and specified any such matter. Likewise of the contrary side, the presence of Christs body in the bread is taken away, if we take away by Gods commandment this foul and shameful Popish adoration of Christs body, lying covertly by their judgements under the forms of Bread and Wine. Here the Ubiquiraries except against us on their behalf, that Christ is present in the bread, not to be worshipped but to be eaten, and that he commanded not himself to be adored, but to be eaten. Answ. In both these assertions they conclude no more, then that which is in controversy: for Christ commanded neither of these. If he be in the bread, he must there be worshipped, because of the general commandment; Let all the holy Angels of God worship him. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. They therefore imagine Christ in the bread, and yet say it is not lawful to worship him; which is an open deceit and mockery. Wherefore Musculus, and others, to salve this sore, are content to fall down before the Bread, and worship Christ therein. But Heshusius replieth against us, thus; The Divinity is not adored in all the creatures, though it be present in all: Therefore neither is it necessary that the humanity should be adored in the bread, though it be corporally present therein. Ans. The examples are not alike. The adoration of the Divinity is not tied to all creatures, but it is tied to the humanity assumed, as to a proper peculiar Temple.
Whereas Christ saith in spirit, not in this mountaine, nor at Jerusalem, he doth plainly take away worship tied and restrained to any certaine place on earth. Wherefore we must also take away, and have in detestation this impious invention of Christs corporall presence in the Mass, or in the bread and wine, which is the foundation of idolatrous adoration or worship. For this being put, that Christ is in body present in the bread (whether it be said to be done by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation) the Popish adoration standeth fast. For as in ancient times, before the Ascension, it was not only lawfull, but behoovefull also to worship Christ wheresoever he was; so now also, if he be in the bread, he must be worshipped in the bread, whether he be there seen, or not seen. For much more were we to beleeve the voice of God, then any sense of ours, if it expressed and specified any such matter. Likewise of the contrary side, the presence of Christs body in the bread is taken away, if we take away by Gods commandement this foule and shamefull Popish adoration of Christs body, lying covertly by their judgements under the formes of Bread and Wine. Here the Ubiquiraries except against us on their behalfe, that Christ is present in the bread, not to be worshipped but to be eaten, and that he commanded not himself to be adored, but to be eaten. Answ. In both these asseraions they conclude no more, then that which is in controversie: for Christ commanded neither of these. If he be in the bread, he must there be worshipped, because of the generall commandement; Let all the holy Angels of God worship him. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. They therefore imagine Christ in the bread, and yet say it is not lawfull to worship him; which is an open deceit and mockery. Wherefore Musculus, and others, to salve this sore, are content to fall downe before the Bread, and worship Christ therein. But Heshusius replyeth against us, thus; The Divinity is not adored in all the creatures, though it be present in all: Therefore neither is it necessary that the humanity should be adored in the bread, though it be corporally present therein. Ans. The examples are not alike. The adoration of the Divinity is not tyed to all creatures, but it is tyed to the humanity assumed, as to a proper peculiar Temple.