A64611:2145
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.
because the new testament was made by Christs blood shed on the cross, and applied unto us by faith, not drunk by the mouth; for otherwise they should be excluded from the testament and covenant, who were not able to come to the Sacrament. Rep There is a great force in the word New; That which was done in the Old Testament typically, is done in the New really. Ans. If they add, Therefore done by the mouth of the body, they bring in more in the conclusion then was in the antecedent; for there was no type in the old Testament which did signify the eating of Christ with the mouth. 2. We invert their reason: Christs body was no otherwise eaten in the new Testament then in the old: But in the old it was eaten spiritually only:1 Therefore in the new also it is so eaten. Rep. The new Testament differeth from the old; because in that were types, in the new is the body it self. Ans. This difference of the old and new Testament is no where set down in holy Scripture; that Christ is eaten in the old not really, and in the new corporally by the mouth. In the places which are alleged out of the Apostle the body signifieth that the shadow was only of the old Testament, and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ: because there the body is opposed to those shadows: And further, because he calleth it the body of Christ: which kind of speech showeth, that by Christ was wrought accomplishment and fulfilling of the types and shadows of the old Testament. Moreover, albeit we have Christ exhibited in the new Testament, and he is there born a man; yet notwithstanding it doth not therefore follow hereof, that his body is in the bread, but only that it is in the new Testament. 4. They reason from the consent of the Evangelists, and S. Paul. Matthew, as Theophylact calculateth, writ his Gospel eight years after Christs ascension, Mark ten years, Luke fifteen years, Paul twenty years, and all use the same words. A speech that is often uttered with the same words is not figurative: Such is the speech of the Lords Supper: Therefore it is not figurative. Ans. It is false, that a speech often uttered in the same words is not figurative: because, when a figure is conspicuous, known, and forcible, as this, it is retained. Again, The Evangelists repeat the words of Christ, because he spake figuratively. Often, though it be figurative, is this repeated;
because the new testament was made by Christs bloud shed on the crosse, and applyed unto us by faith, not drunk by the mouth; for otherwise they should be excluded from the testament and covenant, who were not able to come to the Sacrament. Rep There is a great force in the word New; That which was done in the Old Testament typically, is done in the New really. Ans. If they adde, Therefore done by the mouth of the body, they bring in more in the conclusion then was in the antecedent; for there was no type in the old Testament which did signifie the eating of Christ with the mouth. 2. We invert their reason: Christs body was no otherwise eaten in the new Testament then in the old: But in the old it was eaten spiritually only: