Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:08:02.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irenicism and Dogmatics in the Confessional Age: Pareus and Comenius in Heidelberg, 1614

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Howard Hotson
Howard Hotson
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ecclesiastical history of early seventeenth-century Protestant Germany presents a generally gloomy picture. Lutherans and Calvinists, locked in increasingly uncompromising fratricidal controversy, divide the heartland of the Reformation against itself, thereby unwittingly preparing for the Habsburg reconquest of subsequent decades. In the light of this ensuing disaster, the heroes of the era are naturally identified as those few figures who attempted to combat the leading tendency of their age: the ecclesiastic irenicists, who appealed to the quarrelling theological groups to set aside their differences and join forces in defending the advances of the Reformation. In this they were destined to fail, but modern historians have nevertheless credited them with helping to break the ground later cultivated by the more successful proponents of reconciliation in the nineteenth century and the yet more broad-minded ecumenists of the twentieth.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1995 , pp. 432 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Explications = Corpus doctrinae orthodoxae sive catecheticarum explicationum D. Zachariae Ursini. Opus absolutum D. Davidis Parei, Heidelberg 1612; Miscellanea = Ursinus, Zacharias and Pareus, David, Miscellanea catechetica, Heidelberg 1612Google Scholar; ‘Narratio’ = Johann Philipp Pareus, ‘Narratio historica de curriculo vitae, et obitu scriptisque reverendissimi patris D. Davidis Parei’, in Davidis Parei operum theologicorum exegeticorum tomi I, pars prima, Frankfurt-am-Main 1647, fos a1-d1; Opera = Ursinus, Zacharias, Opera theologica, 3 vols, Heidelberg 1612Google Scholar

For further bibliographical detail see n. 16 below.

1 Most notably by Brinkmann, Günter, Die Irenik des David Pareus, Hildesheim 1972Google Scholar. For a more balanced assessment see Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘David Pareus’, in Neubach, Helmut and Petry, Ludwig (eds), Schlesier des 15. bis 20. Jahrhunderts, Würzburg 1968 (= Shlesische Lebensbilder, v), 13–23Google Scholar.

2 Die Matrikel der Universität Heidelberg von 1386 bis 1662, ed. Toepke, Gustav, Heidelberg 1884–1893, i 265Google Scholar. no. 74 (19 June 1613): ‘Joannes Amos, Niuaus Morauus’. Comenius was still in Heidelberg in Jan. 1614, when he purchased a manuscript of Copernicus' De revolutionibus from the widow of the Heidelberg professor of mathematics, Christmann, Jakob. Bibliografie České Historie, ed. Zíbrt, Čeněk, Prague 1900–1912, v, nos 19351–9, lists literature on this manuscript published between 1840 and 1910Google Scholar.

3 Kvačala (alias Johann Kvacsala), Johann Amos Comenius: sein Leben undseine Schriften, Leipzig-Vienna 1892, repr. Osnabrück 1992, 25–9, esp. p. 25: ‘Dennoch müssen wir diesem Aufenthalt auch eine mächtige Anregung zuschreiben: er weckte, oder stärkte mindestens in ihm das irenische Streben, das ihm dann nicht mehr verließ’. Pareus ‘war eine von den Herbornern ganz abweichende Natur; sein Gesichtskreis war viel weiter; seine geschichtliche Auffassung klar, und seine Gläubigkeit, wenn auch nicht weniger treu-aber freier’.

4 Schmidtmayer, H., ‘Beiträge zur Lebensgeschichte des J. A. Comenius’, Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen lxxi (1933), 207Google Scholar; a letter of introduction for Comenius, addressed to Pareus by Johannes Piscator, dated 13 June 1613; Korrespondence Jana Amosa Komenského, ed. Kvačala, Jan, Prague 1897–1902, i ( = Spisy Jana Amosa Komenského, i), 195–6Google Scholar; a letter by Comenius to J. R. Stuckius of 1655 listing Pareus as one of Comenius’ four theological teachers in Heidelberg.

5 The main literature on this problem is Sillib, R., ‘Johann Amos Comenius in Heidelberg und seine Beziehungen zu den Pfalzgrafen bei Rhein’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins N.F.B. xxxiii (1918), 363–72 at pp. 363–5Google Scholar; Blekastad, Milada, Comenius: Versuch eines Umrisses von Leben, Werk und Schicksal des Jan Amos Komenský, Oslo-Prague 1969, esp. pp. 21, 22, 23, 43–8, 84, 125, 125Google Scholar; Röhrs, Hermann, ‘Comenius und die Universität Heidelberg’, Zeilschrift für Päddagogik xvii (1971), 233–40Google Scholar, and ‘Die Studienzeit des Comenius in Heidelberg’, Heidelberger Jahrbücher (1971), repr. with modifications in Schaller, Klaus (ed.), Comenius: Erkennen – Glauben – Handeln: Internationales Comenius–Colloquium Herborn 1984, Sankt Augustin 1985, 30–7Google Scholar, and repr. in considerably expanded form in Semper Apertus: Sechshundert Jahre Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 1386–1986, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York–Tokyo1985, i. 399–413, esp. pp. 403–7Google Scholar (in what follows, reference will be made to this version). Röhrs claims that ‘Die entscheidenden Anregungen in Heidelberg empfing Comenius aber von David Pareus, … Das Hauptwerk des Pareus «Irenicum… Im disputierfreudigen Kreise irenisch eingestellter Zeitgenossen wird er wichtige Eindrücke empfangen haben’ (p. 403).

6 The full title is Davidis Parei Collegiorum theologicorum quibus universa theologia orthodoxa, el omnes propè Theologorum huius temporis controversiae perspicuè el variè explicantur pars altera. Postremum est anti-Bellarminianum succinctum in omnes Rob. Bellarmini Card, controversias, Heidelbergae: Impensis viduae Jonae Rosae, Typis Joh. Georgii Geyderi Acad. Typogr. 1620. Comenius' thesis is on pp. 167–8. As the title indicates, this is the second such collection in a series, the first being Davidis Parei Collegiorum theologicorum quibus universa theologia orthodoxa, et omnes prope Theologorum Controversiae perspicue et variè explicantur decuria una, Heidelbergae: Impensis Jonae Rhodii, Typis Johannis Lancelloti Acad. Typog. 1611.

7 See n. 2 above. Die Matrikel der Hohen Schule und des Paedagogiums zu Herborn, ed. Zedler, Gottfried and Sommer, Hans, Wiesbaden 1908, 56, no. 1472 (30 03. 1611)Google Scholar; ‘Joannes Amos Nivmizensis’ (lege ‘Nivnizensis’, as in Antonius van der Linde, Die Nassauer Drucke der Kgl. Landesbibliothek in Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 1882, i. 389Google Scholar). Cf. also the Herborn disputations and epigrams, cited in n. 9 below, where his name appears in slight variants of ‘Johannes Amos Marcomanno-Nivnicenus’.

8 Extensive correspondence has located only seven copies of this volume: in the Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Budapest; the Cambridge University Library; the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel; Trinity College, Dublin; the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich (2 copies); the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; and the Bibliotheka Narodowa, Warsaw.

9 The most comprehensive bibliography of Comenius' writings, for instance, does not list the work: Heinz-Joachim Heydorn, Jan Amos Comenius: Geschichte und Aktualität 1670–1970, II: Eine Bibliographic des Gesamtwerkes, Glashütten-im-Taunus 1971. It is likewise absent from the literature mentioned thus far and from the collected editions of Comenius' early writings: Korrespondence, ii. 225–36; Veškeré spisy Jana Amosa Komenského, ed. Kvacala, Jan, Brno 1910–1938, i. 1–47Google Scholar; Johannis Amos Comenii Opera Omnia, Prague 1969, i. 58–94; iv. 399–401, 409–10, 420Google Scholar. For a full account of the origins and neglect of this work see Howard Hotson, ‘A previously unknown early work by Comenius’, Studia Comeniana et Historica, forthcoming.

10 At the time of Pareus' arrival, Ursinus was concurrently the third professor in the theology faculty, but on 10 Feb. 1567 he resigned from that post in order to devote more time to the Collegium Sapientiae. His inaugural oration as professor nevertheless makes interesting reading in this connection since the intentions expressed in it seem more fully realised in the Explications catecheticas than in any of the versions of his university lectures which have survived. See Ursinus, Zacharias, ‘Oratio habita in academia Heidelbergensi, cum auspicaretur locorum communium professionem’. Calend. Septembr. Anno Domini M.D. LXXI.', in his Opera theologica, Heidelberg1612, i. 414–23 at pp. 416D–17BGoogle Scholar. On his resignation see Quirinus Reuter's note ibid. i. 732D–33A. The ‘Loci theologici traditi in Academia Heidelbergensi’ on pp. 426–732 are both incomplete and far longer than the brief survey called for in the ‘Oratio’. Cf. Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583)’, Blätter für pfälzische Kirchengeschichte xxxvii–xxxviii (1970–1971), 202–15 at pp. 204–-5Google Scholar.

11 ‘Adhibui et contuli exemplaria non pauca, sed eas cumprimis notas, quas ipsemet olim per annos ferè sex exceperam, quasi pro Cynosura habui, quoniam has tutiùs sequi potui. In locorum explicatione quaestionum numerum et ordinem non unum semper, sed aliis annis alium Ursinum proposuisse, omnes discipuli ejus norunt.’: Miscellanea catechetica, ed. Pareus, David, Heidelberg 1612, 4Google Scholar (Opera, iv. 2B); from Pareus' reprinted preface to the first edition of the Explications catecheticas. Cf. J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fo. a3r.

12 Miscellanea catechetica, 24 (Opera, iv. 12D); J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fos a3r–4rGoogle Scholar; Benrath, , ‘Pareus’, 13, 14, 15Google Scholar.

13 ‘…Collegii gubernacula feliciter direxit, vestigia insistens beatissimi Praeceptoris Zachariae Ursini: cuius aedes et Muséum die 19. Ianuar. eiusdem anni [1591] ingressus, tale votum fecit: Salve antiqua domus, cuius fuit incola quondam/Ursinus …/Discipulus ut Doctori succedat loco.’: J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fo. b1r.

14 ‘Fecit idem Pareus, in quo vere agnoscas vivum Praeceptorem: adeo ut olim Germaniae Cygnus Paulus Melissus de Pareo hunc in modum cecinerit: /Sacra docente Pareo/Vividus Ursini Spiritus ora movet.’: ibid. fo. b1r.

15 ‘…explicationes Catecheticas à D. Ursino ipso neque scriptas, neque dictatas, nedum editas unquam: sed in catecheticis multorum annorum repetitionibus plerunque cursim effusas; à discipulis verò diligentioribus raptim … calamo exceptas, tandemque variè à variis congestas fuisse. Quis verò non intelligat, in tam dispari compilatione tum discipulis aliis, turn mihi quoque diligentiae amplissimum relictum locum?’: Explicationes, preface, fo. †2v, cf. fo. †3v (not in Opera).

16 The bibliography of this work is complex, passing through a variety of different states: (1) The first version was compiled by S. Goulart by collating seven sets of student notes of Ursinus' lectures: Doctrinae christianae compendium, Seu, Commentarii catechetici, ex ore D. Zachariae Ursini, veré theologici, (qui Heydelbergae Catecheseos explicationem continuare solebat et iterare) diverso tempore ab ipsius discipulis excepti…nunc primum in Lucem editi, Geneva 1584 (see esp. fos ¶3v–4r), 1589; Leyden 1584; Cambridge 1585 (under a variant title), 1587; London 1586. An English translation of this was frequently republished in Oxford (STC nos 24532–5); (2) Pareus' revised version was originally published in four parts. The section concerned here was entitled Explicationum calecheticarum Doctoris gachariae Ursini Silesii pars tertia. De sacramentis. Retexta, et nunc edita studio Davidis Parei Silesii, Heidelberg 1591; (3) The four pieces, still with separate title page and pagination, were then published together under the general title Explicationum catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini Silesii: absolutum opus, totiusque theologiae purioris quasi novum corpus. Davidis Parei Silesii studio et opera quatuor partibus comprehensum: ac secundb nunc editum, Neustadt-an-der-Haardt 1593, 1595. This too was often reprinted in English translation (STC nos 24536–39.7; Wing U 142); (4) In the substantially revised edition which appeared in 1598, many of the more miscellaneous treatises included in the previous edition were eliminated; but five of the most important were printed separately, together with the four original prefaces and two brief treatises by Pareus and an obituary by Franciscus Junius, in a separate work entitled Miscellanea catechetica seu collectio eorum, quae catechesis explicationibus prius sparsim intexta fuerunt. The remainder of the text was revised and expanded, in part by interpolating passages by Pareus (for example see n. 32 below). The resulting pair of works were printed together as follows: Neustadt an der Haardt 1598, 1600; Geneva 1604, 1608; Heidelberg 1607; (5) This edition was then reprinted under a different title: Corpus doctrinae orthodoxae sive catecheticarum explicationum D. Zachariae Ursini. Opus absolutum D. Davidis Parei. Opera extrema recognitum, Nunc autem emendatius et auctius cum indice triplici … adiuncta sunt Miscellanea Catechetica, seorsum excusa, Editio nova prioribus et limatior et locupletior, Heidelberg 1612, 1621, 1634; Geneva 1616, 1623; Frankfurt-am-Main 1621 (actually 1627); Hanau 1651; (6) The ‘Explicationes catecheseos Palatinae, sive corpus theologiae’ reprinted in Zachariae Ursini opera theologica, Heidelberg, 1612, i. 46–413 (for the title, see fo. *6r), seems virtually identical to the 1612 text, but is lacking some of the additional material appended to it. This oversight seems to have been perceived at the last minute: the Miscellanea catechetica as a whole are appended as an unanticipated fourth series of pagination at the end of the Opera. For copies of the first three editions by Pareus see Verzeichnis der in deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart 1983, xx, nos U 319, 322, 325.

17 Winkelmann, Eduard, Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg 1886, i. 330. 42–441. 7Google Scholar. More precisely, the proposal was to divide the third chair of theology between two men, ‘von denen der eine doctrina thetica et fundamenta theologiae, der andere aber controversias et refutationes errorum zu traktiren haben solle’: ibid. ii. 173, nos 1434–5; J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fo. b2v.

18 ‘Annuit protinus [i.e. after his appointment as second professor of theology’ Princeps Elector, Theologum suum D. Pareum totum Academiae usibus mancipans, cum hac tamen exceptione, ut Academicis occupationibus sic permittentibus, Extraordinarius Controversiarum Theologicarum Exactor et Censor extraordinario item ac liberali stipendio haberetur.’: J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fo. b2v. Given the title of the post, the statement that Pareus was charged with ‘all the exercises of the university’ is obviously an exaggeration. See also Slatuten und Reformationen der Universität Heidelberg, ed. Thorbecke, August, Leipzig 1891, 48, §48Google Scholar; 182–3, §55; 236. §62.

19 The first volume contains 217 disputations conducted between 21 Apr. 1599 and 9 Sept. 1609 and collected in ten collegia; the second includes 192 disputations between 23 June 1610 and Aug. 1620 in nine collegia. This total is, of course, in addition to extraordinary disputations such as those listed in Régi Magyar Könyvtŕ III, ed. Szabó, Károly and Hellebrant, Arpád, Budapest 1896–1898, i, nos 1151–2Google Scholar, 1171, 1190–1, 1196–7, 1199–1200, 1202–3, 1216, 1250–2, 1295, 1299, 1331. Two of these (nos 1199, 1331, published in 1617 and 1621) are de coena Domini, and could be usefully compared with Comenius’ theses.

20 The full titles are reproduced in n. 6 above. ‘Nunc collegiorum Enneadem…luci committere…volui: quae succinctam variamque locorum S. Theologiae explicationem continet, cum primis etiam eorum, ex quorum ignoratione vel neglectu infelices illae controversiae, quae Ecclesia Evangelica hodie exercent, originem traxerunt: de Providentia, inquam Dei, et de foedere eius cum Ecclesia.’: Collegiorum theologicorum…pars altera (1620), fol. ): (2v.

21 Compare the union lists of commonplaces in Collegiorum theologicorum…decuria una (1611), fos **4r–6r; and in pars altera (1620), fos):(2r–5v with Ursinus’ ‘Theses aliquot de praecipuis theologiae capitibus’, Opera, i. 754–65. Virtually the same text, with somewhat more supporting commentary, was first published by Pareus in the Miscellanea catechetica, 107–67 (Opera, iv. 53–83), under the more descriptive title ‘Theses theologicae de praecipuis aliquot doctrinae Christianae capitibus. A. D. Zacharia Ursino partim publicè in Academia Heidelbergensi, partim in collegio Sapientiae ad disputandum propositae’.

22 Cf. for example the first treatment of the Lord’s Supper in Pareus' Collegiorum theologicorum…decuria una, 79–80, with Ursinus' ‘Theses de Coena Domini’, in Miscellanea, 163 (Opera, iv. 81A–B; variant version i. 763E–4A) and the Explicationes, 436–8 (Opera, i. 261A–D).

23 ‘Videtis quodnam Theologiae genus à praeceptoribus hîe acceperimus, et nostris fideliter tradamus auditoribus, planum, dilucidum, rotundum, breve, quodque totum est, ex fontibus Israelis derivatum, sacrisque paginis per omnia conforme…’: Pareus, Collegiorum theologicorum…decuria una, dedication, fo. *3r–v.

24 ‘Neque verò ilia variata earundem materiarum tractatio pertinebit ad taedium: sed iucundum praebebit delectum, facilem in obscurioribus suppeditabit intellectum, per omnia denique pulcherrimum testabitur consensum. Nihil enim invenietur, sive dogmata, sive docendi rationem observabitis, dissentaneum, quin ultima primis examussim respondeant’: ibid, fos *3v–4r. Cf. Quirinus Reuter's description of Ursinus’ pedagogical achievement in Jubileus primus Collegii Sapientiae, Heidelberg 1606Google Scholar, fo. E1 (quoted in Benrath, ‘Ursinus’, 213).

25 See for instance Wheatley, B. J., ‘On the question of authorship in “academical dissertations”’, Transactions of the Library Association of the United Kingdom, 4th Annual Meeting (1881), 37–42Google Scholar; Horn, Ewald, Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den deutschen Universitäten, Leipzig 1893, 51–72Google Scholar; Eichler, Ferdinand, ‘Die Autorschaft der akademischen Disputationen’, Sammlung bibliothekswissenschafllicher Arbeiten x (1896), 24–371Google Scholar; xi (1898), 1–40 at pp. 23–5.

26 Comenius' disputation under Bartholomaeus Coppenius is another case in point. The list reproduced by Röhrs (‘Studienzeit’, in Semper Apertus, 404) indicates that Coppenius used the same series of topics to structure his course as Pareus and Ursinus; and the subject of Comenius' disputation, De natura fidei justificantis, was as crucial polemically in delineating the doctrinal boundary between Protestants and Catholics as the Lord’s Supper was in separating Lutherans and Reformed. See also the other disputations by Coppenius listed in Régi Magyar Könyvtár III, i, nos 1123, 1125, 1153–4, 1194. On Coppenius himself see Adamus, Melchior, Vitae germanorum theologorum, Heidelberg 1620, 863–8Google Scholar.

27 Alsted, J. H., Panacea philosophica,…Accessit eiusdem criticus, de infinite harmonica philosophiae Aristotelicae, Lullianae et Rameae, Herborn 1610Google Scholar; Systema physicae harmonicae, quatuor libellis melhodicè propositum: in quorum I. Physica Mosaica delineatur: II. Physica Hebraeorum, Rabbinica et Cabbalistica proponitur: III. Physica Peripatetica, … pertractatur. IV. Physica chemica perspicuè et breviter adumbratur, Herborn 1612; Compendium grammaticae latinae Mauritio–Philippo-Rameae, Herborn 1613. On the influence of the second of these works on Comenius, seeGoogle ScholarČervenka, Jaromir, Die Nalurphilosophie des Johann Amos Comenius, Prague 1970, 24–41Google Scholar.

28 ‘Verissimè enim jam inde à schismatis huius exortu non fuit controversia Evangelicis, nisi de S. Coena: nec de eius doctrina tota, sed tantùm de una eius parte, eaque ad salutem non necessaria: quippe ex ipsius Lutheri sententia piis et impiis communi: videlicet, de corporali praesentia in pane et orali manducatione corporis Christi, quam fidelibus et infidelibus communem esse volunt.’: Pareus, , Irenicum, 69Google Scholar. Cf. p. 71: ‘An verò corpus Christi realiter lateat in pane,…et an edatur ore à fidelibus iuxtà et infidelibus? hoc solum hactenus manet in controversia: sicut fassus est Lutherus in consensu Marpurgensi anno M D XXIX. edito’.

29 ‘Consensus utrinque est de hoc fundamento, quòd in usu legitimo S. Coenae … Christus verum suum corpus pro nobis traditum, et sanguinem suum pro nobis fusum in cruce, omnibus fidelibus fide manducandum et bibendum verè communicet in cibum et potum vitae aeternae…. Haec, inquam, longè arctior est communio, quàm est membrorum nostri corporis cùm capite, longeque verior et propinquior praesentia corporis Christi in Eucharistia, quàm possit esse ea, quae fingitur, praesentia eius in pane, et existentia intra ore vel corpora omnium communicantium etiam infidelium, qui si Christum etiam manibus palparent, tamen ab ipso longissimè absunt, et ipse ab illis.’: ibid. 69–70. Cf. idem, ‘Isagoge brevissima ad controversiam eucharisticam: exponens quaestiones praecipuas non controversas et controversas inter evangelicos’, in Miscellanea calechetica, 89–95 (Opera, iv. 44–7).

30 ‘…dass wir im Abendmal nit allein dess Geistes Christi/seiner Gnungthuung/Gerechtigkeit/Lebenskraft und Wurkung, Sondern auch der Substanz und Wesens seines wahrhafftigen Leibs und Bluts theilhafftig werden’: Ursinus, ‘Artikul/ in denen die Euangelischen Kirchen im Handel dess Abendmals einig oder spänig sind’ (composed 4 Feb. 1566), published in Catechismus, Oder Kurlztr Unterricht Christlicher Lehr, Neustadt-ander-Hardt [1595], 316, repr. in Karl Sudhoff, C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, Elberfeld 1857, 636–43 at p. 640. For discussions of Ursinus' eucharistic theology see also ibid. 151–81, 248–60; Sturm, Erdmann K., Der junge Ursinus, sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus 1534–1562, Neukirchen 1972, 291–4, 300–6Google Scholar; Visser, Derk, ‘Zacharius Ursinus’, in Raitt, Jill (ed.), Shapers of religious traditions in Germany, Switzerland, and Poland, 1560–1600, New Haven-London 1981, 121–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zacharias Ursinus: the reluctant reformer, New York 1983, 205–12Google Scholar. Other relevant texts are the ‘Theses de sacramentis’ and ‘Exegesis verae doctrinae de Sacra Domini Coena’, Opera, i. 766–802, 802–909Google Scholar.

31 David Pareus, Methodus totius controversiae ubiquitariae, Neustadt-an-der-Haardt 1586. For the titles of other works, see nn. 34, 39, 43 below.

32 On Pareus' additions generally see Explications, preface, fo. †4r (not in Opera). The addition referred to here is Opera, i. 277D–80C; Explicationes, 470–6. After writing ‘De transubstantiatione’ (i. 277D–9A; pp. 470–3) and ‘De consubstantiatione’ (i. 279A–80A; pp. 473–5), Pareus discusses questions ‘De schismate consubstantiatorum’ (i. 280A–C; pp. 475–6). Ursinus' ‘Objectionum pro consubstantiatione refutatio’ follows (i. 280C–2C; pp. 476–80).

33 ‘Et haec nunc est vulgata opinio eorum, qui se vocant Lutheranos… Sed bonis istis viris idem accidit, quod Poëta dicit: Stulti dum vitant vitia, in contraria currunt. Nam pro absurdo miraculo subsistentiae accidentium sine subjecto, finxerunt aliud absurdius de penetratione duorum corporum: et longiùs quàm papistae à verbis Christi recesserunt, sive litera spectetur, sive sententia’: Opera, i. 279B, D; Explicationes, 474, ‘De consubstantiatione’.

34 ‘…ex anim reiiciens ac detestans novos illos ac horrendos errores de Ubiquitate veri et essentialis Corporis Christi, deque eiusdem Corporali praesentia et Orali manducatione Sub nummulari hostia Coenae. Quae dogmata non solum nullo prorsus nituntur Sacrae Scripturae fundamento, aut Symbolorum consensu, sed è diametro etiam pugnant cum Apostolicae et Catholicae Fidei Articulis’: Pareus' ‘Testamentum’, as produced in J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio’, fo. civ. ‘Ritus, quo idolatrica et falsa latentis corporis Christi opinio sub crustulo panis, et manducationis oralis valdissimè infringitur, et ex cordibus rudiorum evellitur, debet in Sacra Coena restitui. Talis est fractionis ritus: quod adversarii haud obscurè agnoscunt. Est ergò postliminio restituendus, ut idolum in cordibus vulgi frangatur.’: Pareus, David, Tractatus de sacra eucharistica succinctus quidem, at absolulissimus, Operâ et studio Joachitni Ursini, Amberg 1612, 222Google Scholar.

35 See n. 16 above, nos 5, 6. The key sections here are Explicationes, chapters entitled ‘De sacramentis and ‘De coena Domini’ (pp. 395–411, 434–99; Opera, i. 240B–8C, 260A–92A), and Miscellanea catechetica, ‘Theses theologicae de praecipuis aliquot doctrinae Christianae capitibus’ by Ursinus, chs xxiv, ‘De sacramentis’ (1567), and xxvi, ‘;De coena domini’ (1575), pp. 149–60, 163–7 respectively (Opera, iv. 74A–9C, 81A–3A; virtually identical to i. 761A–2B, 763D–5E).

36 The discussion which follows is based primarily on the text and accompanying passages collected in the appendix. In addition to the literature on Reformed sacramental theology listed above, I have found the following treatments of the Lutheran position especially helpful: Elert, Werner, The structure of Lutheranism, trans. Hansen, Walter A., Saint Louis 1962, i. 300–21Google Scholar; Sasse, Hermann, This is my body: Luther's contention for the real presence in the sacrament of the altar, Minneapolis 1959, esp. pp. 295–344Google Scholar; Schlink, Edmund, The theology of the Lutheran confessions, trans. Koehneke, P. F. and Brown, H. J. A., Philadelphia 1961, 155–93Google Scholar.

37 Cf. Ursinus, , ‘Catechesis minor’; (Opera, i. 39E)Google Scholar; ‘cum annunciatione mortis eius’; the Catechism, Heidelberg, question 57 (Opera, i. 263Google Scholar E; Explicationes, 442): ‘mortem Domini annunciare; Ursinus, , ‘Theses de coena Domini’ (Opera, i. 784B)Google Scholar; ‘annunciantes mortem Domini’.

38 The distinction is found in many of Pareus' earlier disputations, for example Collegiorum theologicorum … decuria una, 1611, 80: ‘v. Constat S. Coena Elemento et verbo: sicut quodvis sacramentum propriè dictum, vi. Elementum est panis fractus distributus manducatus, vinum è calice haustum. Et hoc est signum. vii. Verbum est promissio elemento addita: … Et hoc verbum rem signatam huius sacramenti … declarat’. Cf. ibid. 523, 675–6, 724, 778.

39 Pareus, David, Controversiarum eucharisticarum una, de litera el senlentia verborum Domini in S. eucharistia … libris quinque explicata, Heidelberg 1603Google Scholar.

40 Opera, i. 272C–5A; Explicationes, 460–5: ‘III. Genus argumentorum ex analogia articulorum fidei’. Ursinus treats this material at still greater length in the ‘Exegesis verae doctrinae de sacra coena’, Opera, i. 829–51.

41 Ursinus devoted three quarters of his ‘Theses de coena Domini’ to this problem: Opera, i. 787A–800D. Cf. Pareus, , Tractatus de sacra eucharistia, 315–34Google Scholar.

42 Opera, i. 800D–1E, 812D–13D, 859C–65A etc.

43 Erastus, Thomas, Erzelung Etlicher ursachen / warumb das hochwirdige Sacrament des Nachtmals unsem Herm und Heylands Jesu Christi / nicht solle ohne das brotbrechen gehalten werden (popularly known as Das Buchlein zum Brotbrechen), Heidelberg 1563, 1565Google Scholar. For an example of the second treatise mentioned see the Neustadt-an-der-Hardt edn, 1595, 514–35. Pareus, David, Christlich unnd gründlich Bedenken vom Brod und Brotbrechen im heiligen Abendmanl, Amberg 1598, 1600Google Scholar; Latin translation: De symbolis sacramentalibus, et de ritu fractionis in s. eucharistia, libri duo: … à M.Andrea Cellario … latinifacti, Amberg 1603Google Scholar. Cf. also Pareus, , Tractatus de sacra eucharistia, 183–244Google Scholar, and the quotation from it cited in n. 38 above. For an admirable review of the whole issue see Nischan, Bodo, ‘The “fractio panis”: a Reformed communion practice in late Reformation Germany’, Church History liii (1984), 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Hollweg, Walter, Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre der Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen-Moers 1961–1968, i. 181, 182–6Google Scholar; Sturm, , Derjunge Ursin, 300–1Google Scholar.

44 See n. 28 above.

45 ‘At vero non parum me solatur, quod ego primus non sim, cui in eadem hac funesta controversia concilianda malam hanc reponit gratiam Mundus’: J. P. Pareus, ‘Narratio, fo. civ.

46 Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘Irenik und Zweite Reformation’, in Schilling, Heinz (ed.), Die reformierle Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland–Das Problem der «Zweilen Reformation», Gütersloh 1986, 349–58Google Scholar, and ‘Konfessionelle Irenik und Konkordienversuche im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Eine Skizze’, in Baier, Helmut (ed.), Konfessionalisierung vom 16–19. Jahrhundert, Neustadt-an-der-Aisch 1989, 155–66Google Scholar. For a rather different tradition of humanist irenicism, see Meyjes, G. H. M. Posthumus, ‘Protestant irenicism in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, in Loades, D. (ed.), The end of strife, Edinburgh 1984, 77–93Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Ursinus, Zacharias, De libro concordia…admonitio Christiana, Neustadt-an-der-Haardt 1581, 419–31 (Opera, ii. 675D-94C)Google Scholar; Pareus, , Irenicum, 35–68 (reference from Benrath, ‘Ursinus’, 210–22)Google Scholar.

48 Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘Die theologische Fakultät der Hohen Schule Herborn im Zeitalter der reformierten Orthodoxie (1584–1634)’, Jahrbuch der Hessischen Kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung xxxvi (1985), 1–17Google Scholar. I am currently completing a monograph on Alsted, to be published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, and a bibliography of his works and major sources, to be published by the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel. In illustrating Herborn irenicism, one need only mention the title of the work by Wilhelm Zepper, pastor and professor at Herborn, noted by Benrath (‘Irenik’, 351): Christlich Bedencken / Vorschlag und Raht / Durch waserley miltel vnd wege dem hochbetrübten zustand der Kirchen Gottes / wegen der vnchristlichen / ergerlichen spallungen / Lästerns / verketzern vnd verdammens Zwischen den Euangelischen Kirchen vnd Lehren: auch derenthalben besorglichen / ja vngezweifelten straffen Gottes / vnd vntergang der Euangelischen Stdnde / vermittelst gotlicher gnaden / bey zeiten vorzukomen vnd abzuhelffen seyn rnoge, Herborn 1594.

49 Kvačala, , Comenius, 26Google Scholar; ‘in de n Grundzügen seiner Irenik unverkennbare Spuren merken lässt’. Röhrs, , ‘Studienzeit’, in Semper Apertus, 407Google Scholar; ‘Viele der detaillierten Angaben [in the Irenicum] über die Wahl der Delegierten und ihre Vertretung haben Pate gestanden zur Festlegung der Modalitäten in der «Panorthosia» für die Wahl des Friedensgerichts (dicasterium pacis) und des Weltsenats (senatus ille orbis)’. Röhrs, refers here to his own article, ‘Die freidenserzieherischen Ideen des Johann Amos Comenius’, in his Erziehung zum Frieden, Stuttgart 1971, 9–26Google Scholar, but this contains no additional information on this point.

50 ‘Coena Domini est distributio et sumtio panis et vini mandata à Christo fidelibus, ut his symbolis testatur, se corpus suum pro eis morti tradidisse, et sanguinem effudisse, et haec eis dare edenda et bibenda in cibum ac potum vitae aeternae, et se velle in eis habitare, eosque alere et vivificare in aeternum.’: Opera, i. 261A (Explications, 436).

51 'Fines, propter quos instituta est coena Domini, sunt: 1. Ut sit confirmatio fidei, hoc est, testificatio certissima communionis et unionis nostrae cum Christo:… 2. Ut sit testificatio nostra erga Christum et ecclesiam, seu publica confessio fidei, et solennis gratiarum actio atque obligatio nostri ad perpetuam gratitudinem et celebiationem huius beneficii … 3. Ut sit publica distinctio seu nota discernens ecclesiam ab aliis omnibus gentibus et sectis … 4. Ut sit vinculum dilectionis: quoniam coena testatur, omnes legitimè earn sumentes, fieri membra unius corporis sub uno capite Christo: … 5. Ut sit vinculum congressuum publicorum ecclesiae quia coena est instituta, ut fiat ac peragatur in congregatione, sive magna sive parva …: Opera, i. 261B–D, cf. 266C–E; iv. 81A–B (Explications, 437–8, cf. 448; Miscellanea, 163 no. m).

52 ‘Bibite ex hoc omnes] Hoc mandatum opponitur sacrilegio papae, eripientis calicem laicis,…’: Opera, i. 266E (Explications, 448). Cf. n. 55 below.

53 ‘Constat igitur hoc sacramentum ritu et promissione ritui annexa, seu signis et rebus significatis. Ritus seu signa sunt panis fractus et manducatus, vinum distributum et sumtum:… res significalae sunt crucifixum Christi corpus, effusus Christi sanguis, eorumque manducatio et haustio, hoc est, unio nostri cum Christo per fidem, qua ipsius et omnium beneficiorum eius participes facti, ex eo, ut palmites ex vitae, vitam aeternam haurimus. De hac unione et Xoivwia nostri cum Christo, admonet nos primiim ipsa analogia signi et rei signatae, deinde et promissio signo addita’: Opera, i. 261 A, cf. 244E, 271 A, iv. 75A, 81C-D (Explications, 436–7, cf. 403, 457; Miscellanea, 151, no. iv, 164, no. v).

54 ‘Itaque fractio panis caeremonia est necessaria, tum propter significationem, tum propter confirmationem fidei, ac proinde in ritu coenae est retinenda: idque i. Propter mandatum Christi:Hoc facile: 2. Propter authoritatem et exemplum ecclesiae apostolicae, quae à ritu fractionis totam actionem denominavit Xλάοιν ΤΟυ ăρτου, fractionem panis. 3. Propter nostram consolationem, ut sciamus corpus Domini tam certò pro nobis crucifixum esse, quàm certò videmus panem nobis frangi. 4. Ut eximatur ex animis opinio de transubstantiatione et consubstantiatione seu latentia corpusculi alicuius in pane’: Opera, i. 265B–C (Explications, 445).

55 ‘Papa malè ex ritu coenae sustulit fractionem panis, et usum poculi ademit populo’: Opera, iv. 83A (Miscellanea, 167, no. xvi).

56 ‘Breviter: Locutio sacramentalis est, qua nomen aut proprietas signi imponitur significato, vel contra: per metonymiam sacramentalem: et sensus est, non quod mutetur unum in aliud, sed quòd signum repraesentet et obsignet significatum. Causa locutionum sacramentalium est analogia signi et signati:…': Opera, i. 246A (Explicationes, 406). Ursinus also uses the term ‘metonymia sacramentale’ in Opera, i. 265E, 268B–C, 269B, 271A; iv. 81E (Explicationes, 446, 451, 453, 457, 477; Miscellanea, 164, no. VIII); and ‘analogia’ in Opera, i. 272A, 283A (Explicationes, 458–9, 481).

57 Obiect. In verbis coenae [Hoc est corpus meum, etc.] nulla metonymi a est expressa. Non igitur talis interpretatio eis affingi debet. Resp. Negatur antecedens. Nam ipse Christus declarationem sacramentalem adjunxit, dicens: hoc facile, id est, hunc panem edite, et hoc poculum bibite, in mei recordationem, hoc est, ut eo admoneamini et confirmemini, corpus et sanguinem meum pro vobis esse traditum et fusum, et dari vobis cibum et potum vitae aeternae. Item: hoc poculum est novum testamentum in meo sanguine, id est, sigillum novi testamenti seu promissionis gratiae jam impletae per meum sanguinem’: Opera, i. 271A (Explicationes, 457).

58 ’De controversia verborum Coenae … Metusiastae cum synusiastis pariter gloriantur à se Christi verba simpliciter accipi: sed neutri id praestant, quod venditant …

Nos verò simpliciter sine additione et mutatione verba Christi retinemus, quod panis sit corpus Christi, et quidem verum ac visibile illud quod pro nobis est traditum. Quia verò haec verba secundum TÒ ρηTòv accepta haberent sensum repugnatem veritati fidei Christianae (si enim panis esset corpus Christi propriè, sequeretur panem esse pro nobis crucifixum) ideò dicimus in verbis Christi esse convenientem Siàvoioav quaerendam, hoc est, verba Christi esse intelligenda sacramentaliter: …

In hac sententiam indaganda … adhibemus eas normas, secundum quas omnium sanorum consensione de quavis scripturae interpretatione est judicandum: nempe, secundum analogiam seu regulam fidei' [etc.]: Opera, i. 268E, 269A, B (Explicationes, 452–3). These arguments are presented at length in the section entitled ‘Genus argumentorum ex analogia articulorum fidei’, Opera, i. 272C–5A (Explicationes, 460–5). Cf. also Ursinus, , ‘Compendiosa explicatio totius de coena Domini controversiae inter Synusiastas et orthodoxos’ (Opera, iv. 47–53Google Scholar; Miscellanea, 95–107).

59 ‘Manducatio carnis, et bibitio sanguinis Christi, non est corporalis, sed spiritualis: …’ ‘Communio Christi, quae in verbo promittitur et sacramentis obsignatur, non est corporalis, sed spiritualis’: Opera, i. 263B, 272A, cf. 271B (Explications, 441, 459, cf. 457).

60 ‘Signa visibiliter, manu, ore, membris, et sensibus corporeis; eoque etiam ab infidelibus accipiuntur: Res sola fide et spiritu eoque à credentibus tantum’: Opera, i. 245A (Explications, 404). ‘Res signatae corpus et sanguis Domini non percipiunter cum, in, sub pane et vino, oraliter seu ore corporeo … Res signatae … percipiunter fide, spiritualiter’: Opera, iv. 46C, D (Miscellanea, 93).

61 ‘Impii et hypocritae accedentes ad coenam, non accipiunt res signatas, corpus et sanguinem Christi, etc. sed nuda symbola, et quidem ad judicium.’ Demonstrated by eight arguments, including that reproduced in nn. 62–3 below: Opera, i. 289A (Explicationes, 493).

62 ‘Cur verò infideles et impii edendo et bibendo sibi attrahant judicium, causae sunt: 1. Quia profanant symbola, et per consequens rem signatum, recipiendo ea ad se, quae non ipsis, sed discipulis Christi sunt instituta.’ Three other reasons outlined as well: Opera, i. 289E–90A (Explicationes, 495).

63 ‘Infideles edunt et bibunt sibi judicium: … Nam edere sibi judicium, est per incredulitatem et abusum sacramenti à Christo et omnibus ejus bonis alienari et repelli, seu, propter abusum sacramenti sine fide et poenitentia sumti, Deum graviter offendere, atque ita sibi poenas temporales et aeternas attrahere, nisi resipiscant’: Opera, i. 289B, cf. 246D–E; iv. 46D–7A, 82A–B (Explicationes, 493, 494, cf. 407–8; Miscellanea, 94–5, 153, no. XI).