A14216:1422
The Sum of Christian Religion
The sum of Christian religion: delivered by Zacharias Ursinus in his lectures upon the Catechism authorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parry, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supply of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of divinity, and with correction of sundry faults & imperfections, which are [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latin.The summe of Christian religion: deliuered by Zacharias Vrsinus in his lectures vpon the Catechism autorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolued the questions of whatsoeuer points of moment, which haue beene or are controuersed in diuinitie. Translated into English by Henrie Parrie, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supplie of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of diuinitie, and with correction of sundrie faults & imperfections, which ar [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latine.
Oxford: printed by Joseph Barnes, 1587Oxford: printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1587
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.
2 They reason out of natural principles or grounds: which are such, as are true in things created and finite, but false in GOD, who is an essence infinite: as, Three cannot be one. Three persons really distinct cannot be one essence. That which begetteth, and that which is begotten, are not one and the same essence: Likewise, He that communicateth his whole essence to another, doth not himself remain the same which he was. To this we answer by another rule. Those principles which are true of a finite nature, are foolishly and impiously translated to the infinite essence of GOD. And arguments ⟨p. 506⟩of this sort are refuted not by a simple denial of them, but by distinguishing between natures capable and uncapable of those principles whereon they ground.
2 They reason out of naturall principles or groundes: which are such, as are true in thinges created and finite, but false in GOD, who is an essence infinite: as, Three cannot bee one. Three persons reallie distinct cannot bee one essence. That which begetteth, and that which is begotten, are not one and the same essence: Likewise, Hee that communicateth his whole essence to another, dooth not himselfe remaine the same which he was. To this wee aunswere by another rule. Those principles which are true of a finite nature, are foolishlie and impiouslie translated to the infinite essence of GOD. And argumentes ⟨p. 506⟩of this sort are refuted not by a simple deniall of them, but by distinguishing betweene natures capeable and vncapeable of those principles whereon they ground.
3 Of the properties of the humane nature in Christ, they infer the inequality and diversity of his godhead. As, Christ suffered, died, and so forth; Therefore he is not God. The rule whereby we answer to this, is: Those things which are proper to the humane nature, are not to be drawn to the divine nature. For Christ died not as God, but as man.