A14216:1508
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.
But that in Christ the Union of the flesh with the Word ⟨p. 532⟩is not essential, made in the nature, or any essential property of the God-head, is showed by these reasons. First, Of the God-head and the flesh assumed, there ariseth not any third Essence: but each is and abideth an Essence so perfect and whole, as neither (especially the Divine, as being in it self a person and simply void of all change) cometh into the composition or compounding (as we properly take this Word) of the other, Secondly, If the Union of the flesh with the Word were essential; it would follow, that the humanity once assumed and taken was equalled with the Godhead, in essential properties, and so by a consequent, to be made of the same nature & essence with the Word. So Vigilius in his fourth book showeth, that the Eutychians held two substances to be in Christ of the same nature. Wherefore they who will have the essential properties of the Godhead to be really communicated and common with the flesh, so that the flesh should truly and really be, and be called omnipotent, omniscient, and whatsoever else the God-head is: they indeed, howsoever in words they mightily stand against it, hold this Union to be made in essential properties and in nature, and both with Eutyches and Schwenckfield, they confound both natures, and take away the difference between the creature and the Creator; and also with Nestorius they frame and make two persons, and so bring in a quaternity. For albeit they say, that they in that their confusion, or as themselves call it with their Master Schwenkfield, Deifying and Majestical exaltation of the flesh, do retain the substance of the flesh: yet two substances having really the same and like perfections are two Subsistents or persons of one nature, as are two men, and whatsoever other individuals of the same kind or nature. Lastly with Sabellius and the Patripassians they incarnate the whole Trinity. For there is one and the same Essence in number of the divine persons, and the same essential properties. Wherefore that which is united, and equalled with one of these three according to essence, must needs be also united and equalled with the rest.
But that in Christ the Vnion of the flesh with the Woorde ⟨p. 532⟩is not essentiall, made in the nature, or anie essentiall propertie of the God-head, is shewed by these reasons. First, Of the God-head and the fleshe assumpted, there ariseth not anie third Essence: but eache is and abideth an Essence so perfect and whole, as neither (especiallie the Diuine, as beeing in it selfe a person and simplie voide of all change) commeth into the composition or compounding (as wee properlie take this Word) of the other, Secondly, Jf the Vnion of the fleshe with the Word were essentiall; it would follow, that the humanitie once assumpted and taken was equalled with the Godhead, in essentiall properties, and so by a consequent, to bee made of the same nature & essence with the Word. So Vigilius in his fourth booke sheweth, that the Eutychians held two substances to be in Christ of the same nature. Wherefore they who will haue the essential properties of the Godhead to be reallie communicated and common with the fleshe, so that the fleshe shoulde truely and reallie bee, and bee called omnipotent, omniscient, and whatsoeuer else the God-head is: they indeede, howsoeuer in woordes they mightily stand against it, holde this Vnion to bee made in essentiall properties and in nature, and both with Eutyches and Schwenckfield, they confounde both natures, and take away the difference betweene the creature and the Creatour; and also with Nestorius they frame and make two persons, and so bring in a quaternitie. For albeit they say, that they in that their confusion, or as themselues call it with their Master Schwenkfield, Deifiyng and Maiesticall exaltation of the fleshe, doe retaine the substance of the fleshe: yet two substaunces hauing reallie the same and like perfections are two Subsistents or persons of one nature, as are two men, and whatsoeuer other indiuiduals of the same kind or nature. Lastly with Sabellius and the Patripassians they incarnate the whole Trinitie. For there is one and the same Essence in number of the diuine persons, and the same essential properties. Wherefore that which is vnited, and equalled with one of these three according to essence, must needes be also vnited and equalled with the rest.