Filter authors and titles

A14216:2270

The Sum of Christian Religion

Name: The Sum of Christian Religion
Author: Zacharias Ursinus

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.

:2267p. 783–784¶1

1 We make not, say they, any Capernaiticall eating. Ans. We demand of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth; be it after a gross, or after finer manner. But how ever they answer, in that opinion which they hold, there is too too much idolatry. For christ ⟨p. 784⟩refuting the Capernaites, doth not distinguish the eating of him, into a gross and a finer manner, but saith simply, That his body can not be eaten with the bodily mouth: for he sayeth, that he must ascend; And that the words which he speaketh are spirit and life.

1 WEe make not, say they, any Capernaiticall eating. Ans. We demaunde of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth; be it after a grosse, or after finer maner. But how euer they aunswere, in that opinion which they hold, there is too too much idolatry. For christ ⟨p. 784⟩refuting the Capernaites, doth not distinguish the eating of him, into a grosse and a finer manner, but saith simplie, That his bodie can not be eaten with the bodily mouth: for he saieth, that hee must ascend; And that the woordes which hee speaketh are spirit and life.

:2268p. 784¶2

2 We maintain not Ubiquity: for there is not a word thereof to be found. Answer. Here is to be observed the dissension of the adversaries about Ubiquity. But neither is a word to be found hereof, That the body of Christ is together in two places. And further, of this their opinion followeth Ubiquity. For he that is together & at one time in moe places, must needs be infinite, & therefore everywhere.

2 Wee mainetaine not Vbiquitie: for there is not a woorde thereof to bee found. Aunswere. Here is to bee obserued the dissension of the aduersaries about Vbiquitie. But neither is a worde to be found hereof, That the bodie of Christ is together in two places. And further, of this their opinion followeth Vbiquitie. For he that is together & at one time in moe places, must needes be infinite, & therefore eueriewhere.

:2269p. 784¶3

3 We overthrow not the article of Christs ascension. Answer. Yea, but they do overthrow it. For while they hold, that, as often as the supper is celebrated, Christ is corporally eaten, they must needs say that he remained and is invisible on earth. But he is said to have left the world, to have ascended from a lower place into an higher, and to remain in heaven, until he come to judgement. Now, that some except, That Christ doth descend from heaven, as oft as the supper is administered; it is already refuted.

3 Wee ouerthrow not the article of Christs ascension. Aunswere. Yea, but they doe ouerthrow it. For while they holde, that, as often as the supper is celebrated, Christ is corporallie eaten, they must needes say that he remained and is inuisible on earth. But he is said to haue left the world, to haue ascended from a lower place into an higher, and to remaine in heauen, vntill hee come to iudgement. Nowe, that some except, That Christ dooth descend from heauen, as oft as the supper is administred; it is already refuted.

:2270p. 784¶4

4 We take not away the doctrine of the properties of christs humanity. Answer. They altogether take it away. For they will have his humane nature to be such, as is not seen, nor felt, nor limited in place. Reply. But christ did put off these infirmities, & retained the essential properties. Answer. But these are very essential properties, which being taken away, the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken away, Augustine saith; Take away from bodies their spaces, and they shall be no where.

4 We take not awaie the doctrine of the properties of christs humanitie. Answere. They altogether take it away. For they wil haue his humane nature to be such, as is not seene, nor felt, nor limited in place. Reply. But christ did put off these infirmities, & reteined the essential properties. Answere. But these are verie essential properties, which being taken away, the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken awaie, Austine saith; Take awaie from bodies their spaces, and they shall be no where.

:2271p. 784–785¶5

5 We abolish not the Doctrine concerning the communicating of properties of both natures. Answer. Yea but they endeavour it. For they apply those properties of his divine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete, to both natures. J will be with you to the end of the world. This they understand of both natures: which is all one, as if, when it is said, Christ God and man was circumcised, one should thus conclude; Therefore the godhead of Christ was circumcised as well as his flesh. Reply. ⟨p. 785⟩This only we add; That those Articles belong to them. Answer. After this sort all sects may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures. But they belong hither, and that by a double right. 1. Because they are written of the body of Christ. But the body of Christ belongeth to the supper. Therefore these Articles also belong hither. For they show, how Christs body is to be ea•en 2 They belong hither, because no Article of faith, is at variance with another. So belongeth hither also the Doctrine of justification because in the •upper no other justice or righteousness must be sought for, but by the blood of Christ.

5 We abolish not the Doctrine concerning the communicating of properties of both natures. Aunswere. Yea but they endeuour it. For they apply those properties of his diuine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete, to both natures. J wil be with you to the ende of the world. This they vnderstand of both natures: which is all one, as if, when it is said, Christ God and man was circumcised, one should thus conclude; Therefore the godhead of Christ was circumcised as wel as his flesh. Replie. ⟨p. 785⟩This onelie wee adde; That those Articles belong to them. Aunswere. After this sort all sectes may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures. But they belong hither, and that by a double right. 1. Because they are written of the bodie of Christ. But the body of Christ belongeth to the supper. Therefo•e these Articles also belong hither. For they shew, how Christs bodie is to be ea•en 2 They belong hither, because no Article of faith, is at variaunce with another. So belongeth hither also the Doctrine of iustification because in the upper no other iustice or righteousnes must bee sought for, but by the bloud of Christ.

:2272p. 785¶6

6 The manner how we eat it, is not to be defined. Answer. They commit a double fault in so saying. 1. When they deny that the manner is to be defined, and so contradict and gain say the Scripture which defineth it, and showeth that it is spiritual, & that there is wrought an union with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost. 2. They themselves define the manner, as it clearly appeareth by their writings.

6 The manner how we eate it, is not to bee defined. Answere. They commit a double fault in so saying. 1. When they denie that the maner is to be defined, and so contradict and gain saie the Scripture which defineth it, and sheweth that it is spiritual, & that there is wrought an vnion with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost. 2. They themselues define the manner, as it clearly appeareth by their writings.

:2273p. 785¶7

7 The saying of Durandus is true: We hear the words; we perceive the motions; we know not the manner; we believe the presence. Answer. Durandus maketh nought either for you, or against us, or for himself, because he was a Papist. And again, if his saying be rightly understood, we may admit it. We hear the words, This is my body; not that we eat with our mouth the body of Christ in the bread. We perceive the motions; that is, we perceive the bread to enter into our mouth, not the body of Christ. We know not the manner, that is, not perfectly, to wit, after what manner the holy Ghost is everywhere whole in Christ and in all the Saints, and how he uniteth us in Christ. We believe the presence, namely, such, as is the eating, and as is the union of the members and the head.

7 The saieng of Durandus is true: We heare the woords; we perceiue the motions; we know not the manner; we beleeue the presence. Aunswere. Durandus maketh nought either for you, or against vs, or for himselfe, because he was a Papist. And againe, if his saying be rightly vnderstoode, we may admit it. We heare the words, This is my bodie; not that we eate with our mouth the bodie of Christ in the breade. Wee perceiue the motions; that is, we perceiue the bread to enter into our mouth, not the bodie of Christ. We know not the maner, that is, not perfectly, to wit, after what maner the holy Ghost is eueriewhere whole in Christ and in al the Saints, and how he vniteth vs in Christ. We beleeue the presence, namely, such, as is the eating, and as is the vnion of the members and the head.

:2274p. 785¶8

8 We teach this only, That the body and blood of christ is truly, substantially, and naturally exhibited. Answer. We grant that we eat the true body of Christ. So then is their disputation vain and frivolous. First, Because they confess that we are made partakers of the true body of christ, and that we must not question of the manner. For this we grant. Secondly, Because the reasons and refutations which they bring, are of no weight or moment.

8 We teach this onelie, That the bodie and bloud of christ is trulie, substantiallie, and naturallie exhibited. Aunswere. Wee grant that we eat the true bodie of Christ. So then is their disputation vaine and friuolous. First, Because they confesse that wee are made partakers of the true bodie of christ, and that wee must not question of the manner. For this wee graunt. Secondly, Because the reasons and refutations which they bring, are of no weight or moment.

:2275p. 786

Certain reasons whereby is proved, That the body of Christ is not present either in, or under, or at the bread of the Lords Supper, neither is corporally eaten Under, With, In, or At the Bread.

Certaine reasons whereby is proued, That the bodie of Christ is not present either in, or vnder, or at the bread of the Lords Supper, neither is corporallie eaten Vnder, With, Jn, or At the Bread.

:2276p. 786¶1

1 Because he took a true humane nature. Whereunto we ad also, that we cannot eat him otherwise than his disciples did in the first Supper. 2. He truly ascended out of earth into heaven. 3. Such is our eating of him, as his abiding is in us. 4. All the Saints of the old and new Testament have the same union with Christ. 5 Christ only is able to offer himself unto his Father. Now it is necessary in the use of the Supper to crave of God remission of sins. Wherefore if he be present at the bread, we must crave of him, and so we offer the bread. But in the New testament it is not lawful to direct our prayer to any certain place. 6. The blessings which are promised unto the godly only, are spiritual. Unto these and other fore alleged reasons cometh the consent of the ancient Fathers, Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Bede, Bertram, Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, the council of Nice, Cyprian, Cyril, Denis, Gelasius, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzene, Hezichius, Hierom, Hilary, Irenaeus, Justine, Leo, Macharius, Origen, Procopius, Gaza, Tertullian, and so forth.

1 BEcause hee tooke a true humane nature. Whereunto wee ad also, that wee cannot eate him otherwise than his disciples did in the first Supper. 2. He truely ascended out of earth into heauen. 3. Such is our eating of him, as his abiding is in vs. 4. All the Saints of the old and new Testament haue the same vnion with Christ. 5 Christ onely is able to offer himselfe vnto his Father. Now it is necessarie in the vse of the Supper to craue of God remission of sinnes. Wherefore if he bee present at the bread, we must craue of him, and so wee offer the bread. But in the New testament it is not lawfull to direct our prayer to any certaine place. 6. The blessings which are promised vnto the godly onely, are spirituall. Vnto these and other fore alleaged reasons commeth the consent of the auncient Fathers, Ambrose, Athanasius, Austine, Basil, Bede, Bertram, Chrysostome, Clemēs Alexandrinus, the councell of Nice, Ciprian, Cyrill, Denis, Gelasius, Gregorie the Great, Gregorie Nazianzene, Hezichius, Hierom, Hilarie, Irenaeus, Justine, Leo, Macharius, Origen, Procopius, Gaza, Tertullian, and so forth.

:2277p. 786

THE SECOND APPENDIX OR ADDITION. Arguments, whereby the opinion of Ubiquitaries is refelled, and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed.

THE SECOND APPENDIX OR ADDITION. Arguments, whereby the opinion of Vbiquitaries is refelled, and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed.

:2278p. 786

THE FIRST ARGUMENT.

THE FIRST ARGVMENT.

:2279p. 786–787

THE Marcionites and Manichees imagined that Christ had not a true and solid body, but only made show of the shape of a body, so that he seemed only to have flesh and bones, whereas indeed he had them not: And further that the very incarnation, and all the motions and operations of christ did but only seem so in outward appearance, whereas in the truth of the thing there was no such thing done. Now the opinion of Ubiquity, and of the real communicating of the properties of both natures doth raise again from Hell that fantastical dotarie and frenzy of those heretics. Therefore it is no less to be abandoned and banished out of the church to Hell, than that heresy of the Manichees. That this opinion of Ubiquity doth give life again to the former, we ⟨p. 787⟩prove. The Ubiquitaries are of opinion, and so teach, That all the properties of the Godhead were presently, from the very point of Christs conception, really effused from the Godhead of the word into the humane nature which christ took. Hence these absurdities will follow. 1. Christ shall not be truly borne of the Virgin, if as touching the nature of his humanity he was truly and essentially without the womb of his mother before he was borne; and after he was borne he remained no less truly and substantially, as touching his humanity, in that self-same womb, than before. 2. Christ was not truly weak in his humane nature and subject to passions, if he were then also as touching the same nature partaker of the Divine majesty and omnipotency. 3. He was not truly dead, if also in the time of his death, as touching his soul and body, he were essentially present every where together with his Godhead. For the soul being every where present could not be really separated, in distance of places from the body, which also should be every where present, and so neither could the body die, but only in outward appearance and imagination. 4. He ascended not truly into heaven: but it shall be said to have been only a vain and imaginary, and fantastical spectacle▪ if he were in his body substantially there, before he visibly ascended thither: and after he was ascended thither, he remained yet, in the substantial presence of the same body, no less truly, than before, on the earth, yea and in the very bodies also of the faithful.

THE Marcionites and Manichees imagined that Christ had not a true and solid bodie, but onely made shew of the shape of a bodie, so that hee seemed onely to haue flesh and bones, whereas indeed hee had them not: And further that the verie incarnation, and al the motions and operations of christ did but only seeme so in outward appearāce, whereas in the truth of the thing there was no such thing done. Now the opinion of Vbiquitie, and of the reall communicating of the properties of both natures doth raise againe from Hel that phantasticall dotarie and frensie of those heretiques. Therefore it is no lesse to bee abandoned and banished out of the church to Hell, than that heresie of the Manichees. That this opinion of Vbiquitie doth giue life againe to the former, wee

:2280p. 787–788

If these things so fell out in the truth of the thing; it will follow that the same body of Christ was indeed at once and together both weak and omnipotent, base and glorious, subject to sufferings, and not subject, dead and alive, limited and unlimited; which is horrible to affirm For avoiding therefore of these prodigious and impious absurdities they will except, that he was not as touching his body, otherwise than limited, weak, subject to passions, and mortal, in the time of his humiliation: because he had debased himself, and would not show forth that majesty, communicated unto his body before his resurrection. Answer. They interpret amiss that debasing of himself, of all the glory and majesty of his humanity hidden and kept close for a time: whereas it is to be understood in respect of the divinity of the Word, in that he would take the form of a servant, that is, the mass of our ⟨p. 788⟩nature, and become man. Moreover it will follow, that christ did show forth the communicated power and majesty of his flesh, even then, when he was indeed weak and limited or circumscribed in body: as when shedding tears he raised Lazarus from the dead, and when being apprehended by the Jews he healed Malchus whom Peter wounded. Now what is it else to raise the Marcionites up again from hell, or in the greatest matter of all others impiously to blaspheme, if this be not?

If these thinges so fel out in the truth of the thing; it will follow that the same bodie of Christ was indeede at once and together both weake and omnipotent, base and glorious, subiect to sufferinges, and not subiect, dead and aliue, limited and vnlimited; which is horrible to affirme For auoiding therefore of these prodigious and impious absurdities they will except, that he was not as touching his body, otherwise than limited, weak, subiect to passions, and mortal, in the time of his humiliation: because he had debased himselfe, and would not shew forth that maiestie, communicated vnto his bodie before his resurrection. Aunswere. They interpret amisse that debasing of himselfe, of all the glorie and maiestie of his humanity hidden and kept close for a time: whereas it is to bee vnderstoode in respect of the diuinitie of the Worde, in that hee woulde take the forme of a seruant, that is, the masse of our ⟨p. 788⟩nature, and become man. Moreouer it will folow, that christ did shew forth the communicated power and maiesty of his flesh, euen then, when he was indeed weak and limited or circumscribed in bodie: as when shedding teares he raised Lazarus from the dead, and when being apprehended by the Iewes hee healed Malchus whom Peter wounded. Now what is it else to raise the Marcionites vp againe from hell, or in the greatest matter of all others impiously to blaspheme, if this bee not?

:2281p. 788

THE SECOND ARGUMENT.

THE SECOND ARGVMENT.

:2282p. 788–789

THE blasphemy of Samosatenus, Arrius, & the late Antitrinitaries, is this: That Christ, man, is not properly and by nature God, but only by an accidental participation of divine properties, majesty, honour, power, and virtue. The Ubiquitaries also maintain the same consideration of the God-head of Christ, man, while they define the personal union by his communicating alone of properties, whereby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent and every where. So that now that man is, and is called God, not that he is properly & by nature God, but because infinite power, majesty, and glory is given him from God, and all the gifts of the holy Ghost are bestowed on him without measure. Now this accidental bestowing of the Godhead and all the properties, doth not make christ to be properly and by nature God, but only by divine grace, or God unproperly so called: Because it is not the very essential God-head of the Word, but a certain participation thereof, in virtue and efficacy. And therefore was it objected by the sounder Fathers unto the Arians, that they took away the true and eternal God-head of christ, when they made him a God not by nature, but by grace, by participation only of dignity and majesty. Therefore seeing the Ubiquitaries also equalling our Immanuel with God by participation of properties only, take away his true and eternal God head: we do disclaim and accurse this their doctrine as blasphemous and heretical. And that they do this,¹ their own words and opinions witness; as Brentius, and Jacobus Andraeas, and others of them in their writings. Whence we conclude, that the Ubiquitaries hold the same opinion with the Arians and Antitrinitaries, of the God-head of Christ, man• that is, that all these esteem him for God not by nature, but only by grace of participation, new, temporary, created, adopted. If these things ⟨p. 789⟩be true, Christ shall not be God and man, but a divine man, such as the Ubiquitaries also repute him, who, as Seruetus, ²hold this opinion: That God can communicate the fullness of his God-head, give his divinity, majesty, power and glory unto man. But we execrate and detest the same blasphemy of both.

THE blasphemie of Samosatenus, Arrius, & the late Antitrinitaries, is this: That Christ, man, is not properlie and by nature God, but onlie by an accidental participation of diuine properties, maiestie, honour, power, and vertue. The Vbiquitaries also maintaine the same consideration of the God-heade of Christ, man, while they define the personall vnion by his communicating alone of properties, whereby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent and euerie where. So that now that man is, and is called God, not that he is properlie & by nature God, but because infinit power, maiestie, and glorie is giuen him from God, and all the gifts of the holie Ghost are bestowed on him without measure. Now this accidentall bestowing of the Godhead and all the properties, doth not make christ to be properlie and by nature God, but onelie by diuine grace, or God vnproperlie so called: Because it is not the verie essential God-head of the Word, but a certaine participation thereof, in vertue and effcacie. And therefore was it obiected by the sounder Fathers vnto the Arrians, that they tooke awaie the true and eternall God-head of christ, when they made him a God not by nature, but by grace, by participation onlie of dignitie and maiestie. Therefore seeing the Vbiquitaries also equalling our Immanuel with God by participation of properties onlie, take awaie his true and eternal God head: wee doe disclme and accurse this their doctrine as blasphemous and heretical. And that they doe this,

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36