A64611:1166
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.
1. One essence is not three persons: for, one to be three, doth imply a contradiction. God is one essence: Therefore there cannot be three persons of the God head. Ans. The Major is true of an essence created and finite: that cannot, being one, be the same and whole substance of three, or be three: but it is false of the infinite, most simple, and individual essence of the God-head: For this, as it existeth one and whole together in many, nay, in infinite places and things; so may it be, remaining one, the same and whole essence of moe: yea, and moreover it is necessary so to be; seeing the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost, is the communicating of the essence of the Father.
1. ONe essence is not three persons: for, one to be three, doth imply a contradiction. God is one essence: Therefore there cannot be three persons of the God head. Ans. The Major is true of an essence created and finite: that cannot, being one, be the same and whole substance of three, or be three: but it is false of the infinite, most simple, and individuall essence of the God-head: For this, as it existeth one and whole together in many, nay, in infinite places and things; so may it be, remaining one, the same and whole essence of moe: yea, and moreover it is necessary so to be; seeing the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost, is the communicating of the essence of the Father.
2. Whose operations are distinct, their essences also must needs be distinct. The eternal operations of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost are distinct: Therefore they have also distinct essences. Answ. The Major of this reason is true of persons having a finite essence: but being understood of the divine person, it is false, if it be meant of those internal operations, whereof the Minor speaketh. Wherefore, inverting the Major, we return it back upon the adversaries themselves: Whereas the internal operations, namely the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost, are the communicating of the Fathers essence whole and the same in number; it must needs be, that there is not a diverse or distinct, but one divine essence of all three persons.
2. Whose operations are distinct, their essences also must needs be distinct. The eternall operations of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost are distinct: Therefore they have also distinct essences. Answ. The Major of this reason is true of persons having a fi•ite essence: but being understood of the divine person, it is false, if it be meant of those internall operations, whereof the Minor speaketh. Wherefore, inverting the Major, wee returne it backe upon the adversaries themselves: Whereas the internall operations, namely the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghost, are the communicating of the Fathers essence whole and the same in number; it must needs be, that there is not a diverse or distinct, but one divine essence of all three persons.
3. That which hath a beginning, is not eternal: but the Son and the holy Ghost have their beginning, or original from the Father: Therefore they are not eternal. Answ. That is not eternal, which hath a beginning of essence, or nature, and time: But the Son and the holy Ghost have a beginning or original of person or order, or of the manner of existing, but not of essence: For this they have one and the same in number with the Father from everlasting; and that is void of all beginning and original, and existeth necessarily, from no other but of it self. His goings forth have bin from the beginning, and from everlasting. Now glorify me, thou Father, 1with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Repl. But he who hath his original of person from another, is not Jehovah: But the Son and the holy Ghost have their original of person from the Father: Therefore they are not Jehovah. Answ. The Major is a false ground: For the Scripture doth plainly teach both of them, namely, both the Son and holy Ghost, to be Jehovah. As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given likewise to the Son to have life in himself: 2and yet the Scripture wu hall affirmeth, that both have their original of person from the Father: For the Father begot not the essence, but the person, by communicating unto him his own essence the same and whole.
3. That which hath a beginning, is not eternall: but the Sonne and the holy Ghost have their beginning, or originall from the Father: Therefore they are not eternall. Answ. That is not eternall, which hath a beginning of essence, or nature, and time: But the Sonne and the holy Ghost have a beginning or originall of person or order, or of the manner of existing, but not of essence: For this they have one and the same in number with the Father from everlasting; and that is void of all beginning and originall, and existeth necessarily, from no other but of it selfe. His goings forth have bin from the beginning, and from everlasting. Now glorifie mee, thou Father, 1with thine owne selfe, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Repl. But hee who hath his originall of person from another, is not Jehovah: But the Sonne and the holy Ghost have their originall of person from the Father: Therefore they are not Jehovah. Answ. The Major is a false ground: For the Scripture doth plainly teach both of them, namely, both the Son and holy Ghost, to be Jehovah. As the Father hath life in himselfe; so hath hee given likewise to the Son to have life in himselfe:
4. The faithful are one with God, not in essence, but in consent of wills. But the Father and the Son are in such sort one, as the faithful are one with God. Father, keep them, that they may be one, as we are one: Therefore, 1the Son is one with the Father in conjunction of wills only, and not in unity of essence. Answ. There is more in the conclusion, than in the premisses. For the particle, only, which is stitched to the conclusion, is not in the Minor proposition: Wherefore of a Minor, which is but particular, an universal conclusion is ill inferred, after this manner: There is a certain unity between the Father and the Son, such as is between God and the faithful: Therefore all unity which is betwixt them is such. Wherefore we say, that the faithful are one with God and among themselves, in will only, or conformity, or conjunction of minds. The Father and the Son are one both in will, and furthermore in unity of essence. I and the Father are one. 2I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. Who is the engraved form of his Fathers substance. Wherefore if a wider and more ample conjunction be put, a straiter conjunction is not thereby excluded.
4. The faithfull are one with God, not in essence, but in consent of wils. But the Father and the Sonne are in such sort one, as the faithfull are one with God. Father, keepe them, that they may be one, as wee are one: Therefore, 1the Sonne is one with the Father in conjunction of wils onely, and not in unity of essence. Answ. There is more in the conclusion, than in the premisses. For the particle, onely, which is stitched to the conclusion, is not in the Minor proposition: Wherefore of a Minor, which is but particular, an universall conclusion is ill inferred, after this manner: There is a certaine unity between the Father and the Sonne, such as is between God and the faithfull: Therefore all unity which is betwixt them is such. Wherefore wee say, that the faithfull are one with God and among themselves, in will onely, or conformity, or conjunction of mindes. The Father and the Sonne are one both in will, and furthermore in unity of essence. I and the Father are one.
5. He that is the whole God-head, is not any one person of the God-head, or there is not any one besides him, in whom likewise the whole God-head is. But the Father is the whole God-head: Therefore the Father is not any one, but even all the person that is of the God-head, neither are there moe persons, wherein that God-head is. Ans. We deny the Major: because the same God-head which is in the Father, is whole also in the Son and the holy Ghost. For by reason of the immensity and undividablenesse thereof, that is communicated of the Father, even the same entire and whole both to the Son and to the holy Ghost, so that there is neither more nor less of the God-head in every person, than either in two, or in all three.
5. Hee that is the whole God-head, is not any one person of the God-head, or there is not any one besides him, in whom likewise the whole God-head is. But the Father is the whole God-head: Therfore the Father is not any one, but even all the person that is of the God-head, neither are there moe persons, wherein that God-head is. Ans. Wee deny the Major: because the same God-head which is in the Father, is whole also in the Son and the holy Ghost. For by reason of the immensity and undividablenesse thereof, that is communicated of the Father, even the same entire and whole both to the Son and to the holy Ghost, so that there is neither more nor lesse of the God-head in every person, than either in two, or in all three.
6. The divine essence is neither begotten, nor proceeding of another: But the Son is begotten, and the holy Ghost proceedeth: Therefore they are not the same divine essence, which the Father is. Answ. Of mere particulars, nothing can follow or be concluded. The Major cannot be expounded generally. For it is false, That whatsoever is ⟨p. 266⟩the divine essence, he is not begotten or proceeding.
6. The divine essence is neither begotten, nor proceeding of another: But the Sonne is begotten, and the holy Ghost proceedeth: Therefore they are not the same divine essence, which the Father is. Answ. Of meere particulars, nothing can follow or be concluded. The Major cannot be expounded generally. For it is false, That whatsoever is ⟨p. 266⟩the divine essence, he is not begotten or proceeding.
7. The divine essence is incarnate. The three persons are the divine essence: Therefore the three persons are incarnate. Answ. Of mere particulars there followeth nothing. The Major speaketh only of the Son: For it is false, being taken generally: as, Whatsoever is the divine essence, is incarnate; this general proposition is false: For the divine essence is incarnate only in one of the persons, which is the Son: not in all three.
7. The divine essence is incarnate. The three persons are the divine essence: Therefore the three persons are incarnate. Answ. Of meere particulars there followeth nothing. The Major speaketh only of the Son: For it is false, being taken generally: as, Whatsoever is the divine essence, is incarnate; this generall proposition is false: For the divine essence is incarnate only in one of the persons, which is the Son: not in all three.
8. The Mediator between God and man is not God himself: But the Son is the Mediator between God and man: Therefore he is not God. Answ. The Major is apparently false, because by the same reason it might be argued, that the Mediator between God and men, is not man. Repl. The Major is thus proved: God cannot be less than himself, or inferior to himself: But the Mediator with God is less and inferior unto God: Therefore he is not God. Ans. The Minor is true only in respect of Christs office, in which sense Christ is inferior unto God, not in respect of his essence and nature: according to the fourth Rule; The inequality of office doth not infer inequality of nature or persons. Repl. 2. The Son is Mediator with Jehovah: But the Son is Jehovah: Therefore Jehovah is Mediator with himself. Ans. Nothing followeth of mere particulars: For the Son is not Mediator with all that is Jehovah, but with the Father. Rep. 3. Therefore the Father only is pacified towards us: and, by a consequent, he alone is the true God, not the Son, or the holy Ghost: For he is the true God, who is pacified by the Mediator. Answ. We deny this sequel: For there is but one will of the three persons, and that agreeing in all things: Wherefore, the Father being pleased and pacified for the Sons satisfaction in our behalf, the Son also and the holy Ghost are pacified, and receive us into favour for the same satisfaction. Rep. 4. Whom the Son pacifieth, with him he is Mediator: But the Son pacifieth not only the Father, but himself also: Therefore he is Mediator with himself; which to grant were absurd. Answ. First, we answer to the Major: that the Son is properly said to be Mediator with him whom he so pacifieth with his satisfaction, that the decree and purpose of atonement may seem to have originally issued from him. Now this is the Father alone: Therefore in this sense the Son is not Mediator with himself, but with the Father alone. Secondly, we answer to the Minor: That it is not absurd to say, that the Son is Mediator to, or with himself: For it is no inconvenience, that he should manage both functions, namely, of God admitting the reconciliation; and of the Mediator, making the reconciliation, each in a diverse respect. The former of these, by virtue of his divine nature; the later, by reason of his office of the Mediatorship.
8. The Mediatour between God and man is not God himselfe: But the Son is the Mediatour between God and man: Therefore hee is not God. Answ. The Major is apparently false, because by the same reason it might be argued, that the Mediatour between God and men, is not man. Repl. The Major is thus proved: God cannot be lesse than himselfe, or inferiour to himselfe: But the Mediatour with God is lesse and inferiour unto God: Therefore hee is not God. Ans. The Minor is true onely in respect of Christs office, in which sense Christ is inferiour unto God, not in respect of his essence and nature: according to the fourth Rule; The inequality of office doth not inferre inequality of nature or persons. Repl. 2. The Son is Mediatour with Jehovah: But the Son is Jehovah: Therefore Jehovah is Mediatour with himself. Ans. Nothing followeth of meere particulars: For the Son is not Mediatour with all that is Jehovah, but with the Father. Rep. 3. Therefore the Father only is pacified towards us: and, by a consequent, hee alone is the true God, not the Son, or the holy Ghost: For hee is the true God, who is pacified by the Mediatour. Answ. Wee deny this sequele: For there is but one will of the three persons, and that agreeing in all things: Wherefore, the Father being pleased and pacified for the Sonnes satisfaction in our behalfe, the Sonne also and the holy Ghost are pacified, and receive us into favour for the same satisfaction. Rep. 4. Whom the Son pacifieth, with him hee is Mediatour: But the Sonne pacifieth not only the Father, but himselfe also: Therefore hee is Mediatour with himselfe; which to grant were absurd. Answ. First, wee answer to the Major: that the Sonne is properly said to be Mediatour with him whom hee so pacifieth with his satisfaction, that the decree and purpose of atonement may seeme to have originally issued from him. Now this is the Father alone: Therefore in this sense the Sonne is not Mediatour with himselfe, but with the Father alone. Secondly, wee answer to the Minor: That it is not absurd to say, that the Sonne is Mediatour to, or with himselfe: For it is no inconvenience, that he should manage both functions, namely, of God admitting the reconciliation; and of the Mediatour, making the reconciliation, each in a diverse respect. The former of these, by vertue of his divine nature; the later, by reason of his office of the Mediatourship.
9. Christ doth every-where discern and sever himself from the Father: he hath a Head, he hath a God, he is less than the Father: Therefore he is not the same God with the Father: or, he is not equal and consubstantial with the Father. Answ. He discerneth and distinguisheth himself from the Father, 1. In person. 2. In office, as he is Mediator, but not in God-head. So, He hath a Head, and a God, and is less than the Father, 1. As touching his humanity, in nature and office. 2. As touching his God-head, not in nature, but in office only, and in the manifestation of his God-head: For they which are in nature equal, may be unequal in degree of office.
9. Christ doth every-where discern and sever himself from the Father: hee hath a Head, he hath a God, he is lesse than the Father: Therefore he is not the same God with the Father: or, he is not equall and consubstantiall with the Father. Answ. He discerneth and distinguiseth himself from the Father, 1. In person. 2. In office, as he is Mediatour, but not in God-head. So, Hee hath a Head, and a God, and is lesse than the Father, 1. As touching his humanity, in nature and office. 2. As touching his God-head, not in nature, but in office only, and in the manifestation of his God-head: For they which are in nature equall, may be unequall in degree of office.
10. This is (saith Christ) life eternal, 1that they know thee to be the only very God: Therefore the Son and the holy Ghost are not very God. Ans. In this place are opposed, not the Father, and the Son, or the holy Ghost; but God, and Idols, and Creatures: Therefore these are excluded, not the Son, or the holy Ghost. 2. There is a fallacy of severing and dividing clauses of mutual co-herence and necessary connection: For it followeth in the Text: And whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ: Therefore, herein also consisteth life eternal, that Jesus Christ, sent of the Father, be likewise known to be very God: as it is said; The same is very God and life everlasting. 23. There is a fallacy in transferring the particle Only unto the subject Thee, unto which it doth not belong, but unto the predicate God, which ⟨p. 267⟩the Greek Article, in the original doth show: For the sense is,3 that they know thee the Father to be that God, who only is very God. Repl. But this argument followeth: Maximilian is Emperor: Therefore Rodulph is not. Why then doth not this follow: The Father is God: Therefore the Son is not God? Ans. These persons are finite, and their essence cannot belong to moe: but the Father and the Son are persons infinite, and their essence may be of moe, namely, of three persons.
10. This is (saith Christ) life eternall, 1that they know thee to be the only very God: Therefore the Son and the holy Ghost are not very God. Ans. In this place are opposed, not the Father, and the Son, or the holy Ghost; but God, and Idols, and Creatures: Therefore these are excluded, not the Son, or the holy Ghost. 2. There is a fallacy of severing and dividing clauses of mutuall co-herence and necessary connexion: For it followeth in the Text: And whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ: Therefore, herein also consisteth life eternall, that Jesus Christ, sent of the Father, be likewise knowne to be very God: as it is said; The same is very God and life everlasting.
11. Jehovah, or the true God is the Trinity. The Father is Jehovah: Therefore the Father is the Trinity, that is, all three persons. Ans. Mere particular propositions conclude nothing. And, if the Major be expounded generally, after this manner: Whatsoever is Jehovah, is the Trinity, it is false: for that which is Jehovah, may be some one person of the Trinity. The Syllogism therefore is faulty, because Jehovah is not taken in the same signification in both the premisses: For the name Jehovah in the Major is taken absolutely and essentially for the three persons (for one and the same Jehovah or true God, is the Father, and Son, and holy Ghost jointly) but in the Minor it is taken personally, for one person of the God-head, that is, the Father, who is Jehovah of himself. Repl. Jehovah is one in number: Therefore it is always taken in Scripture after the same manner. Ans. Jehovah is one in number of essence, not of persons.
11. Jehovah, or the true God is the Trinity. The Father is Jehovah: Therefore the Father is the Trinity, that is, all three persons. Ans. Meere particular propositions conclude nothing. And, if the Major be expounded generally, after this manner: Whatsoever is Jehovah, is the Trinity, it is false: for that which is Jehovah, may be some one person of the Trinity. The Syllogisme therefore is faulty, because Jehovah is not taken in the same signification in both the premisses: For the name Jehovah in the Major is taken absolutely and essentially for the three persons (for one and the same Jehovah or true God, is the Father, and Son, and holy Ghost joyntly) but in the Minor it is taken personally, for one person of the God-head, that is, the Father, who is Jehovah of himself. Repl. Jehovah is one in number: Therefore it is alwaies taken in Scripture after the same manner. Ans. Jehovah is one in number of essence, not of persons.
12. Where are three and one, there are four: But in God are three and one, to wit, three persons and one essence: Therefore there are four in God. Ans. The Major is to be distinguished: Where are three, and one really distinct, there are four: But these three in God are not another thing distinct in the thing it self from the essence; but each is that one essence, the same and whole, as they differ from their essence only in their manner of subsisting or of being. The manner of existing, is not a diverse substance from the existence, being, or essence.
12. Where are three and one, there are foure: But in God are three and one, to wit, three persons and one essence: Therefore there are foure in God. Ans. The Major is to be distinguished: Where are three, and one really distinct, there are foure: But these three in God are not another thing distinct in the thing it selfe from the essence; but each is that one essence, the same and whole, as they differ from their essence only in their maner of subsisting or of being. The maner of existing, is not a diverse substance from the existence, being, or essence.
13. Christ according to that nature, according to which in Scripture he is called Son, is the Son of God: But according to his humane nature only he is called Son: Therefore, according to that only, and not according to his divine also, he is the Son of God: and so by a consequent, the Son is not very God. Ans. The Minor is false:1 For Christ is called the only begotten and proper Son of the Father, and equal with the Father. The Father hath created all things by the Son. The Son from the very beginning worketh all things likewise, which the Father doth. The Son revealed the Fathers will, of receiving mankind into favour, unto the Church, before his flesh was borne. The Son was sent into the world, descended from heaven, and took flesh. But the Word, which is God, is the only begotten and proper Son of God, and took flesh. And not the humane, but the divine nature of Christ is Creatress, and worketh with equal authority and power with the Father, and descended from heaven: Therefore God, or the God-head, or divine nature of Christ, is both called in the Scripture, and is the Son: and by a consequent, the Son is that one true and very God. These Objections we may compare with those that are before set down in the Common place, concerning the Trinity of the persons: For, with whatsoever Sophisms the Trinity it self and divine essence is impugned, with the self-same also is each Person assaulted: and contrariwise, with whatsoever Sophisms one person is impugned, with the same the whole essence of the Deity is assailed. Besides, some objections were there only proposed, which are here more fully assoiled. You may read more of this point, Vol. 1. Ursin. from page 115. to page 125.
13. Christ according to that nature, according to which in Scripture hee is called Son, is the Son of God: But according to his humane nature only hee is called Son: Therefore, according to that only, and not according to his divine also, hee is the Son of God: and so by a consequent, the Son is not very God. Ans. The Minor is false:1 For Christ is called the only begotten and proper Son of the Father, and equall with the Father. The Father hath created all things by the Son. The Son from the very beginning worketh all things likewise, which the Father doth. The Son revealed the Fathers will, of receiving mankinde into favour, unto the Church, before his flesh was borne. The Son was sent into the world, descended from heaven, and took flesh. But the Word, which is God, is the only begotten and proper Son of God, and took flesh. And not the humane, but the divine nature of Christ is Creatresse, and worketh with equall authority and power with the Father, and descended from heaven: Therefore God, or the God-head, or divine nature of Christ, is both called in the Scripture, and is the Son: and by a consequent, the Son is that one true and very God. These Objections we may compare with those that are before set downe in the Common place, concerning the Trinity of the persons: For, with whatsoever Sophismes the Trinity it selfe and divinc essence is impugned, with the selfe-same also is each Person assaulted: and contrariwise, with whatsoever Sophismes one person is impugned, with the same the whole essence of the Deity is assailed. Besides, some objections were there only proposed, which are here more fully assoiled. You may reade more of this point, Vol. 1. Ursin. from page 115. to page 125.
Ans. Because he, redeeming and ransoming, both our body and soul from sins, not with gold nor silver, but with his precious blood, and delivering us from all the power of the Devil, hath set us free to serve him.a
Ans. Because he, redeeming and ransoming, both our body and soule from sins, not with gold nor silver, but with his precious bloud, and delivering us from all the power of the Divell, hath set us free to serve him.a
