A64611:963
The sum of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…The summe of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…
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
Title page: Internet Archive scan of the Early English Books microfilm
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.
The sixth Sophism of the merit of good and evil.
The sixth Sophisme of the merit of good and evill.
Whatsoever is necessary doth not merit rewards or punishments: But all moral good and evil is done necessarily: Therefore neither the good meriteth reward, nor the evil punishment. Answ. This argument is handled by Aristotle in his Ethics:1 But the answer thereto is easy. First, The Major is either particular, and so there is no consequence or sequel; or being generally taken, is false, and that even in moral or civill consideration, to wit, in respect of those things which are necessary by supposition, and yet are done freely, as the actions of men. Secondly, We grant the reason, in respect of the judgement of God, concerning good works: For the creature cannot merit any thing, no not by his best works, of God; 2because both they are due, and are the effects of God in us: And therefore the more good things God worketh in us, so much the more he bindeth and indebteth us to him. Wherefore in the godly, God crowneth and rewardeth of his free bountifulness not their merits, but his own gifts. But as touching evil works, we deny the reason: For, they merit punishment, and that most justly: 3for although men forsaken of God cannot but sin; yet the necessity of fining both was purchased by their own fault (as who freely and willingly departed from God,) and remaineth in them joined and accompanied with great desire and delight. Wherefore to this, that they should merit punishment, their own will sufficeth, whereas especially the punishment was before denounced. This solution or answer Aristotle himself giveth