A64611:1080
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.
but it was not the Son, but in respect of the filiation or son hood, which was to come in the womb of the Virgin, or in respect of man to be borne of the Virgin: that is, the Word in it self, was not any invisible hypostasis and substance, which being begotten of the substance of the Father, and distinct from him, was truly subsisting before the flesh borne of the Virgin; but was a certain relucency, or reflexed shining in God, that is, that visible image or shape, which appeared unto the Fathers in the Old Testament, and afterwards passed into the flesh, or into that visible man Jesus, who alone is the Son, in respect of whom also the Word, or that visible shape, which alone he will have to be the person, is called the Sonne. Answ. 1. By this is denied, that Christ is the proper Son of God: because his humanity issued not from the substance of God. 2. The Word is such a Son, as unto whom the Father gave to have life in himself, as he himself hath it in himself, who when things were created was even then God, by whom all things were made; who was the life, and the light of men &c. The Word therefore was (and that before Jesus born of the Virgin) a living, intelligent, working hypostasis, or substance. 3. There should have been no hypostatical or personal difference between the Father and the Son: because the Word, according to Servetus doctrine, had not his proper hypostasis, whereby he should differ from the Father. So that the Father should either have bin without the Son, or the Father should have bin the same person with the Son, which is the heresy first broached by Sabellius.
but it was not the Sonne, but in respect of the filiation or son hood, which was to come in the wombe of the Virgin, or in respect of man to be borne of the Virgin: that is, the Word in it selfe, was not any invisible hypostasis and substance, which being begotten of the substance of the Father, and distinct from him, was truly subsisting before the flesh borne of the Virgin; but was a certaine relucency, or reflexed shining in God, that is, that visible image or shape, which appeared unto the Fathers in the Old Testament, and afterwards passed into the flesh, or into that visible man Jesus, who alone is the Sonne, in respect of whom also the Word, or that visible shape, which alone he will have to be the person, is called the Sonne. Answ. 1. By this is denyed, that Christ is the proper Sonne of God: because his humanity issued not from the substance of God. 2. The Word is such a Son, as unto whom the Father gave to have life in himselfe, as he himselfe hath it in himselfe, who when things were created was even then God, by whom all things were made; who was the life, and the light of men &c. The Word therefore was (and that before Jesus born of the Virgin) a living, intelligent, working hypostasis, or substance. 3. There should have been no hypostaticall or personall difference between the Father and the Son: because the Word, according to Servetus doctrine, had not his proper hypostasis, whereby he should differ from the Father. So that the Father should either have bin without the Son, or the Father should have bin the same person with the Son, which is the heresie first broached by Sabellius.