A64611:1133
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.
These three former Conclusions being declared and set down, namely, That the Son is subsisting, or a person; That he is distinct from the Father; That he is equal with the Father; the fourth is easily gotten and obtained against the New Arians, to wit, That he is consubstantial with the Father, which is also in like manner to be understood concerning the holy Ghost: For either this must be granted, or of necessity there are made three Gods, which they, though in words they deny it, yet in very deed affirm, when they frame and feign three essences and spirits. They grant that the Son is like-substantial, that is, of like essence and nature with the Father, which ••••deed true; but this is not enough: For the words Consubstantial, and Like-substantial, differ: For, like-substantial signifieth moe persons, and like essences; as, three men are like-substantial: For they are both three persons, and three essences of like nature; that is, agree in humane nature. But consubstantial signifieth one essence and moe persons. Thus in the God-head is not like-substantial, 1because there are not three Gods; but consubstantial, because there are three persons of one and the same divine essence: For there is but one Jehovah, that is, one divine essence, which is the same, and is wholly in every of the three persons, and therefore every of them are that one God: besides which essence, whatsoever is, it is a creature, not God. The Father indeed is one person, and the Son another person, but the Father is not one God and the Son another. John saith, There are three which bear record in heaven: but they are three persons, not three Gods, which bear this record. We therefore hold against Arrius, that Christ was not only like-substantial, but also consubstantial with the Father; that is, hath the same individual divine essence with the Father. The Latin Church turneth the Greek word [Greek or Hebrew], consubstantial, taking substance for essence: It is therefore the same that co-essential, that is, of one and the same essence. The arguments which show the Father and the Son to be of one & the same essence, are these: 1 Jehovah *is but one essence, or one God: But the eternal Father, and the Son co-eternal with the Father, are that Jehovah: Therefore these two are one essence, and one God. The Minor is proved, 1.
THese three former Conclusions being declared and set down, namely, That the Son is subsisting, or a person; That hee is distinct from the Father; That hee is equall with the Father; the fourth is easily gotten and obtained against the New Arrians, to wit, That he is consubstantiall with the Father, which is also in like maner to be understood concerning the holy Ghost: For either this must be granted, or of necessity there are made three Gods, which they, though in words they deny it, yet in very deed affirme, when they frame and feigne three essences and spirits. They grant that the Son is like-substantiall, that is, of like essence and nature with the Father, which deed true; but this is not enough: For the words Consubstantiall, and Like-substantiall, differ: For, like-substantiall signifieth moe persons, and like essences; as, three men are like-substantiall: For they are both three persons, and three essences of like nature; that is, agree in humane nature. But consubstantiall signifieth one essence and moe persons. Thus in the God-head is not like-substantiall,