A64611:1192
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
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 Explication.
1THE Explication of this Question is very necessary for the convincement and suppression of ancient and late Heretics, who denied, and now deny that the flesh of Christ was taken out of the substance of the Virgin: For the Eutychians argue thus: Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost: Therefore the flesh of Christ was produced out of the substance of the Divinity, or out of the essence of the holy Ghost, and by this means the divine nature was changed into the humane. 2Ans. The fallacy of this argument is drawn from an abuse of misconstruing of a common phrase of speech: For the terms, by the holy Ghost, or of the holy Ghost, do not signify unto us a material, but an efficient cause; so that the flesh of Christ proceedeth not out of the essence of the holy Ghost, as out of the matter whereof it was made; but the whole man Jesus Christ was conceived in the Virgins womb by the virtue and working of the holy Ghost, as appeareth out of the words of the Angel: The holy Ghost shall come upon thee, 3and the power of the most High shall over-shadow thee. Christ is called the seed of Abraham, the son of David: Therefore he took his flesh of these Fathers, not of the holy Ghost. And as we are born of God, because he made us, not that we are of his substance: So Christ was conceived by the holy Ghost, that is, he was conceived by the virtue and operation of the holy Ghost, not that he was conceived of the substance of the holy Ghost. Object. If in this article, He was conceived of the holy Ghost, the particle Of imply not a material cause; then, in like sort, the Article which followeth, Born of the Virgin Mary, the same particle Of cannot imply a material cause; and so Christ cannot be said to have taken his flesh of the Virgin. Ans. The case is not alike in both of these: but in this latter Article it must needs signify a material cause. The reason is, because it was necessary that Christ should come of the seed of David: But when it is said,