A64611:1907
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.
Infants cannot be taught: Therefore they cannot be baptised. Ans. The Major is true of men of ripe years and full growth, capable of instruction, of which the first gathering of the Church was: these Christ commandeth first to be taught, then to be baptised, so to be distinguished from others. It is false of infants either born in the Church, or entering into the Church with their faithful parents in their conversion; because Christ speaketh not of infants, but of men of competent age to be taught, that they ought not to be received into the Church, except they be first taught the principles of faith and christianity. But infants are comprehended under the form of the covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, even before they are capable of instruction: therefore they ought to be baptised ere they can be taught. Repl. 3. In the examples of baptising whole households, a figure Synecdoche is implied, taking the whole households for part of the households; and it is meant, that they only were baptised who believed, and confessed their faith: Wherefore baptising of infants is not clearly proved out of those examples. Ans. The Antecedent is false, seeing the Apostles history maketh no such exclusion; and we need not run to a figure, when there is no reason why the proper sense should not be retained. Rep. 4. Yes, there is a two fold reason of this Synecdoche: One, that the Apostles did not infringe Christs commandment and appointment: Another, that the circumstances of those examples exclude infants: For it is there said, 1They preached the word of the Lord to all that were in his house; when yet (by your grant) they preached not to infants. Again, the whole house rejoiced. The whole house of Stephanas ministered unto the Saints. 2Wherefore infants are excluded. Ans. To the first exception we answer, denying that infants baptism is repugnant to Christs institution, who will that all who pertain to him, and to his Church, have the cognisance of baptism, as hath bee• sufficiently proved. It is untrue therefore that they say the Apostles abstained from the baptism of infants by Christs institution. To the second exception we answer, denying, that out of the circumstances alleged there followeth a Synecdoche in the phrases of baptism.
Infants cannot be taught: Therefore they cannot be baptised. Ans. The Major is true of men of ripe yeers and full growth, capable of instruction, of which the first gathering of the Church was: these Christ commandeth first to be taught, then to be baptised, so to be distinguished from others. It is false of infants either born in the Church, or entring into the Church with their faithfull parents in their conversion; because Christ speaketh not of infants, but of men of competent age to be taught, that they ought not to be received into the Church, except they be first taught the principles of faith and christianity. But infants are comprehended under the form of the covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, even before they are capable of instruction: therefore they ought to be baptised ere they can be taught. Repl. 3. In the examples of baptising whole housholds, a figure Synecdoche is implied, taking the whole housholds for part of the housholds; and it is meant, that they onely were baptised who beleeved, and confessed their faith: Wherefore baptising of infants is not cleerly proved out of those examples. Ans. The Antecedent is false, seeing the Apostles history maketh no such exclusion; and wee need not run to a figure, when there is no reason why the proper sense should not be retained. Rep. 4. Yes, there is a two fold reason of this Synecdoche: One, that the Apostles did not infringe Christs commandement and appointment: Another, that the circumstances of those examples exclude infants: For it is there said,