The Sum of Christian Religion, Catechism · Part 2 · covenant · Question 25 · Commentary · Subsection 3
The objections of hereticks againſt the doctrine of the Trinity.
Look the generall and ſpeciall rules & ſolutions of ſophiſmes forged againſt the Deity of the Son of God.1. ONe eſſence is not three perſons; becauſe, that one ſhould be three, implyeth a contradiction: Jehovah is one eſſence: Therefore not three perſons. Anſw. The Major is true of a created and finite eſſence, which cannot be one, and the ſame, and whole ſubſtance of three perſons: But it cometh ſhort of truth when it is averred of the infinite, individuall, and moſt ſimple eſſence of the Deity. Repl. A most ſimple eſſence cannot be the eſſence of three perſons: The eſſence of God is (as you grant) a moſt ſimple eſſence: Therefore it cannot be three perſons. Anſ. This Major holdeth true in ſuch an eſſence, part of which inſtituteth another perſon; or which is multiplied according to the number of the perſons produced thence: but it faileth in ſuch an eſſence as is the ſame, and whole entire in each perſon: For the exceeding ſimplicity of this kind of eſſence is no may impeached by the multitude and diſtinction of perſons. Object. 2. Where there are three and one, there are four diſtinct things: But in God are three perſons and one eſſence: Therefore there are four diſtinct things in God, which to grant is abſurd. Anſw. Where there are three and one really diſtinct, there are foure: But in God the perſons are not really diſtinct from the eſſence, (for the three perſons of the Divinity are one and the ſame divine eſſence) but they differ from it, and from one another, mutually only by order and manner of ſubſiſting. Object. 3. It is Sabellius his hereſie to entitle one ſubſtance with three names: The opinion of the Trinity giveth one ſubstance three names: Therefore it is Sabellius his hereſie. Anſ. In this Syllogiſme are foure terms, by reaſon of the ambiguity of the word Subſtance: for either the word Subſtance ſignifieth in the Major a perſon, and in the Minor an eſſence; or elſe one of the premiſſes or propoſitions is falſe. Object. 4. He who is the whole Deity, beſides him there is no other in whom the whole Deity likewiſe is: But the Father is the whole Deity: Therefore it is not in another. Anſ. The Major is falſe; becauſe the ſame Deity which is whole in the Father, is whole alſo in the Son, and whole in the holy Ghoſt, by reaſon of the infinity of the divine eſſence, whereof there is neither more nor leſſe in each perſon, then in two, or the whole three. Object. 5. Where are diſtinct operations, at leaſtwiſe internall, there are alſo diſtinct eſſences: But the internall operations of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt are diſtinct: Therefore alſo their eſſences are diſtinct. Anſw. The Major is true of perſons which have a finite eſſence, but falſe of divine and infinite. Object. 6. The divine eſſence is incarnate: The three perſons are the divine eſſence: Therefore the three perſons are incarnate. Which concluſion being falſe, it followeth that ſome one of the premiſſes was falſe. Anſ. Here are meer particular propoſitions, and therefore nothing can be concluded: for the major ſpeaketh not of the divine eſſence generally, nor can be expounded univerſally, becauſe the divine eſſence was incarnate in the perſon only of the Son. Object. 7. Jehovah or true God is the Trinity: The Father is Jehovah: Therefore he is the Trinity; that is, the whole three perſons. Anſw. Here alſo the Major cannot be underſtood univerſally: for, not whatſoever is Jehovah is alſo the Trinity. So that of meer particulars nothing followeth. Object. 8. No abſtract name ſignifieth a ſubſtance: Trinity is an abſtract name: Therefore it ſignifieth no ſubstance. But God is a ſubſtance: therefore the Trinity ſignifieth not God. Anſw. The Major is meerly falſe: For theſe words, Deity and Humanity are abſtracts, and ſignifie the ſubſtance and nature of God or man.