The Sum of Christian Religion, Catechism · Part 2 · creed · Question 33 · Subsection 3
The principall arguments against the Divinity of the Son and the holy Ghost, together with the anſwers unto them.
1. ONe eſſence is not three perſons: for, one to be three, doth imply a contradiction. God is one eſſence: Therefore there cannot be three perſons of the God head. Anſ. The Major is true of an eſſence created and finite: that cannot, being one, be the ſame and whole ſubſtance of three, or be three: but it is falſe of the infinite, moſt ſimple, and individuall eſſence of the God-head: For this, as it exiſteth one and whole together in many, nay, in infinite places and things; ſo may it be, remaining one, the ſame and whole eſſence of moe: yea, and moreover it is neceſsary ſo to be; ſeeing the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghoſt, is the communicating of the eſsence of the Father.
2. Whoſe operations are diſtinct, their eſſences alſo must needs be diſtinct. The eternall operations of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost are diſtinct: Therefore they have alſo diſtinct eſſences. Anſw. The Major of this reaſon is true of perſons having a fi…ite eſſence: but being underſtood of the divine perſon, it is falſe, if it be meant of thoſe internall operations, whereof the Minor ſpeaketh. Wherefore, inverting the Major, wee returne it backe upon the adverſaries themſelves: Whereas the internall operations, namely the generation of the Son, and the proceeding of the holy Ghoſt, are the communicating of the Fathers eſſence whole and the ſame in number; it muſt needs be, that there is not a diverſe or diſtinct, but one divine eſſence of all three perſons.
3. That which hath a beginning, is not eternall: but the Sonne and the holy Ghost have their beginning, or originall from the Father: Therefore they are not eternall. Anſw. That is not eternall, which hath a beginning of eſſence, or nature, and time: But the Sonne and the holy Ghoſt have a beginning or originall of perſon or order, or of the manner of exiſting, but not of eſſence: For this they have one and the ſame in number with the Father from everlaſting; and that is void of all beginning and originall, and exiſteth neceſsarily, from no other but of it ſelfe. His goings forth have bin from the beginning, and from everlaſting. Now glorifie mee, thou Father, Micah 5.2. John 17.5.with thine owne ſelfe, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Repl. But hee who hath his originall of perſon from another, is not Jehovah: But the Sonne and the holy Ghost have their originall of perſon from the Father: Therefore they are not Jehovah. Anſw. The Major is a falſe ground: For the Scripture doth plainly teach both of them, namely, both the Son and holy Ghoſt, to be Jehovah. As the Father hath life in himſelfe; ſo hath hee given likewiſe to the Son to have life in himſelfe: John 5.26.and yet the Scripture wu hall affirmeth, that both have their originall of perſon from the Father: For the Father begot not the eſſence, but the perſon, by communicating unto him his owne eſſence the ſame and whole.
4. The faithfull are one with God, not in eſſence, but in conſent of wils. But the Father and the Sonne are in ſuch ſort one, as the faithfull are one with God. Father, keepe them, that they may be one, as wee are one: Therefore, John 17.11, 21.the Sonne is one with the Father in conjunction of wils onelyonly, and not in unity of eſſence. Anſw. There is more in the concluſion, than in the premiſſes. For the particle, onelyonly, which is ſtitched to the concluſion, is not in the Minor propoſition: Wherefore of a Minor, which is but particular, an univerſall concluſion is ill inferred, after this manner: There is a certaine unity between the Father and the Sonne, ſuch as is between God and the faithfull: Therefore all unity which is betwixt them is ſuch. Wherefore wee ſay, that the faithfull are one with God and among themſelves, in will onelyonly, or conformity, or conjunction of mindes. The Father and the Sonne are one both in will, and furthermore in unity of eſſence. I and the Father are one. John 10.30. & 14.10. Heb. 1.3.I am in the Father, and the Father is in mee. Who is the ingraved forme of his Fathers ſubstance. Wherfore if a wider and more ample conjunction be put, a ſtraiter conjunction is not thereby excluded.
5. Hee that is the whole God-head, is not any one perſon of the God-head, or there is not any one beſides him, in whom likewiſe the whole God-head is. But the Father is the whole God-head: Therfore the Father is not any one, but even all the perſon that is of the God-head, neither are there moe perſons, wherein that God-head is. Anſ. Wee deny the Major: becauſe the ſame God-head which is in the Father, is whole alſo in the Son and the holy Ghoſt. For by reaſon of the immenſity and undividableneſſe thereof, that is communicated of the Father, even the ſame entire and whole both to the Son and to the holy Ghoſt, ſo that there is neither more nor leſſe of the God-head in every perſon, than either in two, or in all three.
6. The divine eſſence is neither begotten, nor proceeding of another: But the Sonne is begotten, and the holy Ghost proceedeth: Therefore they are not the ſame divine eſſence, which the Father is. Anſw. Of meere particulars, nothing can follow or be concluded. The Major cannot be expounded generally. For it is falſe, That whatſoever is the divine eſſence, he is not begotten or proceeding.
7. The divine eſſence is incarnate. The three perſons are the divine eſſence: Therefore the three perſons are incarnate. Anſw. Of meere particulars there followeth nothing. The Major ſpeaketh only of the Son: For it is falſe, being taken generally: as, Whatſoever is the divine eſſence, is incarnate; this generall propoſition is falſe: For the divine eſſence is incarnate only in one of the perſons, which is the Son: not in all three.
8. The Mediatour between God and man is not God himſelfe: But the Son is the Mediatour between God and man: Therefore hee is not God. Anſw. The Major is apparently falſe, becauſe by the ſame reaſon it might be argued, that the Mediatour between God and men, is not man. Repl. The Major is thus proved: God cannot be leſſe than himſelfe, or inferiour to himſelfe: But the Mediatour with God is leſſe and inferiour unto God: Therefore hee is not God. Anſ. The Minor is true onelyonly in reſpect of Chriſts office, in which ſenſe Chriſt is inferiour unto God, not in reſpect of his eſſence and nature: according to the fourth Rule; The inequality of office doth not inferre inequality of nature or perſons. Repl. 2. The Son is Mediatour with Jehovah: But the Son is Jehovah: Therefore Jehovah is Mediatour with himſelf. Anſ. Nothing followeth of meere particulars: For the Son is not Mediatour with all that is Jehovah, but with the Father. Rep. 3. Therefore the Father only is pacified towards us: and, by a conſequent, hee alone is the true God, not the Son, or the holy Ghost: For hee is the true God, who is pacified by the Mediatour. Anſw. Wee deny this ſequele: For there is but one will of the three perſons, and that agreeing in all things: Wherefore, the Father being pleaſed and pacified for the Sonnes ſatisfaction in our behalfe, the Sonne alſo and the holy Ghoſt are pacified, and receive us into favour for the ſame ſatisfaction. Rep. 4. Whom the Son pacifieth, with him hee is Mediatour: But the Sonne pacifieth not only the Father, but himſelfe alſo: Therefore hee is Mediatour with himſelfe; which to grant were abſurd. Anſw. Firſt, wee anſwer to the Major: that the Sonne is properly ſaid to be Mediatour with him whom hee ſo pacifieth with his ſatisfaction, that the decree and purpoſe of atonement may ſeeme to have originally iſſued from him. Now this is the Father alone: Therefore in this ſenſe the Sonne is not Mediatour with himſelfe, but with the Father alone. Secondly, wee anſwer to the Minor: That it is not abſurd to ſay, that the Sonne is Mediatour to, or with himſelfe: For it is no inconvenience, that he ſhould manage both functions, namely, of God admitting the reconciliation; and of the Mediatour, making the reconciliation, each in a diverſe reſpect. The former of theſe, by vertue of his divine nature; the later, by reaſon of his office of the Mediatourſhip.
9. Chriſt doth every-where diſcern and ſever himſelf from the Father: hee hath a Head, he hath a God, he is leſſe than the Father: Therefore he is not the ſame God with the Father: or, he is not equall and conſubstantiall with the Father. Anſw. He diſcerneth and diſtinguiſeth himſelf from the Father, 1. In perſon. 2. In office, as he is Mediatour, but not in God-head. So, Hee hath a Head, and a God, and is leſſe than the Father, 1. As touching his humanity, in nature and office. 2. As touching his God-head, not in nature, but in office only, and in the manifeſtation of his God-head: For they which are in nature equall, may be unequall in degree of office.
10. This is (ſaith Chriſt) life eternall, John 17.3.that they know thee to be the only very God: Therefore the Son and the holy Ghoſt are not very God. Anſ. In this place are oppoſed, not the Father, and the Son, or the holy Ghoſt; but God, and Idols, and Creatures: Therefore theſe are excluded, not the Son, or the holy Ghoſt. 2. There is a fallacy of ſevering and dividing clauſes of mutuall co-herence and neceſſary connexion: For it followeth in the Text: And whom thou haſt ſent, Jeſus Chriſt: Therefore, herein alſo conſiſteth life eternall, that Jeſus Chriſt, ſent of the Father, be likewiſe knowne to be very God: as it is ſaid; The ſame is very God and life everlasting. 1 John 5.20.3. There is a fallacy in transferring the particle OnelyOnly unto the ſubject Thee, unto which it doth not belong, but unto the predicate God, which the Greek Article, in the originall doth ſhew: For the ſenſe is,foreign. that they know thee the Father to be that God, who only is very God. Repl. But this argument followeth: Maximilian is Emperour: Therefore Rodulph is not. Why then doth not this follow: The Father is God: Therefore the Son is not God? Anſ. Theſe perſons are finite, and their eſſence cannot belong to moe: but the Father and the Son are perſons infinite, and their eſſence may be of moe, namely, of three perſons.
11. Jehovah, or the true God is the Trinity. The Father is Jehovah: Therefore the Father is the Trinity, that is, all three perſons. Anſ. Meere particular propoſitions conclude nothing. And, if the Major be expounded generally, after this manner: Whatſoever is Jehovah, is the Trinity, it is falſe: for that which is Jehovah, may be ſome one perſon of the Trinity. The Syllogiſme therefore is faulty, becauſe Jehovah is not taken in the ſame ſignification in both the premiſſes: For the name Jehovah in the Major is taken abſolutely and eſſentially for the three perſons (for one and the ſame Jehovah or true God, is the Father, and Son, and holy Ghoſt joyntly) but in the Minor it is taken perſonally, for one perſon of the God-head, that is, the Father, who is Jehovah of himſelf. Repl. Jehovah is one in number: Therefore it is alwaies taken in Scripture after the ſame manner. Anſ. Jehovah is one in number of eſſence, not of perſons.
12. Where are three and one, there are foure: But in God are three and one, to wit, three perſons and one eſſence: Therefore there are foure in God. Anſ. The Major is to be diſtinguiſhed: Where are three, and one really diſtinct, there are foure: But theſe three in God are not another thing diſtinct in the thing it ſelfe from the eſſence; but each is that one eſſence, the ſame and whole, as they differ from their eſſence only in their maner of ſubſiſting or of being. The maner of exiſting, is not a diverſe ſubſtance from the exiſtence, being, or eſſence.
13. Chriſt according to that nature, according to which in Scripture hee is called Son, is the Son of God: But according to his humane nature only hee is called Son: Therefore, according to that only, and not according to his divine alſo, hee is the Son of God: and ſo by a conſequent, the Son is not very God. Anſ. The Minor is falſe:John 3.16. & 5.18. Rom 8.32. John 5.17, 19. John 1.18. Heb. 2.16. John 3.13, 17. John 1.14. For Chriſt is called the only begotten and proper Son of the Father, and equall with the Father. The Father hath created all things by the Son. The Son from the very beginning worketh all things likewiſe, which the Father doth. The Son revealed the Fathers will, of receiving mankinde into favour, unto the Church, before his fleſh was borne. The Son was ſent into the world, deſcended from heaven, and took fleſh. But the Word, which is God, is the only begotten and proper Son of God, and took fleſh. And not the humane, but the divine nature of Chriſt is Creatreſſe, and worketh with equall authority and power with the Father, and deſcended from heaven: Therefore God, or the God-head, or divine nature of Chriſt, is both called in the Scripture, and is the Son: and by a conſequent, the Son is that one true and very God. Theſe Objections we may compare with thoſe that are before ſet downe in the Common place, concerning the Trinity of the perſons: For, with whatſoever Sophiſmes the Trinity it ſelfe and divinc eſſence is impugned, with the ſelfe-ſame alſo is each Perſon aſſaulted: and contrariwiſe, with whatſoever Sophiſmes one perſon is impugned, with the ſame the whole eſſence of the Deity is aſſailed. Beſides, ſome objections were there only propoſed, which are here more fully aſſoiled. You may reade more of this point, Vol. 1. Urſin. from page 115. to page 125.