Filter authors and titles

A14216:1443

The Sum of Christian Religion

Name: The Sum of Christian Religion
Author: Zacharias Ursinus

The sum of Christian religion: delivered by Zacharias Ursinus in his lectures upon the Catechism authorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parry, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supply of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of divinity, and with correction of sundry faults & imperfections, which are [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latin.

:1442p. 509

The principal arguments against the Divinity of the Son and the holy Ghost, together with the Answer unto them.

The principal arguments against the Diuinity of the Sonne and the holy Ghost, together with the Aunswere vnto them.

:1443p. 509¶1

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 godhead. Answer. The Major is true of an essence created & finite; that can not, being one, be the same and whole substance of three, or be three: but it is false, of the infinite, most simple, and individual essence of the Godhead. 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.

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 godhead. Aunswere. The Maior is true of an essence created & finite; that can not, beeing one, be the same and whole substance of three, or bee three: but it is false, of the infinite, most simple, and indiuiduall essence of the Godhead. For this as it existeth one and whole together in many, nay in infinit places and thinges, so may it be, remaining one, the same and whole essence of moe: yea and moreouer it is necessarie so to be: seeing the generation of the Sonne, and the proceeding of the holy ghost, is the communicating of the essence of the Father.

:1444p. 509–501¶2

2 Whose operations are distinct, their essences also must needs be distinct. The internal operations of the father, the son, and holy ghost are distinct. Therefore they have also distinct essences. Answer. The Major of this reason is true of persons having a finite essence: but being understood of the divine ⟨p. 501⟩persons it is false, if it be meant of those internal operations, whereof the Minor speaketh. Wherefore inverting the Major, we return it back upon the adversaries themselves. For whereas the internal operations, namely the generation of the son, & the proceeding of the holy ghost, are the communicating of the fathers essence whole & the same in number: it must needs be that there is not a diverse or distinct, but one divine essence of all three persons.

2 Whose operations are distinct, their essences also must needes be distinct. The internall operations of the father, the son, and holy ghost are distinct. Therefore they haue also distinct essences. Answere. The Maior of this reason is true of persons hauing a finite essence: but being vnderstood of the diuine ⟨p. 501⟩persons it is false, if it be ment of those internal operatiōs, whereof the Minor speaketh. Wherefore inuerting the Maior, we return it back vpon the aduersaries themselues. For whereas the internal operations, namely the generatiō of the son, & the proceeding of the holy ghost, are the cōmunicating of the fathers essence whole & the same in number: it must needs be that there is not a diuerse or distinct, but one diuine essence of al three persons.

:1445p. 501¶3

3 That which hath a beginning is not eternal: But the son and the holy ghost have their beginning or original from the father, therefore they are not eternal. Answer. That is not eternal which hath a beginning of essence or nature and time. But the son and the holy ghost have a beginning or original of person or order, or of the manner of existing, but not of essence. For this they have one & the same in number with the father from everlasting: & that is void of all beginning and original, and existeth necessarily from no other but of it self. Reply. But he who hath his original of person from another, is not Jehovah. But the son and the holy ghost have their original of person from the father. Therefore they are not Jehovah. Answer. The Major is a false ground. For the scripture doth plainly teach both of them, namely, both the son & the holy ghost to be Jehovah. Joh. 5.26. As the father hath life in himself, so hath he given likewise to the son to have life in himself: & yet the scripture withal affirmeth, that both have their original of person from the Father. For the Father begot not the essence, but the person by communicating unto him his own essence the same and whole.

3 That which hath a beginning is not eternal: But the son and the holy ghost haue their beginning or originall from the father, therefore they are not eternal. Aunswere. That is not eternall which hath a beginning of essence or nature and time. But the son and the holy ghost haue a beginning or original of person or order, or of the maner of existing, but not of essence. For this they haue one & the same in number with the father from euerlasting: & that is void of al beginning and original, and existeth necessarily from no other but of it selfe. Reply. But he who hath his originall of person from another, is not Iehoua. But the son and the holy ghost haue their original of person from the father. Therefore they are not Iehoua. Answere. The Maior is a false ground. For the scripture dooth plainly teach both of thē, namely, both the son & the holie ghost to be Iehoua. Ioh. 5.26. As the father hath life in himself, so hath he giuen likewise to the son to haue life in himselfe: & yet the scripture withall affirmeth, that both haue their originall of person frō the Father. For the Father begot not the essence, but the person by communicating vnto him his owne essence the same and whole.

:1446p. 501–511¶4

4 The faithful are one with God, not in essence, but in consent of wills. But the Father and the Son are in such sort one, as the faithful are one with god, John 17.11.21. Therefore the Son is one with the Father in conjunction of wills only, & not in unity of essence. Answer. There is more in the conclusion than in the premisses. For the particle ONLY, which is stitched to the conclusion, is not in the Minor proposition. Wherefore of a Minor which is but particular, an universal conclusion is ill inferred, after this manner. There is a certain unity between the father & the son, such, as is between god and the faithful. Therefore all unity which is betwixt them is such. Wherefore we say, That the faithful are one with ⟨p. 511⟩God & among themselves, in will only, or conformity, or conjunction of minds. The Father & the Son are one both in will, & furthermore in unity of essence. Wherefore if a wider and more ample conjunction be put, a straiter conjunction is not thereby excluded.

4 The faithful 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 faithful are one with god, Iohn 17.11.21. Therefore the Sonne is one with the Father in coniunction of wils onelie, & not in vnitie of essence. Answere. There is more in the conclusion than in the premisses. For the particle ONLIE, which is stitched to the conclusion, is not in the Minor proposition. Wherefore of a Minor which is but particular, an vniuersal cōclusion is ill inferred, after this maner. There is a certain vnity between the father & the son, such, as is between god and the faithful. Therefore al vnitie which is betwixt them is such. Wherefore we saie, That the faithfull are one with ⟨p. 511⟩God & among themselues, in will onelie, or conformitie, or coniunction of mindes. The Father & the Sonne are one both in wil, & furdermore in vnitie of essence. Wherefore if a wider and more ample coniunction be put, a streiter coniunction is not thereby excluded.

:1447p. 511¶5

5 He 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. Therefore the Father is not any one, but even all the person that is of the god-head, neither are there moe persons, wherein that godhead is. Answer. We deny the Major: Because the same god-head which is in the father, is whole also in the son & the holy ghost. For by reason of the immensity and undividablenes thereof, that is communicated of the father even the same entire and whole both to the son & to the holy ghost, so that there is neither more nor less of the godhead in every person, than either in two or in all three.

5 He that is the whole God-head, is not any one person of the God-head, or there is not anie one besides him, in whom likewise the whole God-heade is. But the Father is the whole God-heade. Therefore the Father is not anie one, but euen al the person that is of the god-head, neither are there mo persons, wherein that godhead is. Aunswere. Wee denie the Maior: Because the same god-head which is in the father, is whole also in the son & the holy ghost. For by reason of the immensity and vndiuidablenes thereof, that is communicated of the father euen the same entire and whole both to the son & to the holy ghost, so that there is neither more nor lesse of the godheade in euery person, than either in two or in al three.

:1448p. 511¶6

6 The divine essence is neither begotten nor proceeding of another. But the Son is begotten and the Holy ghost proceedeth. Therefore they are not the same divine essence, which the Father is. Answer. Of mere 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.

6 The diuine essence is neither begotten nor proceeding of another. But the Sonne is begotten and the Holie ghost proceedeth. Therefore they are not the same diuine essence, which the Father is. Answere. Of meere particulars nothing can follow or be concluded. The Maior cannot bee expounded generallie. For it is false, that whatsoeuer is the diuine essence, hee is not begotten or proceeding.

:1449p. 511¶7

7 The Divine essence is incarnate. The three persons are the Divine essence, therefore the three persons are incarnate. Answer. Of mere 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 general proposition is false. For the divine essence is incarnate only in one of the persons, which is the son: not in all three.

7 The Diuine essence is incarnate. The three persons are the Diuine essence, therefore the three persons are incarnate. Aunswere. Of meere particulars there followeth nothing. The Maior speaketh onely of the sonne: For it is false being taken generally, as, Whatsoeuer is the diuine essence, is incarnat: This general proposition is false. For the diuine essence is incarnate only in one of the persons, which is the sonne: not in al three.

:1450p. 511–512¶8

8 The son is Mediator with Jehovah. But the son is Jehovah. Therefore Jehovah is Mediator with himself. Answer. Nothing followeth of mere particulars. For the Son is not Mediator with all that is Jehovah, but the father. Reply. Therefore the Father only is pacified towards us: and by a consequent, he alone is true GOD, not the Son or the Holy Ghost. For he is the true GOD, who is pacified by the Mediator. Answer. We deny this Sequel: For there is but one will ⟨p. 512⟩of the three persons, and that agreeing in all things. Wherefore the father being pleased & pacified for the sons satisfaction in our behalf, the son also and the holy ghost are pacified, and receive us into favour, for the same satisfaction.

8 The sonne is Mediatour with Iehoua. But the son is Iehoua. Therefore Iehoua is Mediator with himselfe. Answer. Nothing followeth of mere particulars. For the Sonne is not Mediatour with al that is Iehoua, but the father. Reply. Therefore the Father only is pacified towardes vs: and by a consequent, he alone is true GOD, not the Sonne or the Holie Ghost. For hee is the true GOD, who is pacified by the Mediatour. Aunwere. We denie this Sequele: For there is but one will ⟨p. 512⟩of the three persons, and that agreeing in al thinges. Wherfore the father being pleased & pacified for the sons satisfaction in our behalfe, the sonne also and the holie ghost are pacified, and receiue vs into fauour, for the same satisfaction.

:1451p. 512¶9

9 Christ doth every where discern and sever himself from the father: he hath a Head, he hath a God: he is less than the Father. Therefore he is not the same God which the Father: or, he is not equal and consubstantial with the Father. Answer. He discerneth and distinguisheth himself from the Father, 1. in person. 2. in office, as he is Mediator: but not in God-head. So he hath a Head, and a God, and is less than the Father: First as touching his humanity, in nature and office; then as touching his Godhead, not in nature, but in office only, and in the manifestation of his godhead. For they which are in nature equal, may be unequal in degree of office.

9 Christ dooth euery where discerne and seuer himselfe from the father: he hath a Head, he hath a God: hee is lesse than the Father. Therefore he is not the same God which the Father: or, he is not equal and consubstantial with the Father. Answere. He discerneth and distinguisheth himselfe from the Father, 1. in person. 2. in office, as he is Mediator: but not in God-head. So hee hath a Head, and a God, and is lesse than the Father: First as touching his humanitie, in nature and office; then as touching his Godhead, not in nature, but in office onlie, and in the manifestation of his godhead. For they which are in nature equal, may bee vnequal in degree of office.

:1452p. 512¶10

10 This is (saith Christ. Joh. 17.3.) life eternal, that they know thee to be the only very god. Therefore the son and the holy ghost, are not very god. Answer. First 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. And Secondly, there is a fallacy in transferring the particle ONLY unto the subject THEE, unto which it doth not belong, but unto the predicate God,¹ which the Greek Article in the original doth show. For the sense is, that they know thee the Father, to be that God, who only is very God. Reply. But this Argument followeth: Maximilian is Emperor: •herefore 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.

10 This is (saith Christ. Ioh. 17.3.) life eternall, that they knowe thee to bee the onely verie god. Therefore the sonne and the holie ghost, are not verie god. Aunswere. First in this place are opposed, not the Father, and the Sonne or the holy Ghost, but God and Idols and creatures. Therefore these are excluded, not the Sonne or the holy Ghost. And Secondlie, there is a fallacy in transferring the particle ONELY vnto the subiect THEE, vnto which it dooth not belong, but vnto the predicate God,¹ which the Greeke Article in the originall dooth shew. For the sense is, that they knowe thee the Father, to bee that God, who onely is verie God. Reply. But this Argument followeth: Maximilian is Emperour: •herefore Rodulph is not. Why thē doth not this folow, The father is God. Therefore the Sonne is not god? Ans. These persons are finite, and their essence cannot belong to moe: but the Father and the Sonne are persons infinite, and their essence may be of moe, namelie of three persons.

:1453p. 512–513¶11

11 Jehovah or the true God is the Trinity. The Father is Jehovah: Therefore the Father is the trinity, that is, all three persons. Answer. Mere 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 whole Syllogism therefore is faulty, because ⟨p. 513⟩Jehovah is not taken in the same signification in both the premisses. For the name Jehovah in the Major is taken absolutely & essentially, for the three persons: For one and the same Jehovah or true God is The Father, and son, and holy Ghost jointly: But in the minor it is taken personally, for one person of the Godhead, that is, the Father, who is Jehovah of himself. Reply: Jehovah is one in number. Therefore it is always taken in scripture after the same manner. Answer. Jehovah is one in number of essence, not of persons.

11 Jehoua or the true God is the Trinitie. The Father is Jehoua: Therefore the Father is the trinity, that is, all three persons. Answer. Meere particular propositions conclude nothing. And, if the Maior bee expounded generallie, after this manner, Whatsoeuer is Iehoua, is the Trinitie, it is false: For that, which is Iehoua, maie be some one person of the trinitie. The whole Syllogisme therefore is faulty, because ⟨p. 513⟩Iehoua is not taken in the same signification in both the premisses. For the name Iehoua in the Maior is taken absolutelie & essentially, for the three persons: For one and the same Iehoua or true God is The Father, and sonne, and holy Ghost iointly: But in the minor it is taken personallie, for one person of the Godhead, that is, the Father, who is Iehoua of himselfe. Replie: Iehoua is one in number. Therefore it is alwaies taken in scripture after the same maner. Answer. Iehoua is one in number of essence, not of persons.

:1454p. 513¶12

12 Where are three and one, there are four. But in God are three & one, to wit, three persons, and one essence. Therefore there are four in God. Answer. The Major is to be distinguished. Where are three and one really distinct, there are four. But these three in God are not another thing distinct in the thing it self from the essence, but each is that one essence, the same and whole, and they differ from their essence only in their manner of subsisting or being. The manner of existing is not a divers substance from the existence, being, or essence.

12 Where are three and one, there are foure. But in God are three & one, to wit, three persons, and one essence. Therefore there are foure in God. Answere. The Maior is to be distinguished. Where are three and one reallie 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, and they differ from their essence onely in their manner of subsisting or being. The manner of existing is not a diuers substance from the existence, being, or essence.

:1455p. 513¶13

13 Christ according to that nature, according to which in scripture he is called Son, is the Son of god. But according to his humane nature only he is called Sonne. Therefore according to that only, and not according to his divine also, he is the son of god: and so by a consequent, the son is not very god. Answer. The minor is false. For Christ is called the only begotten and proper son of the Father, and equal with the Father, John. 3.16. John. 5.18. Rom. 8.32. The father hath created all things by the son. The son from the very beginning worketh all things likewise, which the Father doth, John. 5.17.19. The son revealed the Fathers will, of receiving mankind into favour, unto the Church, before his flesh was borne, John. 1.18. The son was sent into the world, descended from heaven, and took flesh, Heb. 2.16. John. 3.13.17. But the Word, which is God, is the only begotten and proper son of God, and took flesh, John. 1.14. And not the humane but the divine nature of Christ is creatress and worketh with equal authority and power with the Father, and descended from heaven. Therefore God, or the Godhead, 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.

13 Christ according to that nature, according to which in scripture he is called Son, is the Son of god. But according to his humane nature onely hee is called Sonne. Therefore according to that onely, and not according to his diuine also, hee is the sonne of god: and so by a consequent, the sonne is not verie god. Aunswere. The minor is false. For Christ is called the onely begotten and proper sonne of the Father, and equal with the Father,

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

The principal arguments against the Divinity of the Son and the holy Ghost, together with the Answer unto them.

The principal arguments against the Diuinity of the Sonne and the holy Ghost, together with the Aunswere vnto them.