Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ghost_n	holy_a	son_n	5,168	5	5.9174	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69095	The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 3	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1609 (1609)	STC 50.5; ESTC S100538	452,861	494

sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestants touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinitie and Deitie secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate maner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinitie it is by the doctrine of certaine principall pillars of their new Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. In stit ca. 13. ss 23.25 Con. rationes Camp p. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second and third persons of the Trinitie doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the Godhead for according vnto common sense and the vniforme consent of all the learned he onely is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he onely is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the Godhead from him If therfore the second person did not receiue the Godhead from the first but had it of himselfe as they do affirm then certainly he is no true Son of the first consequently the first person is no true Father For as al men cōfesse Father Son be correlatiues so that the one cānot be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faultie in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinitie And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father nor from the Son for it receiueth not the Godhead from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him and consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe euerthrow the whole Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost R. ABBOT We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishops libell for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ and what a motiue it is to like of that religion that deliuereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same faring as if he had bloody enditements in this behalfe against vs calling the Iurie putting in his euidence and in the end all commeth to nothing Parturit Oceanus prodit de gurgite squilla In the very first accusation he sheweth abundance of malice but great want of wit for that he is found a liar euen in the very place which he himselfe citeth He chargeth Caluin to haue taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the Godhead from the first but haue it of themselues as the first person hath He citeth Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 13. ss 23.25 which no man would thinke that he would so precisely set downe but that hee read the place Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus a Caluin Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus Vndc filium quatenus deus est fatemur ex seipso esse sublato personae respectu quatenus verò filius est dicimus esse ex patre ita essentia eius principio caret personae verò principium est ipse deus we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of it selfe and therefore that the Sonne as he is God setting a side the respect of the person is of himselfe but as he is the Sonne we say that he is of the Father So then the essence of the Sonne is without beginning but the beginning of his person is God the Father which he sheweth in the other section alleaged to be b Ibid. sect 23. Cum filio essentiam communicauit R●s●at vt tota in so●idum patris filij sit cōmunis by the Fathers communicating his whole essence to the Sonne What can be more plainely or more truly spoken He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God is of it selfe that is to say not of any other but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God of himselfe but of the Father In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himselfe vnderstanding the name of God absolutely that is that he is that one God who is God of himselfe and not of any other but that the second person in Trinity receiueth not the Godhead from the first Caluin neuer wrot it neuer thought it and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deale so falsely to charge him with it Yea Bellarmine himselfe though he will seeme to condemne Caluin for the maner of his speech in stiling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him for he telleth vs that c Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Valentinus Gentilis perpetuo iaes abat soium patrem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per hoc nomen intelligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam increatam silium autem sp sanctum habere aliam essentiam productam à patre ideo quoad essentiam eos non esse autotheos Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valentino contrarium asseruit nempe filium esse autotheon quoad essentiam id est in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur the cause which mooued Caluin so to write was because Valentinus Gentilis a new Arian heretike was still prating that the Father only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly diuine and vncreated and that the Sonne and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin therefore willing saith he to meete with Valentine auoucheth the contrary namely that the Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as touching the essence that is in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same Accordingly of his arguments he saith d Idem Respondeo hoc argumētum benè concludere contrà Gentilem c. This argument concludeth well against Gentilis this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis How grossly then are these men blinded with malice who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a certain

a time because the end of his sitting is for the subduing of his enemies which thencefoorth shall be none and for the bringing of vs to God who then shal perfectly and immediately be ioyned vnto God f 1. Cor. 13.12 to see face to face and to know euen as we are knowen g August de Trin. lib. 1. ca. 10. Vt iam non interpellet pro nobis Mediator Sacerdos noster filius Dei filius hominis sed ipse in quantum Sacerin est assumpta propter nos serui forma subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia vt in quant is Deus ●●t cum illo nos subiectos habeat in quantum Sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit so as that our Mediatour and Priest the sonne of God and the sonne of man shall no further make intercession for vs saith S. Austin but he also as our Priest hauing taken for vs the forme of a seruant shall be subiect to him who hath subdued to him all things that as he is God he may haue vs subiect together with himselfe as man and as our Priest may with vs be subiect to himselfe as God the kingdome thencefoorth to abide not in the manhood of Christ as now it doth but in the Godhead that God as the Apostle saith may be all in all For conclusion of this section M. Bishop addeth That God shall then render vnto euery man according to his workes all the packe of them doth vtterly deny But M. Bishop you should for example haue named one you should haue quoted some place where either in common or priuate iudgement this deniall is set downe Gods rendring according to works prooueth no merit If you can bring none what a shame is it for a man of your degree and profession thus wilfully to lie and to wrong them that haue done no wrong to you The Scripture indeed hath taught it as he alleageth and we beleeue and so preach to all men that h Rom. 2.6 God shall render vnto euery man according to his workes We giue warning with the Apostle i Gal. 6.7 that no man deceiue himselfe for whatsoeuer a man soweth the same shall he reape He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reape corruption but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit re●pe euerlasting life We teach by the word of Christ that k Iohn 5.28 the houre shall come when all that are in their graues shall heare his voice and shall come foorth they that haue done good to the resurrection of life and they that haue done euill to the resurrection of condemnation And yet we teach withall that we are l Rom. 3.24.25 iustified freely by the grace of God throuh faith in the blood of Christ and that God doth saue vs not for any merits of ours but onely for his mercies sake Can he not tel how these two may stand to gether Let him learne then of Gregory Bishop of Rome who propoundeth the question and answereth it m Gregor in Psal paenitent 7. Si illa sanctorum foelicitas misericordia est non meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo misericordia aestimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuius apparuerint hona op●r● eius sit retributio glori●sai●● namque heatae vitae in qua cum deo de deo v●●i ur nullus potest aequari labor nulla opera compara●i praesertim cum Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the blisse of the Saints be mercy and be not purchased or gotten by merits how shall that stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery one according to his workes If it be rendred according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes another thing to render for the workes sake For when it is said according to workes the quality it selfe of the works is considered that whose workes appeare good his reward may be glorious For to that blessed life where we are to liue with God and of God himselfe no labour or paines can be equalled no workes may be compared for that the Apostle saith that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be reuealed vpon vs. Notwithstanding then that God doe render to euery many cccording to his workes yet the doctrine of merits which M. Bishop would build thereupon is excluded because our good workes though they be sufficient as markes to distinguish vs from others yet they are not sufficient to obtaine saluation for vs yea as n Of Iustification sect 49. elsewhere hath beene declared out of Gregory if God should in strict iudgement examine the defects and blemishes of them they should therein be sufficient to condemne vs. Whatsoeuer they are they are not our owne but Gods workes in vs and o August de grat lib arbit cap 7. Si dei dona sunt bona merita tua non deus cororat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquā dona sua when he shall crowne them he shall crowne them not as our merits but as his owne gifts as S. Austin saith 11. W. BISHOP 8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost First Caluin and his followers who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne In the Preface In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. as hath beene elsewhere prooued Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth onely to the Father and elsewhere that the Father is the first degree and cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the * In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first rancke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour R. ABBOT As touching the Frst point he referreth his Reader to the Preface and there it is already answered That which Caluin saith is namely concerning the second person in Trinity the Sonne of God M. Bishop by consequence draweth it to the third person the holy Ghost The obiection then or rather the slander being cleered as touching the Sonne is consequently cleered concerning the holy Ghost His second cauill is The holy Ghost not made inferior

trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name Because I haue trusted in thy grace thou hast taken away from me euerlasting reproch O our Lady thou art our refuge in all our necessity O Lady saue mee by thy name And whereas M. Bishop saith that our beleeuing in God is the giuing of our whole heart vnto him they yeeld the same to our Lady also saying I confesse vnto thee ſ Ibid. Psal 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo Psal 102. Omnia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius O Lady with my whole heart let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their beleeuing in Saints they commit idolatry and doe giue that honour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely 4. W. BISHOP He chargeth vs first with the breach of the third article Conceiued by the holy Ghost Which saith he is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse into the body and blood of Christ for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ beginning in his conception and neuer ending afterward Answ Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed Is Christs incarnation perpetuall and not yet ended then it is true to say that Christ is not yet incarnate as we may say truely that a man is not borne vntill his birth be accomplished and ended But to the present purpose because Christs incarnation began at his conception cannot bread be turned afterward into his body how hangeth this together Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing This to be his meaning he declares in the question of the Sacrament but it is too too simple and childish For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread as he was by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost is made really present in the Sacrament by transubstantiation of bread into it which hath no opposition at all with this article as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question And whereas he saith farther cleane besides the purpose of this article that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body standing of flesh and bone we grant the same but when he addeth that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a body he is deceiued for the greatest body of all others which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no other body without it whose extremities might compasse in and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen And when he saith that to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of euery quantity and that quantity is the common essence of euery body he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legician who knoweth that no accident such as euery quantity is can be of the essence and nature of a substance such as Christs body is Neither would any man say that cared what he said that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity when all numbers that be quantities haue no relation vnto any place neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie to be apt and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place And naturally all bodies except the highest heauen haue one place out of which they passe as Saint Austin said when they come into another but by the omnipotent power of God any body may be separated from his place or be in as many places at once as it shall please God to seate it because to be circumscribed with a place actually is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body and without the nature of quantity and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident R. ABBOT M. Bishop saue that he was disposed to cauill knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall incarnation of Christ The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish transubstantiation that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for eu●r Now it is true that because Christ hath but one only body and that body was perfect by that incarnation therefore bread which hath his being after cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before For when one thing is turned into another the latter is not till it be produced of the former neither hath the one beginning but by the ending of the other Aarons rod was turned into a serpent but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine but the wine was not till of water there became wine And absurd it is that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already should yet be said to be made of any other thing As for M. Bishops exception it is childish and impertinent because we doe not charge them to hold that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost who was the efficient cause of his conception but we say that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary and thereby became a consummate and perfect body it is therefore absurd to affirme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argueth which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation He saith that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription which he saith can no way be seuered from a body it remaining a body implying that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription doe thereby destro● the truth of his body M. Bishop answereth that M. PER. heerein is deceiued For saith he the greatest body of all other which is the highest heauen is not circumscribed by any place because there is no body without it to circumscribe it Well but yet it hath dimension and position and distance of parts and motion accordingly and therefore quantum inse it is locally circumscribed the only defect is that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby Yea we may truely say that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of

to the Father and the Son that we make the holy Ghost much inferiour to the other persons And how may that appeare Marry in their French Catechismes they teach saith he that the Father alone is to bee adored in the name of his sonne But what because they say the Father alone must they needes be taken to exclude the holy Ghost Hath he not so much diuinity as to know that the name of the Father is sometimes vsed for distinction of persons sometimes indefinitely of God without any such distinction When our Sauiour saith a Matt. 23.9 One is your Father who is in heauen doth not the name of Father there extend to God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Doth it not so also where the Apostel saith b Eph. 4 6. There is one God and Father of all who is aboue all and through all and in you all Doth M. Bishop otherwise vnderstand it when he saith Our Father which art in heauen Surely the French Catechisme may say as he rereporteth who yet seldome reporteth truth yet import nothing therby but what Origen saith Christiās of old did namely c Origen cont Cels ● 8 Christiani soli Deo per Iesum preces offerentes to offer praiers to God only by Iesus or in the name of Iesus The next cauil against Calum is of the same kind that the title of Creatour belongeth only to the Father Which M. Bishop might well haue vnderstood in the distinctiō of the persōs by their seueral attributes as d Calu. Opus in Explicat perfidiae Valent. G●ntil Certè vn● consensu fatemur Christum impropriè vocari creatorem coeli terrae quoad personae distinctionem Neque enim dubium est quin seriptura patri nomen Creatoris vendicans personas distinguat Caluin setteth it down to be very true and the rather for that in the very articles of the Creed he findeth it so applied I beleeue in God the Father almighty maker of heauen and earth For although it be true which S. Austin oftentimes deliuereth that e August de praedest sanctor cap. 8. Inseparabilia dicimus ●sse opera Trinitatis the workes of the Trinity are inseparable and in the act of any of the persons is the concurrence of all yet they so concurre as that they retaine therein their seuerall proprieties so as that of seuerall actions arise seuerall denominations which in common phrase of speech are vsed as in some specialty belonging to one person rather than another As therefore we attribute it to the sonne alone to haue redeemed vs and to the holy Ghost alone to sanctifie vs albeit both the Father and the holy Ghost had their worke in our redemption and the Father and the Sonne haue their worke also in sanctifying vs euen so to the Father alone the title of Creatour is applied not but that the Sonne and the holy Ghost haue their worke in the creation but because f Origen cont Cels lib. 8. Dicimus immediatum opifice● esse fi●um dei verbum c. Ver● aut●m patrem curus mandato mundu● sit per ipsum filium conditus esse primarium opincem the Father is the primary or principall worker as Origen saith at whose commandement the world was created by the Sonne and g Hilar. de Synod adu Aria Si suis vnum dicens deum Christum autem deum ante secula filium dei obsecutum patri in creatione omnium non confitetur anathema sit wherein as the Syrmian Councel saith and Hilary approoueth the Sonne did obedience to the Father As for the rest that he heere quarelleth at that the Father is called the first degree and cause of life and the Sonne the second and againe that the father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernment and the sonne the second not to question the truth of his allegations I would in a word aske his wisdome doth he that saith that the Father is the first person in Trinity and the Sonne the second deny thereby the holy Ghost to be the third or doth hee hereby exclude the holy Ghost from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne Doth the Apostle when in his epistles he saith h Rom. 1 7. 1. Cor. 1.3 et in reliq Grace and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Iesus Christ doth he I say exclude heereby the holy Ghost from being the authour of grace and peace or from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne Or when he saith i 2. Cor. 1.3 Ephe 1.3 Blessed be God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ doth he deny the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be blessed and praised together with the Father If he doe not why then doth this idle headed Sophister thus take exception where there is nothing for him iustly to except against Forsooth at most saith he the holy Ghost must be content with the third degree of honour But what M. Bishop doe not you also place the holy Ghost in the third degree when you name him the third person Doth not your head serue you to vnderstand degree of order only without imparity or minority as all Diuines in this case are woont to do But why doe I thus contend with a blinde buzzard a wilfull and ignorant wrangler and not rather reiect him as a man worthy to be altogether contemned and derided He hath k Preface to the Reader sect 7. before cited the latter of these words to shew that Caluin made the Sonne of God inferiour to the Father but how leaudly he dealeth in the alleaging of it and to how small purpose it is there declared there is no cause here to speake thereof 12. W. BISHOP 9. one I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but on Catholike church as the Councel of Nice expresly defineth following sundry texts of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad holy Secondly they imagine it to be holy by the imputation of Christs holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithfull Catholike Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it that is they will not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue beene generally spread into all countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith How then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground and erring guide may they not then as well say that they