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.

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, * 1.1 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 them∣selues 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 1.2 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 per∣son, 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 1.3 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God of himselfe, yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him; for he telleth vs that c 1.4 the cause which mooued Caluin so to write, was because Valentinus Gentilis (a new Arian heretike) was still prating that the Fa∣ther only was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Caluin therefore willing, saith he, to meete with Ʋa∣lentine, auoucheth the contrary, namely that the Sonne is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God of himselfe as touching the essence, that is, in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same. Accordingly of his arguments he saith: d 1.5 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 cer∣tain meaning against his aduersary, & that in that meaning they are true, and that his arguments doe conclude rightly and strongly to that purpose, doe notwithstanding cauill against him by wresting his words to another meaning then by their owne confession he intended in speaking of

them? He tooke occasion of so speaking by his aduersarie. And is there any man who hauing to deal against an aduer∣sarie will not vse his aduersaries owne words to dispute against him? And is there any fault herein, when in the very place he expoundeth himselfe, and taketh away al occasion of miscōstruction, saying: e 1.6 As touching the essence, the word is God without beginning, but in the person of the Sonne he hath his beginning from the Father? for what will they say? is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a name wholly vnlawfull to be attributed vnto Christ the Sonne of God? Why more then by Elias Cre∣tensis he is called f 1.7 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by Ori∣gen g 1.8 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which being of the same cōpo∣sition, must then be subiect to the same blame? Nay Bellar∣mine himselfe confesseth that Christ may in some sense be called h 1.9 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by Epiphanius is so called as to sig∣nifie that he is God himselfe, most verily and truly God. And could not his wisedome see that Caluin in effect meant no other but only so? for because Christ could not be verily and truely God vnlesse he were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that meaning wherein Valentinus spake, therefore Caluin to auouch the true Godhead of Christ, affirmed him to bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very true God, God of himselfe that is, by that one only es∣sence which is of it selfe, and whereby God, speaking abso∣lutely, is of himselfe and is truely God, and not as Valenti∣nus wickedly taught, by another inferiour essence made and produced of the Father as a superiour God, whereby it should come to passe that he were not God at all. And when he saw that by Caluins owne words he that is called God of himselfe is also affirmed to be God of God, the Sonne of God, why could he not excuse that maner of speaking in him as well as in S. Austin, who in the like sort saith that Christ is i 1.10 the Sonne of God shining both of himselfe and of the Father? To shine of himselfe what is it but to be God of himselfe? As he shineth of himselfe, so he is God of himselfe: that is, according to his essence as he is absolutely God; according to his person he shineth of the father and so he is

God of God, the Sonne of God. In this therefore iustly doth M. Whitakers defend Caluin, not praeferring him be∣fore all the learned Fathers of the first Councell of Nice, as M. Bishop fondly cauilleth, but ioining with him to maintaine the same true Godhead of Christ against new Arians, which the Fathers of that Councell professed and taught against Arius of old. This matter then being cleered, and it being apparant that neither Caluin nor any of vs saieth any thing to the contrary, nay we stedfastly beleeue and teach that the second person of the Trinity receiueth his God∣head from the first, and that the holy Ghost proceedeth both from the Father and the sonne, there is nothing heere more to be spoken of; and therefore as touching Atheisme we will leaue M. Bishop in his chaire to consider more wisely of his taleagainst the next time.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ.
• a 1.2

  Caluin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus; Vndc & filium qua∣tenus deus est, fatemur ex se∣ipso esse sublato personae respe∣ctu; quatenus verò filius est, dicimus esse ex patre: ita essen∣tia eius princi∣pio caret, per∣sonae verò prin∣cipium est ipse deus.
• b 1.3

  Ibid. sect. 23. Cum filio essen∣tiam communi∣cauit. R••s••at vt tota & in so••i∣dum patris & filij sit cōmunis.
• c 1.4

  Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Va∣lentinus Genti∣lis perpetuo ia∣es abat soium patrem esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & per hoc nomen in∣telligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam & in∣creatam: silium autem & sp. sanctum habere aliam essenti∣am productam à patre & ideo quoad essenti∣am eos non esse autotheos. Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valenti∣no contrarium asseruit, nempe filium esse auto∣theon quoad es∣sentiam, id est, in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur.
• d 1.5

  Idem. Respon∣deo hoc argumē∣tum benè con∣cludere contrà Gentilem, &c.
• e 1.6

  Caluin opusc. Explicat. perfi∣diae Valent. Gent. ex Actis. Quead essenti∣am sermo est deus abs{que} prin∣cipio: in perso∣na autem filij habet princi∣pium à patre.
• f 1.7

  Elias Cret. in Gregor. Nazi∣an. Orat. 5.
• g 1.8

  Origen. in Ioan. tom. 32.
• h 1.9

  Bellarm. vt supra ex Epi∣phan. haer. 69.
• i 1.10

  August. Orat. contra Iud. Pa∣gan. & Arian. cap. 6. Fi••••us & de se & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pa∣tre splendens.