The true ancient Roman Catholike Being an apology or counterproofe against Doctor Bishops Reproofe of the defence of the Reformed Catholike. The first part. Wherein the name of Catholikes is vindicated from popish abuse, and thence is shewed that the faith of the Church of Rome as now it is, is not the Catholike faith ... By Robert Abbot ...

R. ABBOT.

WE note well M. Bishop, that no Cooke can f••t your diseased appetite, but such a one as is brought vp in the Popes kit∣chin, whilest you like better a the fish, and leekes, and oinions, and garlicke of Aegypt, then Manna that came from heauen. We see it commonly so, as hath been be∣fore said, that corrupt stomackes are best pleased with the most grosse and vnwholsome meates, and as the horse-leach sucketh out of the body the most noisome and putrified bloud, and the Spider in the garden or otherwhere gathe∣reth that only which may be turned to venime and poison; so you out of the body of the Church draw that only which is noisome and poisonfull, and nothing pleaseth your hu∣mour, but what serueth for the corrupting, both of your selfe and other men. This is the cause why my premises and conclusions seeme to you so leane, thinne, and weake, which notwithstanding are hitherto found inuincibly, grounded against all those silly oppositions, wherewith you haue en∣countred them. The sentences which I haue cited out of the Apostle, how simply, yea how shamefully are they dischar∣ged by you, only with an odious reiteration of those things which in my former answere haue beene already troden to the ground? Some of them, you say, seemed to sound for vs though they had in truth a farre different sense, but what slen∣der and miserable shifts haue you vsed to frame them, to sig∣nifie otherwise then they sound? Some haue neither sense nor

sound nor syllable for vs, and yet it is found that both syllable and sound and sense, doe wholly sauour and sound out our doctrine against you. Which is so plaine both in the thing it selfe, and in those iustifications which I haue vsed thereof, as that I doubt not but that in your owne conscience, M. Bishop, I haue gotten the conquest; only it is with you accor∣ding to that which S^t. Austin saith, b This is esteemed the glory of vanity, neuer to yeeld to any force of truth. But here I wish thee, gentle Reader, to obserue what a confession he maketh of that that I said, that S^t. Paul wrote nothing but what in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne. It is, saith he, one of the truest words he there deliuereth. But if it be true that all that S^t. Paul hath written, doth in shew at least serue the Protestants turne, then my wonder is acknowledged to be iust, namely that S^t. Paul should be a Papist, and yet should write nothing but what in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne. M. Bishop will haue it thought that in sense and meaning S^t. Paul is euery where against vs; but what a strange thing is it that S^t. Paul in meaning should be euery where against vs, and yet that in shew and appearance of wordes he should speake altogether for vs? Concerning this matter I noted what the Rhemists haue said, aduertising their Reader, that c where any thing in S^t. Pauls Epistles soun∣deth to him as contrary to the doctrine of their Church, he fai∣leth of the right sense. Herein M. Bishop ioyneth with them, both confessing that S^t. Pauls wordes are against them, but bearing men in hand that the meaning alwaies is otherwise then the wordes import. Thus they gull and abuse the sim∣plicity and folly of them that will hearken vnto them, per∣swading that that is improbable, incredible, impossible, that the holy Apostles directed by the spirit of God should speake one thing, as if they were Protestants, and yet meane another as if they were Papists; that in beleefe they should be Papists, and yet should say nothing for iustification of Po∣pery, saue only by secret and concealed senses, which cannot be ••nforced or gathered by the wordes. Iustly are they gi∣uen

ouer of God to errour and lyes, that vvilfully blinde themselues from taking knowledge of such delusion. Now here I vvas disposed to dally a little vvith M. Bishop, and to tell him my imagination, that for anger that Peter and Paul had said nothing in their behalfe, they might haply fare as Robertus Liciensis did in another case before the Pope, spit∣ting and crying out, Fie vpon Peter, fie vpon Paul, &c. M. Bishop being offended at this iest, as d Baals Priests vvere at the iesting of Elias, telleth his Reader for vvant of matter, that I turne from the truth to fables, as the Apostle speaketh, (a text very vntowardly applyed, if there vvere occasion to examine it) and that for lacke of a better I bring Robin good∣fellow vpon the stage. Novv that Robertus Liciensis a Fran∣ciscan Friar vvas indeede a right Popish Robin good-fellow▪ of vvhom e Erasmus reporteth, that preaching on a time ve∣ry instantly and earnestly, to stirre men vp to goe against the Turkes and Paynims, and comming at length to lament that none offered themselues to be Captaines and leaders in this seruice, professeth in the end that rather then there should be any vvant in that behalfe, he vvould not sticke to cast off his Franciscan vveede, and become himselfe a Captaine or a Souldier amongst them. At vvhich vvordes he cast off his vpper garment, and vnderneath vvas attired and furnished as a Souldier, and so prosecuted this matter for the space of halfe an houre, and being afterwards questioned vvhy hee thus did, confessed that he did it for his Minions sake, vvho had told him that shee disliked nothing in him, but his Friars vveede. Whereupon he demanding in vvhat attire he should best content her, and shee answering that shee could best like of him in the habit of a Souldier, he bid her be the next day at Sermon, and shee should see him so, and then played Robin good-fellowes part in that sort as I haue said. In the same place Erasmus telleth of that Liciensis, the storie to vvhich I before alluded, f that being on a day to preach be∣fore the Pope and his Cardinals, when he saw them come in with that Princely pompe, and the Pope carryed in a chaire,

and all men doing worship to him, without any other words beginneth to cry out, Fie vpon S^t. Peter, fie vpon S^t. Paul, spitting and turning this way and that way, and so gate him downe againe, leauing all astonished at him, some thinking him to be fallen madde, and other some imagining him to be become an Heretike or a Pagan. Being afterwards exa∣mined how he fell to such horrible blasphemie, he answered that he had prepared a farre other matter to speake of, which he imparted to them, but when I saw you, saith he, come in with such pompe and liue so deliciously, and withall consi∣dered with my selfe, how meane, how painfull, and vnplea∣sing a life the Apostles led, in whose places you succeede▪ I gathered with my selfe, that either they were fooles that went so hard a way to heauen, or else that you goe the di∣rect way to hell. But of you, saith he, who haue the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, I could not misdoubt any euill. It remained therefore that I should detest the folly of them, vvho when they might haue liued gloriously and pleasantly as you doe, would rather through their whole life with fa∣sting, and watching, and labour torment themselues. Now as in this case this Robertus Liciensis cryed, Fie vpon Peter and Paul, for their kinde of life so vnlike to the life of Popes and Cardinals; so I thought it might be likely that M. Bi∣shop and his fellowes in their anger might cry out vpon them for their kinde of doctrine, so vnlike to the doctrine of Po∣pery, and containing nothing at all for the trash and trinkets of their profession. M. Bishop saith, that there is no shadow of likelyhood that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face, or that Erasmus being in most points a Catholike would report it. But for the inducing of his Reader to this opinion, see a trick of this honest man. For if he had truly quoted the place as he found it by me set downe, he thought his Reader would perhaps looke the place, and so would finde it to be as I had said. But to preuent this, whereas I had noted in the mar∣gent, Erasm. de rat. Concion. lib. 3. hee setteth downe in steede thereof; Erasmus de ratione, that the Reader vvhen

he should search for such a booke of Erasmus, and finde no such written by him, might thinke me to be as very a coze∣ner as Doctor Bishop himselfe now is found to be. Let me tell him once againe that Erasmus hath written a vvorke, en∣tituled Ecclesiastes or de ratione Concionandi, in g the third booke whereof he hath left to future memory those vvorthy stories of Robertus Liciensis, which I haue before reported. For conclusion of this passage he termeth me a poore Robin, simple and poore-blinde, that can finde nothing in the Apostles writings for their Catholike cause, telling vs that he hath shewed the contrary already, and will further shew it in those very points, which I my selfe haue made choise of. But what he hath done already we haue seene; it remaineth to examine the rest that follow that it may appeare whether the simple Protestants doe well or not, in taking the Apostle S^t. Paul to be wholly for them.

Notes

• a

  Numb. 11. 5.
• b

  August. de Ciuit. Dei, l. 6. c. 1. Ea putatur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere vi∣ribus veritatis.
• c

  Rhem. Te∣stam. Argumēt of the Epistles in generall.
• d

  1. Kings 18. ••••.
• e

  Erasm. de rat. Concio∣nandi, lib. 3.
• f

  Erasm. ibid.
• g

  Pag. 291. as it was printed at Basil by Fro∣benius, 1535.