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.

About this Item

Title
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.
Author
Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.
Publication
Londini :: Impensis Georgii Bishop,
1609.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Bishop, William, 1554?-1624. -- Second part of The reformation of a Catholike deformed -- Early works to 1800.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69095.0001.001
Cite this Item
"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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69095.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 16, 2024.

Pages

R. ABBOT.

It is not the maiestie of Gods worship that Durand setteth forth, but the foolery and absurdity of Popish superstition. * 1.1 Of how many idle ceremonies doth he imforme vs, and what great mysteries doth he make of them? for which when he bringeth no allowance or commandement of God, doth he not acknowledge in effect that they are a 1.2 wilwor∣ships, according to the doctrines and commandements, of men? Which being so, God asketh thereof, b 1.3 who required these things at your hands? and by the Prophet complain∣eth; c 1.4 Their feare towards me is taught by the precepts of men. His excuse of these carnall rites and ceremonies is false, for contrary to that that he saith, they are infinite in number, and a great number of them apish and rediculous in vse, not fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion, but rather to busie and intangle the senses of the body, and thereby to sequester and extinguish the deuotion of the mind. S. Austine com∣plained in his time that d 1.5 all was so full of humane presump∣tions; and that albeit it could not be found how they were against

Page 32

the faith, yet the religion which the mercy of God would haue free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sa∣craments, was thereby clogged with seruile burdens, so that the condition of the Iewes was more tolerable, who though they knew not the time of liberty, yet were subiect not to the pre∣sumptions of men but to the burdens of Gods law. What would he say if he were now aliue to see Durands Rationale diuino∣rum, and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church. Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Leuiticall and Iewish ceremonies, other taken from the abhominati∣ons of heathenish Idoll-seruice; a thing so plaine as that M. Bishop denieth not, but that they vsed some such like, indeed the same, onely he setteth vpon them a false colour of being deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, not knowing Chrysostomes rule, that e 1.6 because they read not these things written but speake of themselues, it is manifest that they haue not the holy Ghost. We be no spirits, he saith, but yet he should know, that the true worshippers leauing f 1.7 beggerly rudiments & g 1.8 carnall rites should h 1.9 worship the Father inspi∣rit and truth. Whereas he alleageth that the life and vertue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit, he saith no∣thing but what was true, and necessarily required in the Iewish seruice, and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies, as for the excusing of others deuised in steed of them. To that that M. Perkins saith that they giue the same worship to Saints that they doe to God, he answereth that that is a stale iest which long since hath lost all his grace, but he should haue told vs that they themselues haue long since lost all grace by mainteining such filtherie and abhomination in the Church. Bodin tel∣leth vs that i 1.10 in Italy and a part of France that which is cal∣led Narbonensis, S. Antony is commonly worshipped with grea∣ter deuotion and feare then almighty God. Lud. Vies saith that k 1.11 many Christians (he was loth to say how many) doe no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himselfe; and in

Page 33

many saith he I see not what difference there is betweene their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods, Yea Bellarmine confesseth that l 1.12 in a maner all their outward worshippes (he might haue said their inward also) are common both to the one and to the other. And so we see they pray to the one, they pray to the other: they kneele to the one, they kneele to the other: they offer, they vow, they fast, they build Churches and Altars, they keepe holy daies, they professe trust and confidence both to the one and to the other, only forsooth we must thinke that they retaine m 1.13 an apprehensiue and intellectuall difference be∣twixt the one and the other. As if aman giuing the crowne and roiall honour of the king to a subiect, should thinke to discharge himselfe by saying that in his mind, for al that, he retained a farre higher opinion of the king then of the sub∣iect. Which if it acquit not with men, surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God aboue all his crea∣tures should be a reason to withhold vs from daring to ioine any creature in any part of communion or felowship with him. Your idolatry, M. Bishop, in this behalfe is so stale as that it is growen extreamely sower, and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no iest. As for your confutations and your answers, you should haue made them good before you had boasted of them. A wise man would not haue written a latter booke before he had made it appeare that he could defend the former.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.