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.

The King is a great mote in M. Bishops eie, and there∣fore he could not heere passe by without a quarrell to the Kings armes. * 1.1 We haue placed, hee saith, the Kings armes where Christs armes the Crucifixe was woont to stand. But who made M. Bishop a herauld to assigne armes to Christ, and that without any priuity or liking of Christ himselfe? Did Christ euer tell him or any man else that he meant to giue a Crucifixe for his armes? This is a fantasticall imagi∣nation, neither did Christ take course by a picture but by the word of the Gospell, to be a 1.2 described before our eies as crucified amongst vs. But if the Crucifix be but Christs armes, why doe they worship the Crucifix, b 1.3 as Christ himselfe? Were it not a thing absurd, for a man to giue the Kings honour to the Kings armes? We haue therefore pul∣led downe the Crucifix, as being made an Idoll and wor∣shipped in stead of Christ, and in place therof for the orna∣ment of our Churches we haue set vp the Kings armes, as being the defender of the faith of Christ. But we haue taught that it is against Gods commandement to set vp in Churches any such Images as are in the Kings armes. But therein he saith vntruly, for we haue alwaies taught, that the commande∣ments of the first table concerne matter of religion and de∣uotion, and require the same to be performed to God only. The second commandement therefore condemneth all Images that are made or set vp for exercise of religion; but historicall and ciuill vse of Images it condemneth not, neither doth he finde any one of vs so to expound it, as ge∣nerally to forbid the making of any Image, as he hath be∣fore vnderstood by our consent set down by M. Perkins in the beginning of that question. Further, he questioneth out

of his sweet womanly deuotion, is it not a pitifull blindnesse to thinke that the pictures of Lions and Libberts doe better be∣come the house of God, than the Image of his owne Sonne and of his faithfull seruants? But doth his wisdome thinke that Sa∣lomon was blinde when he made in the Temple of God the pictures and Images of Lions and Buls, of Flowers and Palme-trees, and made no Images of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, and other holy men that were before him? It was neuer seene, but in times notoriously condemned c 1.4 for Idolatry, that euer the Image of any man was set vp in the Temple of God: and is not this poore man in a pitifull case, that holdeth all those iust and righteous Fathers that liued in those times to haue beene but blinde men, because they would not be partakers of his folly? They are therefore such wise men as hee himselfe is that make the collection that he doth: but as for vs we yeeld such honour and seruice to our Prince as God requireth vs to do, not setting vp our Prince in the place of God as they do the Pope, but obey∣ing him vnder God and for Gods sake, whom God hath placed ouer vs, and who seeketh no otherwise to gouerne vs but by the word of God.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Kings armes lawful∣ly set vp in our Chur∣ches, and not popish ima∣ges.
• a 1.2

  Gal. 3.1.
• b 1.3

  See of Ima∣ges, sect. 14.
• c 1.4

  See of Ima∣ges sect. 17.