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

The Roman religion established by the Councell of Trent, is in the principall points thereof, against the very grounds of the Catechisme: the Creede: the tenne Commandements: the Lords praier: the two Sacraments.

THe Catholike religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome, was planted and established there by the Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, fifteene hundred yeeres before the Councell of Trent, and hath been euer sithence, by the Bishops of Rome their lawfull successours, constantly retai∣ned, and most sincerely obserued and maintained: some articles thereof, called into question by the Heretikes of this latter age, were in that most learned generall Councell of Trent, declared and defined. And great meruaile it were, if the principall points thereof, should be against the grounds of the Catechisme, which is in euery point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Councell. Or is it credible, that the Church of Rome (with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree; and which hath beene euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions) should in the principall points of faith, crosse and destroy the very principles of that religion, that hath been agreed vpon by all Churches euer since the Apostle daies, as he saith? Is it not much more likely and probable, that the Protestants, who slander all Churches, euer since the time of the Apostles, with some kinde of corrupti∣on or other, and who hold no kinde of Apostolicall tradition to be necessary: is not not (I say) more credible, that they should shake those grounds of faith, which come by tradition from the Apostles, and haue beene euer since by all Churches agreed vp∣on? I suppose that few men of any indifferent iudgement, can thinke the contrary.

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