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.

M. * 1.1 Perkins concludeth indeed, that the images of God are forbidden in the commandement, but neither saith nor meaneth that only the Images of God are there forbidden, and therefore hee vseth no euill conscience in vrging the commandement against the images of Saints; but M. Bi∣shop with euill conscience defendeth the images of Saints against the commandement. And whereas hee saith, that thogh God do forbid to worship images, yet he doth not therfore forbid vs to worship God in or at Images, hee doth but frame himselfe to the guise and woont of all the masters of idola∣try, it being the common pretence of them al, as hath been a 1.2 before shewed, that they doe not worship the Image it selfe, which they know to be but mettall, or wood, or stone, but that in the Image or at the Image they worship the diuine essence, which they beleeue to bee immateriall and immortall. Yea, and by what reason M. Bishop heere defendeth the worshipping of God in or at Images, for at God is euery where, so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image, as in the Church or before the communion table, by the same did Ieroboam perswade the Israelites to worship God at or before, or in his golden Calues at Dan and Bethel, b 1.3 because no place is void of God, neither is he included any where, and therefore they might as wel worship him neerer hand before those calues as in the temple and before the sanctuary at Ierusalem. But as Ieroboam committed damnable idolatrie, in worshipping God be∣fore the Calues, so doth M. Bishop also in worshipping God in or before an image commit idolatry against God,

who will not be mocked, nor can abide to haue honour done to an idoll by pretence of his name. His third excep∣tion, that they make no Images to expresse the nature of God, but onely to set foorth some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible; how vaine it is, hath beene also fully declared in c 1.4 the handling of that question. And very strange it is that M. Bishop should make those apparitions a colour for their idoll-images of God, when God himselfe affirmeth that therefore hee did forbeare in the day when hee gaue the Law, d 1.5 to appeere in any image or likenesse, be∣cause he would not haue them to make any image of him. Whereas he saith, that such works of God may aswell be ex∣pressed in colours to our eies, as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding, he should vnderstand that it is one thing to speake of the works of God, another thing to speake of the person of God. Wee question not the expressing of the workes of God, but wee condemne the expressing of the person of God. And if the expressing of those apparitions by words to our eares and vnderstanding, be a reason why we may expresse the same by pictures to our eies, then no∣thing hindereth but that the nature of God also may bee expressed by colours and pictures to our eies, because the same is by words according to our capacitie expressed to our eares and vnderstanding. But God hath commanded himselfe to be preached to the eare and vnderstanding; he hath not commanded, nay hee hath forbidden himselfe to be painted to the eie; and therefore the one is lawfull and godly, the other wicked and vnlawfull. His distinction of religious worship is most ridiculous and absurd. The verie name of religion, as Austin and Lactantius do deriue it, im∣potteth the e 1.6 obliging and tying of our soules to God onely; and if to God onely, then it cannot be truely called religion, that is performed to any other. Therefore Lactantius saith a∣gaine, that f 1.7 there is no other religion to be holden but towards God onely. So saith Austin, that g 1.8 Christians are with dutie of religion to serue God only; and that h 1.9 the Apostle forbiddeth

worship of religion to be giuen to any creature. Hee telleth vs, that l 1.10 seruice of religion is that which the Greekes call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which true piety yeeldeth to God onely. Therefore hee saith, that k 1.11 we are not to make a religion of the worship of dead men, and that wee are to honour them for imitation, not to worship them for religion. Now all these so expresse and perempto∣rie resolutions, M. Bishop at once ouerthroweth with a di∣stinction, taken, as he saith, from the best authours: but hee saith it very falsly and vnhonestly, not being able to bring one good authour for the approouing of it. The word reli∣gious, saith he, is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the wor∣ship onely due to God; but it is taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures. And as well he may say, that the word mariage is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife, but yet is with the best authours taken some other time for that affi∣ance that is betwixt the fornicatour and the harlot, so that lawfully may the one enioy the other, because there is betwixt them a bond of mariage. We are told that religion in Ecclesiasticall vse belongeth onely to God, and that no seruice of religion is to be done to creatures; and he telleth vs that religion belongeth principally to God, but that there is religion also belonging to creatures: yea euen to vile and abominable idols. And what maruell is this, when∣as wee see the Valentian Iesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry, that because S. Peter nameth l 1.12 abominable idola∣tries, therefore we should vnderstand that there are ido∣latries which are not abominable, and that m 1.13 some ido∣latrie is lawfull? Surely religious worship giuen to crea∣tures, is no other but idolatrie; but yet forsooth wee must not condemne it, because all kinde of idolatrie is not to bee thought vnlawfull. These are men of sharpe wits, and can, if yee will put them to it, distinguish God out of heauen, and Christ out of the Creed, or by a distin∣ction can bring a great number of gods into heauen, and a great many Christs into the Creed. As for vs, wee take

the fathers before alleaged to be herein ingenuous and ho∣nest as we are, and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion vnto God, and to blow it from him with another. Albeit not onely vnder the name of religion, but vnder the name of worship also they haue affirmed the same to belong to God onely, as namely, u 1.14 that God onely is to bee worshipped, o 1.15 that worship and adoration can bee giuen to no creature without iniurie and wrong to God; p 1.16 that we worship neither Sunne nor Moone, neither Angels, nor Archangels, neither Cherubim, nor Seraphim, nor a∣ny other name (of any creature) that is named either in this world, or in the world to come. Therefore of the Virgin Ma∣rie Epiphanius saith: q 1.17 Let Mary be in in honour; elt the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost bee worshipped, but her let no man worship; and Ambrose, r 1.18 Marie was the temple of God, but not God of the temple; and therefore he onely is to be wor∣shipped who wrought in the temple. Thus the fathers knew no religion, they knew in religion no worship, but what belongeth to God alone; and M. Bishops distinction both in the one and in the other, was wholly vnknowen vnto them. But it is woorth the while to note, how the said distinction, such as it is, is applied by him to pictures and images. Religious worship, saith he, doth sometimes signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or qua∣litie in them. But good Sir tell vs, what supernaturall ver∣tue or qualitie is there in your images and pictures? If any religious worship be due vnto them, you tell vs that it must befor some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them. If there bee no such, then how shall religious worship bee due vnto them? May we not thinke that you haue sent vs a very na∣turall distinction, that giueth supernaturall vertue and qualitie to stocks and stones? But if supernaturall vertue & qualitie doe yeeld a title of religious worship, how is it that s 1.19 the Angell refused to be worshipped of S. Iohn, and t 1.20 the Apostle Peter of Cornelius, seeing it cannot bee doubted but that there was a supernaturall vertue and qualitie in

them? Well, hee will tell vs that the next time; in the meane while he giueth vs leaue to thinke their Romish fa∣uorites to be very naturally affected, that conceiue so su∣pernaturally of the deuisers of such blinde and witlesse tales. As for that he saith, that they doe not binde God and his hearing of vs to certaine things and places, because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places, hee saith no more than Ieroboam hath in effect said before for the setting vp of his idols; no more than the Pagans and Heathens con∣ceiued, that their gods were in heauen; and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice vnto them. Not∣withstanding as they thought, that to pray before their Images, was a more speciall and solemne deuotion, and they had there the heauenly powers more neerely present vnto them, so haue they beene affected in Poperie, and haue thought those praiers to bee most effectuall which they haue made in the presence of filthy idols, and to that end haue taken great paines to goe long iourneies and pil∣grimages vnto them. But saith M. Bishop, the sight of such holy things doth breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs, and better keepe our mindes from wandering vpon vaine matters. He should haue said if hee would haue spoken as the truth is, that they breed superstition and errour, rather than re∣uerence and deuotion, that they cause God and his Saints to bee contemned in that stoliditie and blockishnesse of dumbe idols, or at leastwise doe hold the minde so intang∣led heere vpon the earth, as that it hath not power and li∣bertie of affection to ascend to heauen, as hath beene u 1.21 be∣fore sufficiently declared, and needeth not heere to bee re∣peated. His coupling of Churches and Images is like x 1.22 the yoaking of an oxe and an asse; because Churches haue their vse for yeelding conueniencie of place and assemblie for praier, for hearing of Gods word and ministration of his Sacraments, for which vses onely it is that they are holie; but Images haue no vse at all to these purposes or any o∣ther, yea they serue to set the minde a wandring, and to

withdraw it from that stedfastnesse and deuotion which these spirituall offices and exercises doe require of vs. In a word, Lactantius maketh it y 1.23 a thing vndoubted, that where Images are, there is no religion, and therefore very iustly do we affirme, that the Popish vse and defence of Images is no furtherance as M. Bishop would perswade, but the very bane and ouerthrow of all true religion.

Notes

• * 1.1

  All Images generally for∣bidden to be worshipped.
• a 1.2

  Of Images. sect. 5.
• b 1.3

  Ioseph. Ant. Iudaic. l. 8. c. 3. See of Images. sect. 5.
• c 1.4

  Of Images, sect. 4. & 7.
• d 1.5

  Deu. 4.12.15
• e 1.6

  Aug. de vera relig. ca. 55. Ad vnum deum tendentes & e•• vni religantes animas nostras, vnde religio di∣cta creditur. Lactant. Instit. li. 4 cap. 28. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo & religati sumus; vnde ipsa reli∣gio nomen ac∣cepit.
• f 1.7

  Lactan. Instit. l. 1. c. 20. Religio ac veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius dei tenen∣da est.
• g 1.8

  Aug. cont. 2. ep. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 4. Debent ob∣seruari Christi∣ani, vt vni deo religionis obse∣quio seruiatur.
• h 1.9

  Idem cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 14. cap. 11. Apostolus crea∣turam laudat, & ei tamen cul∣tum religionis exhiberi vetat.
• l 1.10

  Idē de eiu. dei, l. 5. c. 15. Pietas vera non exhi∣bet seruitutem religionis, quam latriam Graeci vocant, nisi vni vero deo.
• k 1.11

  Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mor∣tuorum. Hono∣randi sunt prop∣ter imitatio∣nem, non ado∣randipropter religionem.
• l 1.12

  1. Pet. 4.3.
• m 1.13

  Greg. de Va∣lent. de idolat. lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simula∣chrorum illici∣tos notare, si om∣ninò nullos si∣mulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset?
• u 1.14

  Cypria. de ex∣hort. martyr. ca. 2. Quod Deus solus coiēdus sit.
• o 1.15

  Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 1. Cul∣tus & adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest abs{que} diuinita∣tis iniuria.
• p 1.16

  Hieron••. aed Ripar adu. Vigi∣lant. Ne solem quidem & Lu∣nam, non ange∣los, non archan∣gelos, non Che∣rubim, non Se∣raphim, & om∣ne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti secu∣lo & in futuro colimus & ado∣ramus.
• q 1.17

  Epiphan haer. 79. Collyrid. Sit in honore Ma∣ria: Pater, Fi∣lius, Sp. Sact a∣doretur: Mariā nemo adoret.
• r 1.18

  Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei, non Deus templi: & ideo ille solus adorā∣dus qui opera∣batur in tēplo.
• s 1.19

  Reu. 19.10.
• t 1.20

  Act. 10.25.
• u 1.21

  Of Images, sect. 5.8.
• x 1.22

  Deut. 22.10
• y 1.23

  Lactant. Inst. l. 2. c. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbi∣cun{que} simula∣chrum est.