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
41. W. BISHOP.
In the last words: and lead vs not into temptation,* 1.1 wee pray not (saith he) that God should free vs from temptati∣on, for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted: but that wee be not left vnto the malice of Satan, and held captiue of the temptation: for heere to be led into temptation, and to be deliuered, are opposed. Now hence I gather, that hee who is the childe of God truely iustified and sanctified, shall neuer fall wholly and finally from the grace of God; and I conclude on this maner:
* 1.2That which we aske according to the will of God, shall be granted: But this the childe of God asketh, that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father, and led captiue into temptation: this therfore shall be granted.
descriptionPage 338
Answ. If this argument were sound, neuer should any Chri∣stian that saith our Lords praier, fall finally & be damned; be∣cause they all make this petition, and that according to the will of God, who would haue all men saued. Many things then besides saying our Lords praier, are required to saluation, for want of which many that haue often said that praier fall final∣ly. Againe, he mistaketh the true sense of that petition: for therein we do not aske that we continue not in sin, which we as∣ked in the former petition (forgiue vs our trespasses) but wee pray that we be not ouercome by the diuell, by yeelding our con∣sent to the temptation, and so fall into sinne. Lastly he forget∣eth himselfe much when he saith, that it is good to be temp∣ted: for he holdeth for certaine, that the very first motions to sinne in vs (which is the beginning of the temptation) are mortall sinnes; and so by himselfe, it is good to fall into mortall sinne, if it be good we should be tempted.