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.

I might send the Reader, saith M. Bishop, vnto the first chapter of this booke for the answer, and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found. But touching the reall presence, M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect; that Christ brake that which he tooke, and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body, and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake; it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe, and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only, and not himselfe. To answer this M. Bishop wee

see is somewhat hardly bestead, and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them. Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ. In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what, and and cannot tell what to say. The Euangelists and the Apo∣stle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking; but he saith that Christ first brake and then bles∣sed. He saith that it was bread which Christ brake, but if it were bread which Christ brake, then what is it which the Priest breaketh? If it be bread, then there is no tran∣substantiation. If it be not bread, then he swarueth from Christs institution. Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration; but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration. How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together? All this it see∣meth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged. But let him reconcile these differences, and then send vs a more perfect answer; other∣wise we must hold him for a simple man that could not a∣uoid such a simple ouerthrow.