peeces, and thinke the worst word in their bellies too good for you. This is collaterall blasphemy, blasphemy in the second table, and so it is often called in the new Testament. God, for the honour he beareth to his people, is pleased to afford the name of blasphemy to their reproaches, as importing that he taketh it as if himself were 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Thus the Israelites were, of old, called by the profane Heathens, Apellae, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as if they worshipped a golden Asse-head, and in derision of their circumcision. As afterwards they called the Primitive Christians, murtherers, Church-robbers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, traitouts to the state, &c. and if inundations, famine, or other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 calamities fell out, they presently cried, Chri∣stianos ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. So, in after-times, the Arians called the Or∣thodox 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Ambrosians, Athanasians, Homousians, what not? The Pseudo-Catholikes (speaking evil of that they knew not) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the professours of the truth by the names of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Waldenses, Huguenots, poor men of Lions, &c. Thus of old; as of late, Hereticks, New-gospellers, Puritans, all manner of evil they speak against us, but (falsely) thats our comfort; not caring what they speak, nor whereof they affirm, so they may pro∣mote their Cacolick cause, and the devils kingdom, which as it began in a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, so by lyes do they maintain it. A Frier a lyer, was anciently a sound argument in any mans mouth (saith Thomas Walsingham) tenens tàm de forma, quàm de materia. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Jesuites have wonne the whetstone from all that went before them, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and prodigious lyes and slanders. 〈◊〉〈◊〉-Jo∣annes, that demoniack, blusheth not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that these are our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and doctrins: That no God is to be worshipped; that we must shape our Religion according to the times: that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉〈◊〉: that we may make the publike cause a pretence to our pri∣vate lusts: that a man may break his word whensoever he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good, cover his hatred with fair 〈◊〉〈◊〉, confirm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by shedding innocent bloud. Salmeron the Jesuit hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the world in his Comment upon the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the Luth-rans now make fornication to be no sin at all. And a little afore the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Paris, the Monkes slanderously gave out, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 met together for no other purpose, then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (after they had fed themselves to the full) they might put out the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and go together promiscuously, as brute 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop of Au∣ranches wrote against the Congregation of Christians at Paris, defending impudently, that their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were to maintain