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.

If M. * 1.1 Bishop may be the expounder of M. Perkins ex∣position, we doubt not but he will make some good matter of it. M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough, and so are his words, that after our first conuerting & turning vnto God, we haue stil cause from day to day to humble our selues be∣fore God, and to begge of him remission both of temporall and eternall punishments, which by our sinnes from day to

day wee runne into. It followeth not of any thing that Master Perkins saith, that the eternall punishment being alreadie forgiuen, wee aske heere the forgiue∣nesse of some temporall punishment, but that as our sinnes are daily, so wee aske forgiuenesse daily both of the one and of the other. a 1.2 Because the offence is euery day, saith S. Austin, therefore wee haue need to haue remission euc∣ry day. Now the collection against M. Bishop is pregnant and cleere; for if to aske forgiuenesse of the sinne be to aske release of the punishment, then it followeth, that our peti∣tion being granted, there is no remainder of punishment after the forgiuenes of the sin. The ground of this collecti∣on he himselfe approoueth, saying, When wee in our Lords praier craue pardon of our debts, we confesse that we are in his debt, and that there is paiment of punishment due vnto vs, the remission whereof we then require. If then we here require the remission of punishment, I aske him, do we not require theremission of eternall punishment? What, haue wee the remission of eternall punishment without asking or pray∣ing for it? Doth Christ teach vs to begge the forgiuenesse of temporall punishment and not of eternall? Tell vs your minde plainly M. Bishop: doe not glosse the matter with a false application of M. Perkins words. A man committeth mortall sinne, and thereby incurreth eternall punishment. Hee commeth to God and humbleth himselfe and saith as Christ hath taught him: forgiue vs our trespasses. Doth he not heereby craue of God for Christs sake, the release of of that punishment? If he say, no, hee is more absurd than that Christiā eares wil giue him the hearing. If he say, yea, he is confounded in the cause, because it must then needs be granted, that the hearing of our praier is the relaxation both of temporall and eternall punishment; of temporall, by his owne confession; of eternall, by a truth which hee must confesse whether he will or no. Their opinion there∣fore is not strengthened as hee vainly pretendeth, but is

plainly ouerthrowen by the true and necessarie constructi∣on of this petition.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Temporall punishmēt re∣mitted in for∣giuenesse of sinnes.
• a 1.2

  Aug. de vera & falsa paenit. cap. 5. Quia quotidiana est effensio, oport••t vt sit quotidia∣na etiam remis∣sio.