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.

43. W. BISHOP.

Hitherto M. Perkins hath argued against vs out of the Lords praier: now I will briefly shew how the Protestants do∣ctrine contrarieth it.

I haue in my answer to his obiections, touched some points al∣ready: I adde, that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions. I prooue it thus: In euery petion we must

be assured (as M. Perkins holdeth) or at the least haue a good hope to obtaine that wee pray for, or else it booteth vs not to pray: but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured, nay can haue any hope to obtaine the three first petiti∣ons: for if originall sin do continually dwell in vs, and infect all our actions with deadly sinne, as they teach: Gods name can∣not be sanctified in vs, that are infected with such an vnclean leprosie: neither secondly, can God raigne as a King in vs, if sinne possesse and command all our members: and thirdly, Gods will cannot bee done by vs on earth as it is done in heauen, if wee cannot keepe his lawes and commandements, which they in heauen doe: wherefore the Protestants haue no assurance to obtaine the three first petitions, who are by their teachers assured, that they are not to bee expected or hoped for: nor they cannot (according to their owne rules) from their heart make the said petitions, being out of all hope to obtaine them.