The Lord B^ps. Answer.

AND I denie (Right Ho­nourable) that you have taken any just excep­tion [Page 2] to either of Both. But before I can procede, I shall crave a dou­ble Courtesie of your Lordship, one is, that since our greatest con­tention will be about Figurative speeches of Christ, concerning his words of Institution of the Sacra­ment of his Body and Blood; I may have the liberty to use and practise a Figure called [...], by only altering your Method: sa­tisfying, in the first place, your Ex­ceptions against the Allegations; and, afterwards, to give you an accompt, for the Acerbity of the Style. Because every Reader (I sup­pose) will rather affect materiall discussions, than verball skirma­ges; and more especially, for that it will much more concerne me, to defend my Integrity, in cyting [Page 3] my Authors, than to secure my Discretion, touching any Aberra­tion in Style: for as much as every act of discretion dependeth upon seaven severall Circumstances, wherein the breach of any one is accompted a full forfeiting of that which we call Prudence, and di­scretion. In the second place, I in­treat leave (in the first part of this Discharge) to leave your Lo^pp:, that I may combate with your Suggestor, because I shall be con­strained, sometime, to make him know himselfe. Thus much be­ing obtained, let us Two goe about our busines, He to his Ob­jections, and I to my Retorsions.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

CAll you this a Reply? As much as to say, No Catho­lique ever held that there was [Page 15] no Trope in that Parable, The Sower went out to sow his seed, with an &c. Therefore, in this sentence of Christ, there was no other Trope implied in the word &c. as namely, way-side, stony, and thorny ground, & the like. If your Suggester have no better skill to avoid his first foule blot of falshood, his game is desperate. Let mee pose him; either hee, in his first Exception against that sentence, knew that &c. to im­ply other words following, or else hee held that it did not referre the Reader to the other words following in the speech of Christ. If hee held that the &c. did imply the words following, why then did hee conceale it? if hee thought it did not, why did hee not confute it? the first of [Page 16] these bewrayeth his fraud, the o­ther his folly. And this his wil­full defence of his witlesse errour argueth his Obstinacie.

The Lord B^ps. Answer.

NAy, but if your L^p: had not consulted rather with this Suggester (peradven­ture your Ghostly Father) than with the Holy Ghost, you might have discerned two notable Vn­truths in this second Evasion, the Holy Ghost it selfe in Scripture being Iudge. Because, first, in the Gospell, penned by the holy Ghost, there is a prescript forme set downe of the Lords Prayer, [Page 18] whereof your L^p: chancing to speake, saying, There be divers Petitions therein, as for example, Hallowed be thy name, [&c] your Suggester, at the first hearing hereof, admonisheth you, saying, My Lord, your L^p: hath lost most of the petitions in your Pater No­ster, because you have added an [&c.] to a full period of a speech, which carrieth a full sense in it selfe: and thereby have you alter­ed the sense of the holy Ghost. Would your L^p: admit of such a Critick, and not reject him as a senslesse depraver of the sense of the holy Ghost?

His second Errour is, to think that the period of Christs speech [This is my bodie] must necessarily be fixed at the word Bodie: when [Page 19] as notwithstanding the Relation, used by the Euangelist S. Luke, the Scribe of the holy Ghost, is other­wise; Luc. 22. 19. This is my Body giuen for you. Doe this in remembrance of mee. You see where the period is sett, and that the word, Given, is inclosed within the list: which word, Given, is afterward confes­sed to be Tropicall; and therefore overthroweth your conceit of a Literall sense quite, as if no figu­ratiue word could be impailed within the Periodicall Sentence of Christ.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

THis is as truly false, as were the former, for Bellarmine denies that there are Tropes, not onely in these words [This is my body.] but also in these other, [Given] and [Shed] as your Sug­gester knew to have beene cited by mee. Booke 6. Pag. 4. which maketh this his Errour to be a wilfull falsity.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

ANd justly are you turned o­ver to that [&c.] yet not as to a Construction, which any can call hidden, that shall not suf­fer himselfe to be blind-folded by your Suggester, who here againe doubleth his falshood, saying, that I alleaged those sixe Tropes, [Page 22] confessed by Romish Authors to be in eisdē, that is, in the same Foure words of Christ [This is my body] simply; whereas hee knoweth, and even now hath acknow­ledged, that it was in eisdem, that is, in the same words of Christ, [This is my body, &c.] therefore not simply, but with an &c. Where­by his wilfulnesse of Falsifying is further detected.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

HEre are but two Vntruths in this one Evasion, but I must needs say they are lowd and lewd ones; first, to tell mee that I have not proved any one Romish writer to have con­fessed any one Trope in these words of Christ, [This is my body.] The second is, that I my selfe have not confessed any Trope in them. What not my selfe, S^r Sug­gester? blush you not, who have read the Booke 2. Pag. 72. Where, in the first Section, there is a [Page 24] proofe specified in this speech of Christ [This is my body] in two words, the Pronoune [This,] and the Verbe [Is.] And divers pages following are spent wholly in proofe of both.

His other Assertion is, that no Catholike (meaning, Romish Wri­ter) hath beene alleaged to con­fesse any Trope or figure in these words of Christ, [This is my body.] So he, although knowing right well, that I produced (Booke 2. pag. 88.) your Romish Glosse, authorized by Pope Greg. 13. (which therefore ought to be of equall estimation with many Romish Doctors put together) which Glosse saith: This Sacra­ment is called the body and blood of Christ improperly, so that the sense [Page 25] is, This signifieth Christs Body. Which is the proper and expresse language of us Protestants. Be­sides, in the Booke 2. pag. 78. the Title of a Section is this: That the Pronoune, [This] in these words [This is my Body,] is Tropicall; which I proved out of your Ro­mish Doctors, by an Induction of the divers senses of the word, This: which, whether it demon­strated Bread, or Body of Christ, or Individuum vagum, yet every way is the sense improper and figura­tive. In the first, by the Confessi­ons of Doctors on all sides. In the second, by the confession of divers Romanists, which called that Sense Absurd. In the third, by other Romish Authors, who condemne this, as being full of [Page 26] Absurdities. And all were discus­sed at large in my Booke 2. cap. 1. & 2. in five full leaves; yet your Suggester shameth not to deny all this. It may be your Lordship is, by this time, ashamed of your Proctor.

The Lo: B^ps. Answer.

IT seemeth strange to this my Adversary, that I have contra­dicted my selfe. Is not this kindly spoken, and to my credit? But to the matter. I thinke it not strange in him, who hath beene deprehended in so many falsities already, that He should not deale ingenuously in this. For in my Booke, writing professedly upon the words of Consecration, I proved exactly out, of the Confession of the Arch-bishop of Caesarea, that those words [This is my Body] are not properly the words of Con­secration: But in my Letters to your Lordship, speaking but obi­tèr of them, I called them Words [Page 29] of Consecration, by that liberty of Schooles, Dato & non concesso; than which what kinde of speech can be more familiar among men? One is to pay unto your Lordship twenty pounds, and in tendering the payment unto you, saith, There is here (my Lord) sixteen pounds in silver, & foure pounds in good gold: upon tryall, the gold is found to be counterfait, yet the man is instant, saying a­gaine and againe, The gold is good: and your Lordship per­ceiving his pertinacie, saith unto him, Friend, as for your good Gold, take it to your selfe, and pay me my money in silver. Now commeth your Suggester upon you, saying, This is strange my Lord; You said once that the gold [Page 30] was counterfait, and therefore re­fused it, and now you will call it good gold.

Just so dealeth your Suggester with me, Who called these words [This is my Body] words of Conse­cration, only in imitation of the Romish phrase, and not in ap­probation thereof. But of this more hereafter. Yet now what is all this to the point in question? (which is) why your Suggester did so fraudulently conceale the Particle [&c] when he made his first Exception against me? Just as if a man, being questioned for having found about him some hidden, and concealed, stolne stuffe, should by way of digressi­on turne his talk to another mat­ter, telling that it seemeth strange [Page 31] unto him that this his Examiner (the justice of Peace) had bound over to the Assizes three of the most honest men in the Parish. Whether this Evasion could satis­fie for this mans false conceale­ment of his theft, your Lord­ship may judge.

The Lo: B^ps. Answer.

BUt seeing that contrarily I have proved from the Con­fession of Romish Doctors (as you have heard already) a Trope in Eisdem, viz. the same words of Christ [This is my Body,] although other of them deny to admit any Trope therein, there­fore have not I unjustly imputed a Vertigo, or spirit of giddinesse un­to [Page 33] them. But your Suggester (as one transported with a worse spirit of falsity) denyeth that I had proved a confessed Trope in Eis­dem, namely, in the very words in question [This is my Body:] even as he doth, in saying, If any have confessed any Trope to be in the words [Hic calix est Testamentum &c.] If any (saith he) as if this could be doubted by Any, which after­wards the Suggester himself con­fesseth to be true. What disease will you call this?

But he addeth a Reason, why I, saying that there were confessed Tropes in Christs words [This is my Body] &c. the Particle [&c.] could not imply the same; which you call your Consecrating words, [This is my Body:] because [Page 34] (good my Lo: marke his Rea­son) although they belong both to the same Sacrament, yet they belong not to the same Species. So He. Would this man (thinke you) have dealt so with the rankest begger that walketh in the streets? A poore man being asked, how many co­lours▪ he hath in his patched Cloake? Sixe, Master, saith hee, Black &c. meaning other five colours, blue, white, russett, red, greene. Soft man, saith your Sug­gester, that [&c.] (or, so forth) could not imply those other co­lours, after spoken of, because they differ in Specie, that is, are colours of divers sorts. Witlesse!

The Lo: B^ps. Answer.

THere are three patches in this last peece of this the Suggesters Reply, which I will deliver distinctly. The first is in saying, that Romish Writers may perhaps cōfesse that in strict Con­struction [Page 36] there may be some Trope in [Hic calix est novum Testamentum in sanguine meo: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood;] although he knew that in my Treatise (Book 2. pag. 87.) I proved that these two words, Cup, and Testament, are to be improperly and Tropi­cally understood, by the Confessi­on (first) of your learned Bishop Iansenius: These words, Cup, and, Te­stament (saith he) cannot be proper­ly taken in that speech of Christ [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood;] whether the Cup be taken for the ves­sell used for drinking, which was a temporall thing, and therefore could not be the Testament of Christ, which is aeternall: or else whether it be taken for the matter in the Cup, for it being the Cup of the new Testament, could [Page 37] not be the Blood it selfe; So he. Next was the Confession of the Ies: Sal­meron (in the same page) The Cup being taken for the thing contained in the Cup: and, Testament, for the Le­gacie given by Testament. To whom was added the Ies: Barra­dius, confessing that, In the word, Testament, there is a Figure.

All these were then, in your Suggesters knowledge, most cer­taine; and yet he now, playing the Lame Giles, commeth here hal­ting in, saying, Perhaps some of our Chatholikes confessed, in a strict con­struction, some Trope. There may bee some Trope in these words. Againe, you may marke how gingerly he treadeth his Maze; he admitteth that they Confesse Some Trope, he saith not some Tropes, although [Page 38] Three Tropes were confessed therein; and that not onely in a strict Construction, as hee would have it, but upon a necessary Ex­planation. Will your Lordship bee pleased to put him in minde of his so many and manifest Col­lusions.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

YOur L^p: perceiveth right well, what is exacted of mee: be as willing (I pray you) to heare what I answer; (namely) first, if I have not pro­ved a Figurative sense in both these speeches of Christ, viz. [This is my body: and, This is my blood:] Next, if I furthermore have not shewne the sixe Tropes, now in question, to be found by the confession of Romish Doctors in the other words of Christs Institution, then let mee be held utterly unable, [Page 45] and unworthy to give your L^p: any Satisfaction. Proceed wee to the tryall.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

YOur Suggester knew, doubtlesse, it was to good purpose, to prove that there were divers Tropes in other words of Christs Institution, be­sides these Two, which you call [Page 46] Consecratory, which are [This is my body, and, This is my blood,] even because they directly repulse the Answer of your great Achilles Card: Bellarmine; who, for de­fending these now-mentioned speeches of Christ, [This is my bo­dy, and, This is my blood] from be­ing Tropicall, maintained that all speeches Testamentary, Doctrinall, and of Command, and Precept, ought to be proper and Literall. Whereby hee could not meane onely the words, which you call Consecratory, [This is my body: This is my blood] because these are not words of Command at all, such as are, Eate yee, Drinke yee, and not­withstanding are Tropicall: and the other words, Given, Shed, are Both as Doctrinall as are your said [Page 47] Consecratory speeches of Christ, and neverthelesse confessed by your Doctors to be Tropicall. Yea and those same words, Cup, Te­stament, albeit they be both as Testamentary, as are your suppo­sed Consecratory sayings of Christ, are yet also judged by Them to be Tropicall. All these were pro­ved, Booke. 2. Pag. 96. whereby your Cardinals defence is utter­ly overthrowne, as you know; yet dares your Suggester face it out, saying, that This is to no pur­pose.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

IF this could be a Satisfaction to your Suggester, then might he have beene twice satisfied alrea­dy, [Page 49] out of the Booke 2. pag. 72. where the Title of the Sect: is set downe in these words; That a figurative sense is in these words of Christ, [This is my body:] from the Principles of Romish Schooles. Which was also performed, by proving a figure in the Pronoune, This, in the same speech of Christ [THIS is my body:] which word, This, (by confession on both sides) must relate either to Christs body, or to a common substance, cal­led Individuum vagum, or else to the word Bread. But, by the con­fession of your owne Doctors, the Pronoune, This, could not properly demonstrate Christs bo­dy, because (by your Romish Do­ctrine) Christs body, at the pro­nunciation of the word, This, [Page 50] was not yet present in the Sacra­ment. Neither could it properly betoken your Individuum vagum, or confused substance, because (by the confession of Others) that sense is full of absurdities. Lastly, if it should betoken Bread, as to say, This bread is my body, then (say they, with unanimous voices) it is im­possible not to be Tropicall; even as well as when it is said, This Egge is a stone, or, This man is an Asse.

Which point may be more Emphatically confirmed by the other words, which you call Con­secratory, [This is my blood:] where the Pronoune, This, relateth to the Cup, wheresoever that speech of Christ is recorded in Scripture, Matt. 26. 27. and Mar. 14. thus [He [Page 51] tooke the Cup and gave It (the Cup) to them, saying, Drinke ye all of This, (viz. Cup) for This (namely still, Cup) is my blood. And Luke cap. 22. and S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11. rehearse Christs words thus: [This Cup is the new Testament in my blood.] So that the word, This, pointeth out alwaies the Cup. But the Cup cannot properly be called Christs blood, nor possibly be changed in­to his Blood, as all the world of Divines have alwaies confessed.

Our second Proofe was foun­ded upon your Churches Con­fession, in her publique and pri­viledged Glosse, expresly saying, that these words [This is my body] are improperly taken, meaning, This signifieth my body, as was set down Booke 2. pag. 88. Now that your [Page 52] Suggester should here desire of mee to be satisfied, by letters, in that which formerly he recei­ved in print; it argueth either a cheating Concealment of that proofe, or else a doggish appe­tite, which will never be satis­fied.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

SVarez only? I will not bee so unmannerly as to tell your Suggester that this is One lie, but sure I am it is as evident an Untruth as could be uttered: be­cause in the objected place, (Book 2. pag. 196.) when Suarez is ci­ted, he is alleaged as a Contest, both he himselfe confessing that [Page 163] Christ, as hee is said to bee in this Sacrament, is voide of sense, &c. and testifying of other Doctors of your Church, saying; (in the Margin) Alii, & Nonnulli; and by name reckoneth among those O­thers, Thomas Aquinas, your Ange­licall Doctor (to whom he might have added Scotus.) And there­fore was not your Ies. Suarez the only witnesse, no more then the fore-man of a Jury may be said to be Alone, when hee giveth in his Verdict in the name of other his fellowes, bee they eleaven, or more. Therefore this last part of your Suggester his Exception, which concerneth the Authors words, is (as you see) most false; and as faithlesse will he be found in his Exception against the sense [Page 164] of the words of the same Iesuite.

The Lo: B^ps. Answer.

SUrely then have I beene ex­ceedingly to blame; but then shall I beleeve you, when you shall shew it.

The Lo: B^ps. Answer.

SVarez meant (saith hee) that the body of Christ, in this Sacrament, is destitute of these foresaid faculties, as natural­ly considered: which I confesse to [Page 166] be truely affirmed by your Sug­gester. And this being true, I fur­thermore affirme, that he hath as falsely accused me to have allea­ged Suarez his words in a far dif­ferent sense: for, I delivered the very same sense of your Suggester in his owne expresse words thrice, thus; No power naturally, of himselfe, to move himselfe: No natu­rall faculty of sense, without a Mira­cle, to move and see. Not able with­out some Miracle, to apprehend things past in his understanding. And so are to be expounded his words objected, Potest per se moveri locali­tèr à Deo: (adding, which your Suggester like a slie youth passed by) Loquor de potentia Dei absoluta, I speake (saith he) of the absolute power of God; signifying that al­although [Page 167] by his Divine power hee could, yet by his humane and na­turall power hee could not move himselfe, or see, or heare, or under­stand things past. Which I called then a Brutish (I might have ad­ded a Brain-sicke and impious) Doctrine, derogating from the Article of Christian faith, concer­ning the glorified Body of Christ. What more?

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

IF it follow not that he, who naturally, and without a mira­culous power, cannot possibly see, heare, or feele, is therefore to be said to be naturally dumbe, deafe, and senselesse, then may he as well deny, that either Bartimaeus, whose eyes Christ miraculously opened, had beene blinde; or hee in the Gospell, to whom Christ restored miraculously his hearing had beene deafe; or that Lazarus, when hee was miraculously rai­sed [Page 169] out of his Grave, had beene so long senselesse, who naturally, and without a miracle, had not seene, heard, or used any faculty of Sense. Which proveth your Sug­gester, in his objection, to be, in­deed, void of common sense, as well as hee is in that which fol­loweth.

Christs body (saith hee) walked miraculously on the water: and passed through the doores of the house, yet for all that could not be said to be blinde or deafe. As much as to say, a man cannot be said to be blinde in his eyes, who hath agility in his legges to move himselfe, albe­it Blindnesse be not incident to the eyes, more then sight is to the heeles. Surely, that party is truly blinde in himselfe, who is onely [Page 170] miraculously made to see? This did never any deny, that was in his right minde?

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

ASsuredly; my Lord, neither can I be satisfied, when I heare so absurd a Contradi­ction as this is; no more than I can be satisfied with the impu­dent boldnesse of your Suggester, in putting this grosse contradicti­on upon mee. For your Romish Church holdeth both that Christ, as hee is in the Sacrament, is sens­lesse (as was proved out of the place now objected out of my booke concerning the Masse:) and the same Church ofTrea­tise of the Masse, Book 4. pag. 196. and Booke 7. pag. 100. Rome also prescribeth a manner of pray­ing to the same Host. She then is the Author of this contradiction, whatsoever it be, and you kisse, [Page 172] and adore her; I am but onely a true Relater, and I must be buffet­ted. Say, my Lord, where is the vertigo now?

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

I Must againe necessarily com­plaine both of the ignorance and malignity, which your Suggester bewrayes in this Exce­ption. For, first, none but an Ig­norant would have objected a Contradictiō in these two Posi­tions, because they were spoken in a different respect. For speaking of an ordinary Case, I said (and truly) that the Sacrament ought to be consecrated by a lawfull Minister: [Page 174] but in an extraordinary Case, wherein it is not possible to un­derstand the lawfull Calling and ordination of the Minister, it is otherwise. And this sense I suffi­ciently explicated (Booke 7. pag. 117.) by calling this second, a Case perplexed, and Indeprehensible. In which difference of Respects, I may say of King Saul, that he was, and was not a Prophet. Because if the word, Prophet, be taken for one, whose ordinary office and function is to prophesie, so was Saul never accounted a Prophet. But if, by Prophet, be understood onely an extraordinary Rapt and Act of Prophesying, so is it true which is written of him, And Saul was reckoned among the Pro­phets. Next, the scope and ayme [Page 175] of the Suggester is (as he hath pro­fessed) to charge mee with wrong Allegations of my Authors, yet he saw no more in this, but (as his imagination seduced him) a Con­tradiction only to my selfe; which discovereth a maligne itch to have made mee a Falsificator like him­selfe, but this his humour is He­ctick in him, and breaketh further out in his next Exception.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

IN alleaging the sentence of Bel­larmine, I went no further then Bellarmine his owne words, set downe in the place objected (Booke 1. pag. 4.) saying, Mix­ture of water is not of the essence of the Sacrament. As for the words following, to say of this, that it is Indifferent, was mine owne words, and no part of the Allega­tion, as the divers Character of writing, which is different from the other, doth manifestly declare: which being also but spoken obiter, to meet with some Refra­ctory spirits among our selves, who thinke nothing Indifferent, which was used of Christ, & not [Page 178] in any opposition to any Romish Doctrine, deserveth not your Suggesters exception against it. Otherwise I might easily have confuted your Romish Tenet, by proving that nothing can be just­ly denyed to be of the Essence of a Sacrament, which is a materiall part thereof. And I could have confirmed mine owne Assumpti­on, by proving it to be Indifferent, in respect of Christs Institution, as (God willing) the second Editi­on will shew; when I shall have occasion to thank your Suggester for drawing mee into a further Consideration of this point, oc­casioning mee to finde a Testi­mony in Bellar: which wil utterly condemne all your Ten Romish Transgressions, discovered in the [Page 179] first Booke. In the interim, your owne Romish Interpreter of the Romish Masse may stay your appetite a while. He plain­ly telleth you, thatBarthol. Gaventius Cōment. in Rubri­cas Missa­lis Brevia­rii Roma­ni in Ru­brica [Sit admixta a­qua.] Misce­re aquam vino (in­quit) est de praecepto Ecclesiae tantū. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. And he citeth also Suares. See B [...]rth▪ also part. 3. tit. 4 pa. 142. lib. Mis­salis. The mixing of water with wine, in this Sacrament, is commanded onely by the Church; al­leaging his Authority, for so say­ing. And none of your Doctors will deny, but that whatsoever Ceremony is commanded onely by the Church, the same is in its owne nature Indifferent.

The Lord B^ps. Answer.

IT is very true, that Booke 1. pag. 43. the Title of the Sect. is this, viz. Proving the Precept of Christ, [Page 182] for the use of both kindes, to all law­full Communicants: which in the same Sect. I seeke to make good, first by proving those words of Christ [Do this,] whether they be spoken of the Bread, or of the Cup, to be words of Precept: and for proofe hereof I referre the Reader, in the Margin, to Booke 1. pag. 6. where your Iesuites and others expound the words [Do this] to be words of Precept. Whats wrong now? Marry your Suggester imagineth that I would perswade you, that I meant here­by to prove, that all the Testimo­nies (which I alleaged p. 43.) ac­knowledged that Christ had given a Precept, for all Communicants, as well Laicks as Ecclesiasticks, to participate of both kindes, which is [Page 183] notoriously false, as the objected place it selfe doth make manifest in these expresse words; [Do this] spoken of the Bread, and [Do this as of­ten] spoken of the wine, are words of Command: but of what? this is our next Inquisition.

So then our first Inquisition was onely to determine, that by those testimonies of Bellar: and of others, the words [Do this] con­cerning either kinde, are words of Command; but whether they commanded both kindes to all per­sons, or no, it distinctly belonged to the second Inquisition, and was performed in the same Sect. after­wards, in confutation of Bellarm▪ his third Evasion. And certainly except some strong intoxication had possessed your Suggesters [Page 184] braine, he could never have quar­relled so vainly: and that more especially, because supposing that I had promised to have proved the words [Do this] to be confes­sed by the Romish Doctors, to teach a Command for the use of both kindes, as well to Laicks as Priest; yet this also was justly and fully performed in the very place here objected (Booke 1. pag. 6.) where your Card. Bell: and Iesuite Barradius teach a cōmand, in be­halfe of Laicks, in the words [Do this] for the Bread. And your Card. Allen, with the Ies. Valentia main­taining the like Command in the other words [Do this] touching the Cup, for Laicks also. yet let us trie what Instances he giveth for colour of his former exception.

The Lo: B^ps Answer.

SUrely, friend Suggester, this can be no argument of any great learning in you, that you will [Page 186] have it knowne, that you know the word, Sacerdotes, to signifie Priests & not the Lay-people, w^ch e­very Accedentiarie boy in schooles knoweth as well as you. But your minde is to prove, that Bar­radius his Testimonie was falsely cited, namely for proofe, that Laicks aswell as Ecclesiasticks are commanded to Communicate in both kindes, by vertue of that Com­mand of Christ, in saying of both [Doe this:] which I have shewed to be your vast Untruth, as both the reference proveth (pag. 43.) which is only to prove that the words [Doe this] are Commandato­rie; as also the place, whereunto the Reference is made, (pag. 6.) confirmeth, where Barradius, speaking of Christs words, con­cerning [Page 187] the Bread, said, [Doe this] is spoken Commandatorily. your next Instance will bee as impertinent.

The Lo. B^ps Answer.

IF the Divell himselfe should winnow me, by his examinati­on in this point, he could not finde any fault either of Commis­sion, or Omission, in my citing [Page 189] the words of Bellarmine. And this would Bellarmine his Ghost tell this your Suggester, if it should appeare unto him, saying: Sir, My Adversary (the Bishop) hath not mistaken my meaning, but you his, who intending no­thing else (pag. 4.) than to prove that the words of Christ, in say­ing [Doe this as often &c.] are also words of Command, and I affir­med as much. As for the other part, concerning the Cup, and the words which you say he omitted (Sub specie autem vini non jussisse, that is, Christ did not likewise com­mād concerning the Cup;) you could not inferre that he omitted the ef­fectuall part of his proofe: for his proofe was onely to shew that [Doe this] were words of Command [Page 190] whether wee understand [Doe this] spoken of the Bread, or [Doe this as often as &c.] spoken of the Cup, both which are words of Command (as every man of com­mon sense will confesse;) al­though Non item (as I said) not to Command alike, because [Doe this,] spoken of the Bread, I said were simply words of Command. But [Doe this as often &c.] spoken of the Cup, although they were words of command, yet not simply so, but conditionally only, as thus, [Doe this, as often as you doe it, in remem­brance of mee.] And (friend Sug­gester) you must further know that he was so farre from omit­ting my Objection against Pro­testants, touching Christs condi­tionall speech [Doe this, as often as [Page 191] you shall doe it, in remembrance of me] that (which you conningly for­beare to acknowledge) hee did fully confute (in the same Sect. pag. 45.) that which you now object against him.

So would Bellarmine have told your Suggester, whom I must further challenge for a double fault. First, for his charging mee falsely, with a fraudulent omissi­on of words, when there was no cause at all to cite them. Secondly, for that he himselfe omitted my Confutation of Bellarmine, when it served directly for my justifica­tion.

The Lo: B^ps Answer, justifi­ing himself in all his other Proofes, even by the Exceptions now taken against him.

IT were to bee wished, your Lordship had sought satisfa­ction in Charity; but they, that [Page 193] can discerne of Qualities, will say that there is a great Gulfe between Charity and Malignity. The one seeketh the reformation of him, whom he impeacheth, the other worketh, as much as may be, his ignominie and blemishment; which was your Ayme (my Lord) in all your Exceptions, which notwithstanding may in some sort plead for mee. For were it, they were Five, or if you will five times five, Errors com­mitted in the number of two thousand other Testimonies, sin­cerely alleaged, shall not the Ex­ceptions against so few be an ap­probation of all the rest? and if so; what then must become of your Romish Church, in her Masse, but that (as the seaventh [Page 194] Booke of that Treatise proveth) it is to bee counted a vile Brothel­house of Superstition and Idola­trie?

My Lord, I should proceed to the second Charge, but I give you to wit, that I am now arre­sted in the way, by a Romish Priest: I shall make a present di­spatch with him; onely be you pleased to afford me your pre­sence, for the time, and judge what discharge I can make. Feare not (my Lord) I shall not desire any to be Surety for me.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

IT may seeme somewhat strange, that your Lordship, having as it were surfeited of [Page 226] the bitternesse of the Stile, should complaine, notwithstanding, that you are not satisfied. But you re­quire that I should discharge my selfe of this your Taxation of Bit­ternesse. Before I answer, I must aske, whether you except against any one Bitter word, as unjustly applied to your Romish Doctors? Surely I find not one, and so it must follow, that you quarrell a just Bitternesse. Or is it because the words are Vnseemely? Then I take my answer from Philip King of Macedon, who when Lasthenes and Olympius, with their Compli­ces, complained unto him, that they had beene called Traytors, by some of his Subjects; made them this answer: My Macedoni­ans (quoth he) are but Rustiques, [Page 227] who can call a Spade by no other name than a Spade. As well may I say, the Bitternesse of my Stile, was Plainnesse, not Calumnious­nesse; but what's that, you are about to object?

The Lord B^ps Answer.

THis Observation is in deed of very great importance, whereby you may seeme to deserve praise and thankes of the Protestants, for this ingenuous acknowledgement, (to wit) that although Protestants charge the Romish Church with Sacrilegious and Idolatrous Abominations, (up­on reasons, which your Lordship hath read in the eighth booke of the Treatise of the Masse, in two full Sections) yet Card. Bellarmine, Reynolds, Parsons, Campian, and Others, never charge the Prote­stants with any Sacrilegious and Idolatrous profanation at all. [Page 229] Which their Silence (as once I said) as it is an argument of their owne Guiltinesse, so may it bee a proofe of our Integrity: otherwise wee our selves should not deny, but that if they could justly im­pute any such Idolatrous impiety unto us, they might as justly call our Church, in that respect, Strum­pet and Whore (every Idolatry be­ing a spirituall Adultery) as well as did the holyEzech. ch. 16. & chap. 23. Ose Chap. 3. Prophets use the same Bitter termes against Iuda and Israel in the same respect; yet with mouthes sanctified by the holy Spirit of God. And I cannot make my selfe more perfect than were the Prophets of God.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

IN the place, now quoted, I promised a Discovery of Crimes, which I laid to the charge of Romish Writers, and in the Section it selfe I performed as much. For, their preferring a Cu­stome in your Church, which (as they confesse) Worketh lesse grace to the soules of Christian men, be­fore a Custome of Christ and his [Page 231] Apostles, confessed to operate more grace; I termed an Odious Vncha­ritablenesse. Their open and pro­fessed extolling of the Wisdome of the Romish Church, above the Wis­dome of the Apostles, and the Pra­ctice of the most Primitive Church universall, as well Greeke as Ro­mane, I called an Intolerable Arro­gance. Their swearing to admit all Apostolicall Traditions, and yet to reject some, I named vile Perju­ry (whereof there is a full Section in the eighth Booke.) Their ad­vancing, in point of Antiquity, their Custome of Three, or at most Foure hundred yeares old, above the contrary Custome, before that, for above a Thousand yeares, even to the dayes of Christ and his Apostles, I judged to bee plaine [Page 232] Madnesse. And lastly, your Iesuites allowing a power to your Pope, to dispense with the divine Law of God, I held to be Blasphemie it selfe.

All these Points were truly discovered, and now my Style is challenged of Bitternesse by you. Who perceiving the Proofes, whereby I made evident such Doctrines to be Sacrilegious, Ido­latrous, &c. are you more offen­ded with me, for calling them so, than with them for making them such? Say now, upon your second thoughts, is this a conscionable Taxation, my Lord? I would gladly have learned what termes your Lordship would have sup­plied in this case? would it have pleased you that I had called Vn­charitablenesse [Page 233] amiable; the Arro­gancy tolerable; the Perjury no­ble? So indeed doe they, who masque the visages of Sins with the vizard of Virtues; calling Drunkennesse, Good-fellowship; Pride, comelinesse; Rage, valour; Bribery, gratification; a society of promiscuous lust, the family of love. Not I, my Lord, I leave that faculty to them, who can delight in transformed Devils.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

THe matter was this, (but you will bee loath to heare it.) Your Romish Histori­ans reckon up some Thirteene Miraculous Apparitions of true flesh, and true blood seene (as they say) in the Eucharist; and of the Sepa­ration of one from the other, the Blood being shed, and dropping out, and the like. To these I oppose your Romish Theologues and Divines, confuting such kinde of Relations by good and solid Rea­sons; saying that in such Appari­tions there could not be true flesh: and others denying absolutely that Christs blood can bee properly said to be shed out of his Body, after [Page 235] his Resurrection, as you have heard in the first part of this Dis­charge. Hereupon I came to con­clude saying; If therefore credit may be given to your judicious Di­vines, then are, and were the Authors of those Apparitions flat Liars, their Reporters incredible Writers, and their Beleevers stark Fooles. What have I here said, which your Di­vines (who have avouched as much as I alleaged) will not ju­stifie in condemnation of such Delusions? Only I called the Hi­storians, because of their indiscre­tion, (metaphorically) Vncleane Beasts, accordingly as ancient Fa­thers haue done the Beleevers of Fables. And did I not contrarily call your Divines, by way of commendation, Cleane Beasts [Page 236] that can chew the Cud? that is, dis­cerne Truth from falshood, as likewise the holy Fathers have taught; in which respect (as you see) I named them also Iudicious Divines. I demand therefore why your Lordship should bee more displeased with mee, for calling those Historians Liars, and their Beleevers Fooles, than with your owne learned Divines, who proved them to be such? True zeale and jealousie for God would hate all feinings of Mira­cles, as the worst kinde of Lying, being indeed the counterfeiting of the Seales of God Almighty; and whereby the Transgressor becommeth guilty of highest Treason.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

NEver shall I seeke to discou­rage your Lordship from any good indevour, how­soever [Page 238] you may dissent from that which I thinke. But I must con­fesse that I wish you had knowne what you did, when you writ thus: for the proofe which I brought, to make them appeare to bee such, was not mine, but the Confessions of your owne Ro­mish Authors. And had it not beene better for you Suavitâr cu­rasse cutem, in quiet silence, than to have become so unjustly taxa­tious, and put your selfe upon so desperate an enterprise?

The Lord B^ps Answer.

PEruse the rest, I pray you, and when you have done, I shall desire you to set them downe expresly, and so I am sure the intelligent Reader will find, that you had as much Reason to conceale these, as you had little Cause to reveale the former.

I adde, that your Lordship after your much raking, sifting, and winnowing of the parts of the eight Bookes of that Treatise of the Masse, have found but onely five sowre Grapes, which hath set your teeth on edge, and are an­gry therewith, albeit you met [Page 240] with five hundred other Passa­ges, wherein I, having the like occasion to use vexatious, and stinging termes, yet forbare, and blunted the style of my Pen. What shall I say in this case, my Lord? Onely I say as the Apostle said unto such Partialists, You will forgive me this wrong.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

HEre are two as odde and uncouth Instructions, as I have heard of. The first is, that no Writer may use Bitter speeches against a Crime, which he, in his owne judgement, dee­meth may deserve such Bitter­nesse: so that it must bee a Crime, now, to name a crime: to see one reeling in the street, and after wallowing in his owne vomit, and to call him Drunkard; to heare one swearing outragiously, and to say he is Profane; to know one lead a lewd & filthie life, and to cōdemne him of Iasciviousnesse.

[Page 242] The second Advice is, that no Person of Eminence ought to cen­sure Any publikely with Termes of Bitternesse, in case of an High Article of Faith. This would make well for Arians, Pelagians, yea and Atheists themselves, if in denying of one, or other, or all Articles of Faith, they should not bee there­fore censured, according to their deserved appellations; both cha­ritably, to reduce them from er­ring, yea and seemely too, because there is no better Seemlinesse, than Congruity, as of manners, so of words. And this is, when Epithets are sutable to the things and per­sons of whom we speake. S. Paul was a person of great Eminence, and so was Peter also, yet Paul re­prehended Peter to his Face, for [Page 243] that, which if it had not beene re­formed, might occasionally have brought in schisme into the Church, and errour in the Faith of Some.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

CHrist was not onely Mitis, but even ipsa Mansuetudo; and to his faithfull peni­tents, Propitiation it selfe; notwith­standing hee called the Pharisees Blinde, the malicious Iewes hee termed Children of the Devill; Pe­ter (for tempting him) Satan; and Iudas (because of his obduration of heart in sinning) a Devill. The woman, deprehended in adulte­ry, he indeed called not Strumpet, for shee carried her name printed in her forehead, (being [...]) Shee was taken in adultery. If then he had named her so, had it beene [Page 245] an Epithet either Vncharitable, or Vnseeemely, as you have preten­ded? So should you have blasphe­mously condemned the Law of God, Deut. 22. 12. the Prophets, Ezech. 16. Ose 3. The Apostles, Rom. 7. 3. and S. Iames 4 4. yea and Christ himselfe, Matth. 5. 28. Luk. 16. 18. Mary Magdalen is not cal­led in the Gospell Adultresse, it is true, but yet worse, A woman in the City a sinner, by way of Aggra­vation (namely) such a Sinner, in that trade of sinning, that there was not another in the whole Ci­ty comparable unto her, as your owne Commentaries will tell you. Yea and S. Paul, who himselfe would not answer the Reviler with Reviling, yet held it a part of Christian justice to denomi­nate [Page 246] wicked men by their owne vices, naming the Galathians, Foo­lish, and the Sorcerer Elymas, the Childe of the Devill.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

EXcept you had held me un­worthy to be your Teacher, you would have beene sa­tisfied with the distinction of Bitternesse, which I gave you, [Page 247] without which none shall ever be able to reconcile the speeches of the Prophets, Apostles, or of Christ himselfe. There is a Bitter­nesse (said I) Medicinall, and there is a Bitternesse pernicious and Vindi­cative. The Medicinall Bitternesse hath its' Ingredients, Truth, and Charity, used either for correcting Manners and errors in the parties reproved; or as Antidotes to others, to preserve them from Morall or Dogmaticall contagions. The Per­nicious Bitternesse I call that, which is envenomed either with Vntruth or Maliciousnesse, and is exercised onely in Virulencie, for revenge, against them whom we seeke to vexe, which is every­where condemned in Scripture.

Take unto you a Similitude. [Page 248] The Iewes, who offered Vinegar and Gall unto Christ, if they had done it (as some ghesse) to stupifie his senses, thereby to free him from extremity of paine, that Vi­negar and Gall might have reli­shed somewhat of Charity: but if it had beene done to adde unto him a greater vexation, it must needs bee judged a Iewish cru­elty. Neverthelesse, if you adde a second member of lawfull Bit­ternesse, which may bee called Iu­diciall, you shall not doe amisse; in which kinde may bee reckoned Christs Invectives, to wit, O you Scribes and Pharises, Hypocrites, and such like, by way of condem­nation. My Lord, if you would be so docible, as to take out this distinction, it would both satisfie [Page 249] you, concerning my Bitternesse, and preserve you from Blasphemy against the Speeches of Christ, and his holy Apostles.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

THe word Catholike, sim­ply taken, I never excep­ted against, (for I have [Page 250] not forgot my Creed) but against your Romish appropriation of it to your selves; to whom it be­longeth farre lesse (as I have pro­ved in the Romish Grand Impo­sture) than unto Protestants. I returne to your Exception.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

WHereunto I answe­red you by Letters, that I was ever farre [Page 251] from terming all Papists disloy­all, and I desired you to consi­der the place againe, and I doubt not but it alone will perswade your selfe, that I did not note all your Romish Professors of Dis­loyaltie, but spake restrainedly; applying my speech to them, who were inspired with the spi­rits of those Priests and Iesuites, whose Positions were in that Booke discovered to be fully Re­bellious. Thus much I then an­swered in presumption of mine owne sinceritie, having not seene that place, in that my Booke, not almost in twenty yeeres space: and yet I thinke I shall not erre in that my divina­tion, being now called to a fur­ther Reckoning.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

THanks, my Lord, that you thinke I would not argue so absurdly, or otherwise than I have done in other Cases, Rationably, I hope; Conscionably, I am sure. Ob­serve then, that the Tenth Reason there given is expresly against Romish Priests only, who were possessed with those former sedi­tious Positions therein discovered. This was the Subject of the que­stion in the same Book (Pag. 47.) confirmed by the Examples of your Doctors and Iesuites (Pag. 50.) together with the Practices of your Popes, in the place ob­jected (pag. 51.) The Conclu­sion [Page 254] was, that No Loyall Subje­ction could be expected (said I) from This Religion, (to wit) This of that rebellious doctrine of your Romish Priests and Popes there specified; and of no other. Which you might as well have seene, at the first Reading, by distinguishing the Persons to whom, from the persons against whom I writ. The former were the Romish Laicks only, whether they were of the Nobilitie, or Commonaltie, to whom the Epistle Dedicatorie was directed, whom I called seduced, because of their Popish Religion; and sought to perswade them to be­ware lest they also might be in­tangled in this other point of Ro­mish Rebelliousnesse; telling them [Page 255] that I had presented unto them that Discovery of such Doctrines of their Priests, ‘To the end that you (said I) through the detesta­tion of their (viz. Priests) Pra­ctices, might be brought to a su­spicion of their Inchantments, not doubting but when you have per­ceived the damnablenesse of their Doctrine, you will easily avoid the danger of their Charme.’ And in the end of the same Epistle (pag. 52.) immediately after the words now objected against mee, I added, saying: ‘Thus have I proved, deare Brethren, the dogmaticall doctrine of these men, (viz. Romish Priests) not confu­ting them, for this I understood was not your desire, but revealing them.’ Wherein Any, at the first [Page 256] sight, may observe that I produ­ced the Romish Laicks, as men al­together ignorant of such Rebel­lious Positions, and Practices; when I said, ‘Not doubting but when you have perceived the damnablenesse of their Doctrine:’ but what Doctrine? what but that, which was there proved to be Rebellious?

As yet therefore I held them guiltlesse, and plainly distingui­shed them, in this respect, from Romish Priests and Doctors, who were proved to be the Authors of both; and thereupon also, in the end of the same Epistle, say­ing to the foresaid Laicks; ‘Be you exhorted (my Brethren) to take this (meaning that Disco­verie) as an Antidote to preserve [Page 257] you against all such poisonable Positions and Practices,’ (viz. of Romish Priests.) Your friends (my Lord) of your owne Pro­fession, would give you small thankes, if they should see here re­hearsed the whole speech, which you use in a vouching the full in­terest that you have in your Ro­mish Priests. I chuse rather the de­fensive part for my selfe, than the offensive against you; and there­fore I expect what you can fur­ther object.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

TRue, one Act cannot bee a Religion it selfe, but yet one Position and Doctrine may. The Position of the Mani­chees, forbidding the Communi­on of the Cup in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, upon an opini­on that there is a Devillish Spirit in Wine, was but one of many of their Heresies: and yet may it bee lawfull for us to say of this one Position of theirs, This is the Re­ligion of the Manichees. And my discourse, you know, was as well of your Priests Positions, as of their Practices.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

AS fully as the Priests? God forbid! for so should they also hold the Traiterous opinions of Bellarmine, Allen, Rey­nolds, Stapleton, Creswell, and Par­sons, besides many others dete­cted in the same Booke; against which Allegations M. Parsons himselfe (a man knowne unto you for his Malignity and Ad­versenesse) [Page 260] could take no excep­tion. My Lord, be advised, peruse this your Objection againe, and then tell mee whether I have not deserved well of you, by my not rehearsing your speech to the full, by a Figure (that you may better like of Figurative speeches) [...].

The Lord B^ps Answer.

I Answer as did once our Savi­our, Doth no man condemn you? neither doe I; farre bee it from mee, that I should impeach your Loyalty, which I shall hope is that, which the Apostle S. Paul taught of a Subjection, not for feare only, but for Conscience sake also: and then may it not bee the Subjection, approved by Pope Paulus, and maintained by your Cardinall Bellarmine, and other Romish Priests, which is to bee subject with a [Donec] that is, Vntil there may be power to resist; (as you have read in that booke of Romish Rebellious Positions, where­with you are so much offended.) [Page 262] which kind of Subjection King David would have called Bru­tish, as that of the Horse and Mule; which are to bee held in with Bit and Bridle. Onely I cannot but be sensible of the Injury done unto mee, by your violent enforcing upon mee a purpose to have con­demned all Lay Romanists for being of that Religion there disco­vered and condemned, which was direct Treason.

You ought to have consulted with the College of Sorbon, and those Parisian Doctors would have taught you to distinguish even of Romish Religion: discerning ROMISH, in respect of the Ro­mish Court, from Romish, in respect of the Romish Church in generall. The first, they know, hath often [Page 263] harboured seditious documents, which they have alwayes impug­ned, for the defence and preser­vation of the Gallicane Regalities and Liberties. Besides, there are two wayes to free your Laicks from suspition of that Doctrine, which your Priests hold, and professe among themselves. The one is their owne Ignorance, in not knowing it; the other their Incredulity, in not beleeving it. I could give instance in that An­swer, which I had from an ho­nourable Personage, of knowne and experienced loyalty to his King and State, saying, that not­withstanding his much acquain­tance with Iesuites, yet they ne­ver uttered any Doctrine to him savouring of deposing of Kings, or [Page 264] disturbing of Kingdomes for Religion-sake. This, said I, as it may bee an argument of their subtilty in concealing their per­nicious Positions; so much more may it bee an evidence of your Lordships Integrity, which (as it were) commanded them silence. Secondly, the not beleeving your Priests, in such Doctrines, is the next point of security, which I will presume many of your Laicks (albeit otherwise profes­sedly of the Romish Religion) doe detest, even from the unna­turall heinousnesse thereof, as a naturall Turke or Iew would ab­horre a Parricide.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

IF you or any other have taken offence, which was not given, it cannot be my fault: I must not thinke my selfe so farre pri­vileged, as that in defending the Truth, I should not incurre the Offence of some others. Habent sua fata Libelli: and you know who expostulated, saying, Am I your Enemy because I tell you the [Page 266] Truth? Wee reade of them, who were Hearers of the Apostles of Christ, that some scorned, and some beleeved. I wish you had rather beene of this Some. But what's next?

The Lord B^ps Answer.

WHy, my Lord? could your Lordship con­ceive, that when I writ this Booke, intituled A Dis­covery of the Rebellious Positions and Practices of Romish Priests and Iesuites, that I expected or inten­ded to please any Iesuite? A Ie­suite disliketh it! and I dislike his disliking. This is yet but a Paritie. Iesuites are offended with the Dis­covery of their disloyalty, and so were, often, the Iewes with Christs discovery of their Hypo­crisie. There is a Parity in this al­also. How-ever, I stand suffici­ently armed with that Harnesse, which S. Augustine once lent [Page 268] mee; Malim ut scandalum com­mittatur, quàm ut veritas amit­tatur.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

BVt stay a while, my Lord (I pray you) and tell mee what minde you thought mee to bee of, when I writ so unto you? If you imagine that I was of any other, than I had beene, at the writing of that Booke of Discoverie, and of those words therein, whereunto you have laid your whole Battery, to oppugne them, you are much de­ceived; and that you may know I have good evidence for mee, to say thus much, and for your Lordship to be perswaded there­of, in my next Booke (written in the defence of that Booke of Dis­covery) I gave this expresse ac­knowledgement, [Page 270] ‘viz. I have writ against our Romish Adver­saries, but not without note of dif­ference and distinction; being ve­rily perswaded that Divers, even the Zealous among them, partly by light of the ingrafted Law of rea­son, and partly from some glimpse of the Gospell of Christ, doe abhor such Doctrines and Practices, which have beene discovered in cases of Rebellion and Equivo­cation.’

How like you this, my Lord? Doth this please you? Then may it satisfie you for my then-mea­ning, when I said, No loyall sub­jection can be expected from this Religion, (namely, of those Popes and Priests.) And accordingly may it remove the Scandall con­ceived [Page 271] from thence by your Lordship and Others. As for your subsequent Requests, which you make, they are no way pertinent to our discourse; I chuse rather to heare of your friendly in­clination.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

EAch of these Respects I ac­count as so many Obligati­ons upon mee, and such as deserve a Correspondence; 1. To embrace your Lordship, in the name of English. 2. To wish that I were so learned, as to give you a full satisfaction. 3. To pray to God for his spirituall benediction upon you, as I am a Bishop. 4. To tell you that the Bosome of the En­glish Church lieth open to receive you, upon your Profession of the truth of Religion, so happily esta­blished therein; which I wish may be to your eternall comfort.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

YOur Lordship should not have threatned, as think­ing to affright me with the mention of an unruly Pen▪ I have not so long borne the brunt and violence of the most enraged of all your Pen-men, as to feare in any just cause, any mans Pen, that is but made of a Goose-quill. Nor shall I seeke a Supersedeas against him that threatneth: use your dis­cretion, [Page 274] my Lord, in inciting some man of Indiscretion against mee; for such he must be, that shall be unruly in his Pen: the Proverbe is, Dementi gladium porrigere.

The Lord B^ps Answer.

WHat is then Maledi­cere, thinke you, my Lord? if you take it as opposite to Benedicere, then [Page 275] may your Romish Church as­sume this as her proper Character, shee being above all others the Mother of Cursings and Maledicti­ons. And if you take it for down­right Reviling and Railing, then may the Encounter, which I writ against M^r Parsons his scurrilous, calumnious, and bitter Inve­ctives against mee, witnesse my extreme patience and moderati­on; as in the former part of this Discharge hath already beene made manifest.