A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion, Chapter 1

A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAPTER I. Of the Objections out of the Books of Proteſtant Writers.

THe Book of this Adverſary conſiſting of ſtale Objections, which have been a thouſand times anſwered, would put me and any man that would anſwer him to the unavoidable neceſſity of ſaying over many things that were ſaid before; but that all his Objections may be reduced into one, and therefore one anſwer will ſerve for them all.

For from the beginning to the end, he objects unto us ſome paſſages out of Proteſtant Writers which ſavour of diſobedience, as he dreſſeth them, and ſome faults in that kinde of thoſe that have embraced the Proteſtant party: whence he inferreth, That both the Doctrine and the Practiſe of Reformed Religion is Rebellion. He labours eſpecially to pick faults in the firſt Reformers; p. 2but coming ſhort of his end, he quarrelleth with others that came long ſince the Reformation.

But though he had brought the Reformers to plead guilty, he hath done nothing againſt us; For to all theſe allegations we anſwer, that our Belief depends not upon the doctrine of any particular perſon or perſons, much leſs upon their actions. But that to know the true belief of our Churches, one muſt look upon their publick Confeſſions of Faith.

The Law was received by the diſpoſition of Angels, ſaith St. Steven, Act. 7. 53. and ſo was the Goſpel. But thoſe whom God uſed to draw his Church out of the abuſes of Popery were not Angels but men, whom we hold not to have been infallible. Wherefore if one alledge to the Engliſh Churches ſome hard Sayings of perſons that had a hand in the Reformation, to the Germane Churches of Luther, to the Helvetian of Zwinglius; they will anſwer, They were men. They are not the Pillars of our Faith. Since thoſe men have laid open the Holy Scripture before us which was ſhut up before, it is no more for their word that we believe, for our ſelves have ſeen the ſaving Truth of God, and upon that we are built.

But that the faults of men may not be imployed or received to give a prejudice againſt the Doctrine of God, I deſire all judicious and ſober minded to conſider, that in the midſt of the Romiſh darkneſs it was not to be expected that the ſaving light of Gods truth, and the Apoſtolical Government of the Church ſhould be diſcovered upon a ſudden by any man, completely & with all its parts. As Rome was not built in one day, no more was p. 3Sion. Many were great helpers towards the knowledge of the truth, who were themſelves very ſhort of it, and nevertheleſs ought to be reverently remembred by us for doing more then was to be expected in that Age. Such were the Waldenſes; ſuch was Wiclef, ſuch was John Hus, men too ſeverely cenſured by ſome of us as not thoroughly principled in many points of Religion. But how much truth did they diſcover? How much ſaving Doctrine did they bring forth? What laſting ſeeds of Reformation did they ſow, which lying buried for ſome Ages, ſprung forth, and had a happy growth to a greater perfection in the age of our Fathers? Truly, although the announcing of the Goſpel by the Angels be called the Day-ſpring from on high, becauſe that lightLuk. 1. 78.Luke 1:78 at Chriſts coming brake forth as it were from the Meridian, not from the Horizon, and was full at its very riſing; we are not to expect at every return of that light after a long night that there ſhall be no difference between break of Day and Noon. No; the Truth is compared2 Pet. …. …. unto a Light ſhining in a dark place untill the day dawn and the Day-Starr ariſe. In theſe laſt Ages of the world, after a long darkneſs, the Sun of Truth did riſe by little and little. It ſhone at the firſt with much fogg about it and caſt long ſhades. And we have reaſon to acknowledge with thankfulneſs and admiration, that among thoſe ſhades ſo much ſaving Light did ſhine as inlightened the underſtanding and comforted the conſcience with the myſtery of Gods reconciliation with men in Jeſus Chriſt through faith and repentance, which is the main ſubſtance of Religion. For Grace as Nature▪ begins with the noble parts, which are p. 4perfectioned long before the outward be finiſht.

Although I reverence very much the memory of thoſe that were raiſed by God to diſcover the errours of the Court of Rome, I will not juſtifie their errours, if they had any, nor all the words and writings of them that came after, and brought their Work to a greater perfection. To compaſs that great work among the higheſt contradiction, and againſt the current of cuſtome, if men of ſtout ſpirits (and there was need of ſuch) had let fall from their mouth or pen ſome leſs reverend expreſſions then duty required concerning the ſuperiour powers that oppoſed them, none needs wonder at it, and yet none needs to juſtifie it, and we are very far from it. But though they had ſpoken treaſon, it caſts no blur upon our profeſſion, which is expreſt in our publick confeſſions. Neither do we acknowledge any private man to be the warrant of our faith.

I may then ſave my labour in examining whether our Adverſary hath faithfully alledged the writings of Proteſtant Divines, and truly repreſented their opinions, ſince their opinions are not our rule. And yet ſo much we will ſay for them, that thoſe very men whoſe opinions their Adverſaries miſrepreſent unto the world, were the Writers and Compoſers of thoſe Confeſſions of Faith which were ſubſcribed unto, and acknowledged by the National Churches as the publick Declarations of their belief. Which Confeſſions are ſo full and pregnant in aſſerting the obedience of ſubjects unto their Sovereigns (as I will demonſtrate, God willing, in the third Chapter of this Treatiſe) that the greateſt Adverſaries find little to ſay againſt it. And our Adverſary (to whom his Party p. 5owes this commendation, that he hath carefully collected and epitomized all the objections made againſt us about the point of Obedience) paſſeth by our Confeſſions of faith as being without the reach of his exceptions. OnelyOnly he nibbleth a little at the 39. Article of the French Confeſſion, which is this; We affirm that Laws are to be obeyed, tributes to be paid, and the yoke of ſubjection to be born, although the Magiſtrates be infidels. Thus far excellent well, ſaith the Adverſary, but that which follows ſpoils all in his opinion. The Sovereign Empire of God remaining alwaies entire, Why? here is a gallant latitude (ſaith he) for diſobedience and rebellion. But no ſuch latitude is left by the Article. All that good reaſon can infer out of it, is, that we muſt obey the Magiſtrates as long as we may do it without diſobeying God. There is great difference between not obeying and rebelling.

I ſee nothing elſe bearing the ſtamp of publick conſent of any National Church among Proteſtants that this man excepts againſt in the point of obedience. For his invective againſt the Geneva Bible, is a wilfull miſtake. Some Engliſh exiles at Geneva printed there a Bible; An Edition juſtly diſcredited by a Note in the Margin, 2 Chron. 5. 16. upon that Aſa put by his mother Maacha from the government for her idolatry. And the annotation ſaith, that he ſhould not onelyonly have depoſed her, but killed her. Which impious Paradox this Gentleman imputeth to the whole Congregation of thoſe Proteſtants of integrity, as he calls us, becauſe, ſaith he, their holy Geneva Bible is admitted by their whole Kirk; which we deny. No Engliſh Tranſlation of the Bible is authentical p. 6to be read in Churches, but that which was made by the commandement of King JAMES of glorious memory. Neither was that Geneva Bible tranſlated or received by publick authority. Neither is Geneva more to be taxed for it, then London for printing the wicked libel which I am now confuting, both being printed without Licence. That, Note, put in by ſome Fanatick, is rejected by all Proteſtants, and the generality muſt not be charged with a private mans folly.

Although I anſwer not for any private man, yet that the Reader may judge what credit he may give to this Gentlemans allegations. I have ſet down here a ſamplePag. 82, and 83. of his unſincerity in his alledging of Luther. He ſets down three paſſages taken, as he ſaith, out of Luther'sI made uſe of the Edition of Iena An. 1600 tom. 2. omnium operum D. Mart. Lutheri, Treatiſe De Captivitate Babylonica Eccleſiae. The firſt cap. De Sacramento Baptiſmi. Ab omnibus hominum legibus exempti ſumus libertate Chriſtiana nobis per Baptiſmum donata; that is, We are freed from all humane Laws by the Christian liberty given to us by Baptiſme.

I may confidently affirm that theſe words are not to be found either in that Chapter, or in the whole Treatiſe. And if the Reader will be ſo inquiſitive as to look upon the place, he ſhall find it ſo. There Luther complains of the ceremonies wherewith the Pope hath clogged the Sacrament of Baptiſme, and maintaineth that neither Biſhop, nor Pope, nor Angel hath power to impoſe ſuch humane additions upon the conſcience of Chriſtians to be obeyed as Laws. And yet if they be impoſed he will have Chriſtians to bear with them, keeping ſtill to themſelves that liberty of conſcience to remember, that ſuch things are wrongfully impoſed, and taking p. 7heed either to juſtifie the tyranny, or to murmure againſt it. This is the ſenſe of the whole diſcourſe of Luther. But he ſaith no where that the Chriſtian liberty given to us by Baptiſme, exempts us from the Laws of men. This is a meer fiction.

So is his ſecond allegation out of the ſame book, cap. de Matrimonio. Scio nullam Remp. Legibus feliciter administrari. He makes Luther ſay, I know that no State is happily governed by Lawes: but there is not one word of that in the whole Chapter of Matrimony, nor in the whole Treatiſe.

And Luthers opinion was as farr from that Tenet as the Eaſt is from the Weſt, and the Pope and his Conclave from Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Shall we wonder that the Pope alters the words of Scripture making the Text ſay, ſhe ſhall bruiſe thy heel, in ſtead of he, to tranſfer the victory of Chriſt over the Devil unto Chriſts Mother; or that he giveth to Scripture a contrary ſenſe, turning Feed my ſheep into Depoſe Kings, and diſpoſe of Kingdoms? when ſuch men as our Adverſary take upon them to forge what words and ſenſe they will, and to father them upon whom they pleaſe?

Quid Domini facient audent cum talia fures?

The third allegation is out of the Chapter de Ordine in the ſame Treatiſe; the words, as our Adverſary recites them, are theſe, Turpe enim est, & iniquiter ſervile Christianum hominem qui liber eſt aliis quam coeleſtibus & divinis legibus ſubjectum eſſe; that is, It is a foul thing, and wickedly ſervile, that a Chriſtian man who is free, ſhould be ſubject to any other but the divine and heavenly p. 8laws. But this Gentleman, or he from whom he hath borrowed theſe allegations, hath baſely corrupted and falſified this paſſage, putting legibus in ſtead of traditionibus, which alters the ſenſe altogether, and changeth the queſtion: for Luther diſputeth againſt impoſing unneceſſary traditions in Religion, as neceſſary to ſalvation, and would not have a Chriſtian to ſubject himſelf in that kind to any tradition, but ſuch as are divine and heavenly. But this corrupter repreſents him as refuſing ſubjection to civil laws and temporal powers. Can there be a more ungodly and odious impoſture? And how doth this mans inference follow upon Luther's diſcourſe? So that it is moſt plain (ſaith he) that it was not Luther's deſign onelyonly to pull down Monarchy, but all other kinds of civil Government, and to extirpate all humane laws. Certainly that inference depends no more upon Luther's diſcourſe, then the new ſtars of Galilee upon the Aphoriſms of Hippocrates.

It is a good ſport to ſee how incenſed this Gentleman is againſt Luther for exhorting Kings and Princes to fall upon the Pope and his Cardinals, and to fulfill the Prophecy of Rev. 17. That the Kings of the earth ſhall ſtrip the great harlot naked, devour her ſelf, and burn her with fire. Which he exagerates as high treaſon, becauſe he acknowledgeth the Pope for his Sovereign, and the King of kings, whom none can reſiſt or call to account without incurring the crime of Rebellion.

For his other allegations againſt Luther, he ſhall not have the luck to be believed upon his word, after I have laid open his infidelity in that kind. He that hath leiſure or curioſity enough, may ſearch the places and examine p. 9whether they be true or falſe, neither of which concerns us. Yet a judicious view of the affairs of Germany at that time, and of the nature of Sovereignty and Subjection in the Empire, of which I intend to ſay ſomething in the next Chapter, which will make his hardeſt expreſſions to ſeem leſs ſtrange.

It is certain that he writ againſt King Henry the VIII. moſt slovenly. Yet obſerve, that Henry the VIII. was not his King. That he ſaid nothing againſt the obedience due to him by his ſubjects, and that he made amends to the King ſince, and cryed Peccavi. He was then leſs to blame then the Jeſuite Sander, who calledSander. lib. de Schiſmate Anglicano. the ſame King (his natural Prince) another Mahomet, the root of ſin, and a moſt impious and ſacrilegious Tyrant, and Queen Elizabeth Lupam Anglicanam, the Engliſh wolf-bitch, and made them no amends for it.

This teſtimony cannot be denied to Luther, that he oppoſed rebellion moſt vigorously; as it may be ſeenSleidan. lib. 5. ad an. 1525. Id. lib. 14. ad an. 1542. in his Epiſtle to the Boors that roſe in arms, and by his Sermon in the Camp, both pregnant for the obedience of ſubjects to their Princes; of which Sleidan giveth a faithfull account, a better Author then our Adverſary, or Cochlaeus Luther's enemy.

The firſt and greateſt inſtrument of the Helvetian Reformation was Zuinglius, out of whoſe books the Adverſary picks ſome paſſages to exhort the Switzers and Germans to defend their Religion againſt the Emperour. If there had been no quarrel of Religion at that time, yet he would have exhorted them to ſtand for their liberties againſt the Emperour. For the Switzers having ſhaken off the yoke of the Empire two hundred p. 10years before. It is no marvel that Zuinglius was not carefull to exhort his Countreymen and neighbours to obedience to the Emperour, the perpetual underminer of the State which he lived in.

Obſerve that the Authours that write of the power of Princes, and of the duty of ſubjects, determine it according to the form of the States in which they live: and ſo no wonder that Zuinglius a Switzer acknowledgeth no ſucceſſive power, but conceiveth all Princes to be eligible and depoſable by the Commonwealth. And that Calvin and Beza living in an Ariſtocratical State, ſhewed alſo in their Writings more inclination towards that kind of Government. So the German and Italian Writers are for a mixt and much limitted Government. The Engliſh and French for Monarchy, with certain Laws. And if the Turks and Muſcovites could make Books, they▪ would write for the Deſpotical and unlimitted power.

Our Adverſary layeth a heavy charge upon Melanchton, that he ſhould ſay that the inferiour Magistrates Pag. 105. Melancton in Epit. Moral. Philoſ. Id. in lib. de Conſil. Evangelicis.may cut the throats of the ſuperiour, and all this for reforming Religion: for which he referreth us to two of his Books, without quoting the particular place; much like the direction of the Goodwifes Letter, To my Husband dwelling at the wars. But no ſuch thing ſhall be found in all Melanchton's Works. Neither is it ſuitable to the ſpirit of that wiſe and meek man.

For Calvin, by reaſon of his Ariſtocratical Doctrine about the Tribunitian power of the tres ordines regni over the King: I would leave him for ſuch as he is; but that it is my proper buſineſs at this time to diſcover the impoſture of my Adverſary, and he hath committed a p. 11ſignal one againſt Calvin, whom he hath ſerved juſt as he did Luther before. For he brings him upon the Stage,

—Lacerum crudeliter ora,

Ora manusque ambas.—

as he did the other, miſerably torn and disfigured.

Speaking of oaths which bind us to obſerve and obey Pag. 103.the King, he ſaith, that to all oaths of this nature Mr. Calvin from his high Cathedral and Conſiſtorial Tribunal gives this abſolution; Quibuscunque hujus Evangelii lux affulget, &c. ab omnibus laqueis & juramentis abſolvitur. I cannot make good Engliſh of falſe Latine, of which Calvin is not guilty, but it is as familiar with this Gentleman as falſe Doctrine. His meaning is to make Calvin ſay, that when a man is inlightened with the Goſpel of Geneva, he is free from all oathes to his Sovereign; for it is of all oathes of that nature that he makes Mr. Calvin to give abſolution. But there is a ſwarm of corruptions in that allegation. The words of Calvin are theſe. Quibuscunque ergo Calvin. l. 4. Inſt. c. 13. ſect. 21. Qui ex Monachiſmo ad honeſtum aliquod vivendi genus concedunt, fractae fidei & perjurii graviter accuſantur, quod vinculum (ut vulgo creditur) inſolubile quo erant Deo & Eccleſiae obligati abruperint. At ego nullum fuiſſe vinculum dico, ubi quod homo confirmat Deus abrogat. Deinde ut demus fuiſſe obligatos quū ignoratione Dei & errore impliciti venerentur nunc poſtquā veritatis notitī ſunt illuminati, ſimul Chriſti gratia liberos eſſe dico. Nam ſi tantam efficaciam habet crux Chriſti ut à Legis divinae maledictione quâ vincti detinebamur nos abſolvat, quanto magis ab extraneis vinculis (quae nihil ſunt quam captioſa Satanae retia) nos eruet. Quibuscun que ergo Chriſtus luce Evangelii ſui affulget, non dubium eſt quin ab omnibus eos laqueis expediat quibus ſe per ſuperſtitionem induerant.Christus Evangelii ſui luce affulget, non dubium eſt quin ab omnibus eos laqueis expediat quibus ſe per ſuperſtitionem induerant; that is, As many then as Christ illuminateth with the light of his Goſpel, no doubt but he ſets them free from the ſuares into which they had ingaged themſelves by ſuperſtition. Without inſiſting upon p. 12all the words which he changeth, or addeth, or leaveth out. He altereth Calvin's queſtion, whoſe diſcourſe I have therefore ſet in the Margin, that the Reader may ſee that he ſpeaks of Monaſtical vows, which he affirms to be void, when by the light of the Goſpel they appear to be contrary to the Chriſtian liberty purchaſed by Chriſt unto his Church. Whereas this Gentleman makes uſe of that paſſage to make Calvin abſolve ſubjects of their allegiance to their Sovereigns. Where is conſcience? Where is ſincerity? Will Jeſuites uſe ſuch pious frauds to make proſelytes? Habeat jam Roma pudorem.

I cannot pardon this Gentleman his prevarication about Calvin, though I ſhould make a digreſſion for it; for is it not good ſport to ſee him defend Calvin when he takes upon him to defame him? For having accuſed Calvin of Delicacy and Epicureiſme in his behaviour, he brings for a witneſs Florimond de Remond, a Gentleman Pag. 7.of quality, who hath left us (ſaith he) the lively image of him. And when upon that I would ſee whatFlorimundus Raymundus Hiſtoriae de nativ. Haer. &c. lib. 7. cap. 10. lively image Florimond de Remond left us of him, I found that he giveth this account of his life. Calvin from his youth did macerate his body with faſting; whither it was to preſerve his health, and by that abſtinence diſſipate the fumes of meagrom wherewith he was afflicted, or that he might thereby be the more free to write, ſtudy, and exerciſe his memory. The truth is, that hardly could a man be found that equalled Calvin in laboriouſneſs. For twenty three years that he lived at Geneva, he preacht every day, and many times twice upon Sundays: every week he made publick leſſons of Divinity, and every Friday p. 13he was preſent at the Colloquy or Conference of Paſtors which they call Congregation. The reſt of his time he imployed in writing Books, or anſwering letters of divers perſons.

Well, Sir Jeſuite, do you tax Calvin of Epicureiſme after your confreres, and bring convincing proofs againſt it? What diſcipline muſt ye expect from your Superiours at Douay for thus betraying their cauſe? It is well if you can ſcape the Chamber of Meditations. In the mean while all thoſe ſerpentine Geneva Rabbins, that conquering Legion of the right cockatrice kind, againſtTheſe are his words Pag. 48, and 49. whom you rail ſo emphatically, will give you thanks for your real help.

The Adverſary having done with Calvin, falls upon Beza, a man for whom I am leſs partial then for any of the Reformed Divines, herein heir of my Reverend Fathers dislike of him for daſhing the fair hopes of agreement in Religion in the Colloquy of Poiſſy by his immoderate behaviour. But to lay a charge upon Beza's Doctrine about the point of the authority of Kings, and obedience of ſubjects, he ſhould have taken allegations out of Beza's undoubted Writings, not out of pieces without name, aſcribed to him by his enemies. Such is Euſebius Philadelphus: Such is the treatiſe de jure Magistratus, which this very Adverſary ſaith to be aſcribed by ſome to Hottoman. Such is alſo Junius Brutus; concerning whom we ſtand to the Oracle of our Engliſh Solomon King JAMES in his Defenſe of the right of Kings againſt Cardinal Perron. Junius Brutus, when he objects unto us, is an unknown p. 14Author, and perhaps ſome of the Roman Church hath made it to make Protestants odious unto Princes. The conjectures of that great King are more certain then the affirmations of the Jeſuites.

As for Beza's ſiding with the Princes of the bloud that were in armes againſt the Court, which our Adverſary objects unto him, and proveth it by ſome letters of his, and the teſtimony of Baldwin his enemy; the quality of that charge depends upon the nature of that quarrel, of which ſomething muſt be ſaid before he and I part.

For Paraeus, we are againſt him about the point of obedience as much as our Adverſary. His ſon ſeeing whatPhilip. Paraeus Append. ad Rom. 13. Loquitur D. parens meus cum Politicis & Iurisconſultis non de Rege abſoluta poteſtate induto, ſed ſub conditione admiſſo. Pag. 23.Rom 13 general oppoſition his Doctrine found among the Proteſtants, and that the Book was burnt in England by authority, made this excuſe for his father, Valeat quantum valere poteſt; My father ſpeaks with the Politicks and Iuriſconſults, not of a King invested with abſolute power, but admitted upon conditions. Paraeus conſiderd not how the world was abroad, but how it was in his countrey.

The Adverſary quarrelleth alſo with Gracerus, but hath nothing elſe to ſay againſt him, but that he is againſt the Antichriſt. Coercenda gladio eſt Antichriſti ambitio, which he expounds thus, That Antichristian ambition is to be cut off with the ſword, that is, all Princes and Prelates. It ſeems the man taketh part with Antichriſt ſince he taxeth Gracerus for being againſt him. But that Gracerus would cut off Princes and Prelates becauſe he would repreſs the ambition of Antichriſt, is a p. 15great inconſequence. Obſerve this Gentlemans learning, the Verb coercere ſignifieth repreſs, which is a modeſt term of Gracerus. But our Adverſary translates it cut off; ſhewing himſelf to be as great a ſcholar in Latine, as he approved himſelf to be in Greek, when he translated foreign, an eloquent Oration. And that his head is much like that upon a clipt ſixpence, it is a little head without letters.

His objection of the rebellious Maxims of ſome Scots, Pag. 47, & ſeq.as Knox and Buchanan, is now ſtale and out of ſeaſon, ſince they have been generally condemned and exploded by Proteſtants both on this and the other ſide ofRivet. Caſtiga. Not. in Epiſt. ad Balſac. cap. 13. num. 14. ſub finem. the ſea. The judgement of the learned Rivet to this purpoſe is ingenuous and prudent, that theſe things muſt be imputed to the hot and audacious brains of the Scots, then heated again by perſecution. Let me adde, that when the perſecution was pretty well overcome, they were kept in their heat by ſharp contention. There being then a Royal Baſtard, who pretending that his Father had once a deſigne to make him King, followed that deſigne very cloſe, yet cloſely, raiſing all the troubles he could againſt the Kings Widow, and his legitimate Heir: for which the difference of Religion happening about that time, gave him fair play; for all his ambitious projects were cloaked with the furtherance of the cauſe of the Goſpel. This was the man that countenanced that divinity of rebellion.

Which that it may not be imputed to the Religion, I deſire all judicious heads maturely to ponder Dr. Rivet's wiſe obſervation; That the Scots of a hundred and five Kings, which they reckon till Queen Mary, had p. 16depoſed three, expelled five, and killed thirty five. I demand then whether all thoſe exceſſes muſt be imputed to the doctrine and zeal of Religion. If ſo, let the Roman Catholicks look how they ſhall defend their Religion which then was prevalent. But if that muſt be imputed to the bold and ſtirring Genius of the Nation, why ſhall the troubles riſen under the Queen Regent of Scotland and her daughter Mary be aſcribed to Religion, and Reformation, ſuppoſed the cauſe, not the occaſion, by the managing of crafty ſelf-ſeeking men, of the diſtempers of the State, and the intemperance of pens? Yea, it ſhall be found, as Dr. Rivet obſerveth, (and we find it now) that the light of the Evangelical truth did very much mitigate the fierceneſs of the Nation; and that thoſe diſorders, as turbulent as they were, are not comparable to thoſe that were in former times in Scotland: which as we are too ingenuous to aſcribe to the Religion of thoſe dayes, the Papiſts ought to ſhew the like ingenuity about the exceſſes of wits and ſwords ſince the coming of the Reformation.

It were to no purpoſe to follow all the objections of this Gentleman out of Proteſtant Writers; ſince whether they be well or ill alledged, our belief is not ingaged in their ill opinions, nor our reputation concerned in the wrong done to them by perverſe and unfaithfull allegations. I have diſcovered ſo many of them, that the Reader may well miſtruſt his other citations. If all were as they are repreſented, they are but ſo many Doctours opinions ſtrengthened with no approbation of perſons authorized for it. And to ſpeak after our Moſt Excellent King JAMES in his Defenſe of the right of Kings. I p. 17would not defend all that ſome private men could ſay. It is enough that in our Religion there is no rule to be found that preſcribeth rebellion, nor any thing that diſpenſeth ſubjects from the oath of their allegiance, nor any of our Churches that receive that abominable doctrine.

This is ſpoken with a Royal brevity, and an imperious weight, which both confutes all objections in that kind, and together ſilently retorts upon the Roman Catholicks, that among them they have rules that preſcribe rebellion, and an authority diſpenſing from the oath of allegiance, and that their Church is commanded to receive that abominable doctrine.

Bleſſed be God, our doctrine about the point of obedience never gave yet jealouſie to Kings, though of contrary Religion. Whereas the Sovereign Courts of the ſame Princes have expelled the Jeſuites for teaching and practiſing the murther of Kings, and condemned the Popes Bulls to be torn for ſowing rebellion among the people. Is it not a matter for no leſſe patience then that of God, to ſee thoſe that teach rebellion by the publick expreſſe laws of the head of their Church, now to charge our Churches with rebellion for ſome words of private men, either falſly imputed unto them, or diſallowed by the generality of the Proteſtant Churches? Is it for him that hath cut the purſe to cry, ſtop the thief? Muſt the Doctors of high treaſon lay an action of rebellion againſt us, in effect becauſe we will not be rebels with them, and acknowledge a King above our King? for when all is ſaid, that is the ground of the quarrel, and we can buy our peace with them at no other rate. But before I lay the charge againſt them, at which I long to p. 18be, I muſt make an end of anſwering the charge which they lay againſt us.