Of the morality of the fourth commandment as still in force to bind Christians…Of the morality of the fourth commandement as still in force to binde Christians…

For it concerned that author to inquire diligently of all Calvins courses, that stood any way in conformity with the courses of the Turks: neither do I think there could be devised any more remarkable then this. How true this is this Prefacer cannot say, but whether he doth not lick his lips at it I know not. But it is apparent, he would have the Church endued with such authority, as to change the solemnity of the Lords Day, to any day in the week, and consequently even to Friday; and I do not doubt but pretence of reason might be devised for it by politic heads, as namely, to hold the Turks in better correspondency unto Christianity. Now if Calvin had at any time a consultation hereabouts (which cannot be understood of Calvins single and proper consultation with himself; for then how could the relator be privy to it without revelation; and we commonly say, that three may keep counsel when two be away) surely there were many that could give testimony hereof, to wit as many, as whose heads he used in this consultation. And who would not expect, that some one of these at least, should be produced to testify so much either by word or writing? As for Barcley, he hath his name ab ursae ungula, from the claw of a Bear; give we him leave to be a biter, a tearer. His father was a man of some note and learning, and one that had the opinion to deserve well of Kings by his book Contrá monarch machos; and thereby he endeared himself to King James, being also a Scotchman. But King James might think better of him then there was cause, all things considered. For he maintains, that in two cases Kings may cease to be Kings, and to this acknowledgement he finds himself mastered in part by a rule of the civill Law, (and he was a Civilian) which is this, Servus habitus proderelicto may choose a new Father. At the first reading I wondered at the Doctrine it self, being of an harsh accent, and dangerous consequence; and much more in consideration of the reason given, which by interpretation and accommodation may draw a very long tail after it. And it may seem ⟨p. 37⟩strange, that none have taken any pains either to refute it, or clear it, I mean in public. Yet I speak it only in reference to the compass of mine own reading.

For it concerned that author to inquire diligently of all Calvins courses, that stood any way in conformity with the courses of the Turkes: neither doe I thinke there could be devised any more remarkable then this. How true this is this Prefacer cannot say, but whether he doth not licke his lips at it I know not. But it is apparent, he would have the Church endued with such authority, as to change the solemnity of the Lords Day, to any day in the weeke, and consequently even to Friday; and I doe not doubt but pretence of reason might be devised for it by politique heads, as namely, to hold the Turkes in better correspondency unto Christianity. Now if Calvin had at any time a consultation hereabouts (which cannot be understood of Calvins single and proper consultation with himselfe; for then how could the relator be privy to it without revelation; and we commonly say, that three may keepe counsaile when two be away) surely there were many that could give testimony hereof, to wit as many, as whose heads he used in this consultation. And who would not expect, that some one of these at least, should be produced to testifie so much either by word or writing? As for Barcley, he hath his name ab ursae ungula, from the claw of a Beare; give we him leave to bee a biter, a tearer. His father was a man of some note and learning, and one that had the opinion to deserve well of Kings by his booke Contrá monarch machos; and thereby he endeared himselfe to King Iames, being also a Scotchman. But King Iames might thinke better of him then there was cause, all things considered. For he maintaines, that in two cases Kings may cease to be Kings, and to this acknowledgement he finds himselfe mastered in part by a rule of the civill Law, (and he was a Civilian) which is this, Servus habitus proderelicto may choose a new Father. At the first reading I wondered at the Doctrine it selfe, being of an harsh accent, and dangerous consequence; and much more in consideration of the reason given, which by interpretation and accommodation may draw a very long tayle after it. And it may seeme