113
of the grand quibble, by which Papists would make it appear that their priests in Elizabeth's reign suffered for their religion, is explained, by observing, that religion and rebellion in their case were, by the general principles of Popery and the particular bull of anathema by Pius V., so perfectly amalgamated, that from the religion might legitimately and necessarily be inferred the rebellion. It is so undeniable, that it would be childish to deny, that Elizabeth and her government used the most intense pains to avoid punishing for religion simply; so much so, that Rishton, the continuator of Sanders's libel de Schismate Angl., with perverse ingratitude, and an infatuation apparently judicial, writes, Et banc in omnes Ordines crudelitatem dicunt se non exercere propter religionem, (sicut certe putamus putantque etiam prudentes omnes, qui jam a multis annis adverterunt, iis qui rerum potiuntur in Anglia, de fide, utcunque id prætendant, nullam curam haberi, sed de statu suo solum esse solicitos,) &c. Fol. 196, edit. Colon. 1585. The imposition is now no longer necessary. And we may now comfort ourselves with one advantage at least, and no mean one, that Popery now exhibits herself as she is, and does not put us to the diffi-
