A DISSUASIVE From POPERY Sent in a LETTER From A. B. to C. D.
DƲBLN. Printed by Benjamin Took and John Crook Printers to the King's Most Excellent Majesty; and are to be sold by Mary Crook & Andrew Crook at his Majesties Printing-house in Skinner-Row. 1681.
THe last time we were together, you told me, that a friend of yours long'd to see in a paper under my hand the reasons of my unkindness to Popery. To which he (or you for him) obligingly added, that I did not appear unkind to the persons of Papists, and that indifferency in judging is there likelyest to be found, where Bitternes of humour is not prevalent.
Now Sir though I know and very much honour you, yet I am not acquainted with your friend, and am sensible that use may be made of such a paper to my disadvantage. How ever I here send it you; for I do really look upon Protestancy (That of the Church of England) to be so high a Blessing both to the particular professors of it, and to the Country where it is embrac'd, that I could, adventure very far in whatsoever should promise the advancement of it.
The paper may be shewn as you or your friend shall think fit; but I would not have it published in Print; tis not studied enough for that.Page 5
A Dissuasive from Popery.
I Reduce my dislikes of Po∣pery to two Heads, the in∣crediblenes of its Doctrins, and the grievousness of the Yoke imposed on its Pro∣fessors. Of its incrdible Doctrins. I name first Transubstantiation.
In the way of Nature this is not so pro∣perly called incredible, as absurd and im∣possible; It makes the Body of Christ to be in a Thousand places at once. It makes that Body wear its own quantity under the dimensions of a Wafer, that is, to have its own bigness but to be never the big∣ger for it. It makes the accidents of Bread and Wine Exist without a subject; that is, there is whiteness and there is moisture, but there is nothing Either white or moist, It makes the accidents of Bread and Wine to nourish the Eaters and Drinkers of them▪ that is, to be turned into Substances. &c. To all which it is answerd that Gods pow∣er Page 6 is sufficient to overcome all these Difficul∣ties, Neither will I dispute his Power where his Will is revealed. But I say it is incredible that Transubstantiation in the Eucharist should be the will of God. For All other Miracles recorded in the Ho∣ly Scriptures serv'd to some End. Elias called fire from Heaven, to make it appear that the Lord is God, and that he was his servant So Christ raised up the widow's son, for the comfort of the widow, and for the manifestation of his own Power. But Transubstantiation serves to no End that has been yet nam'd; It convices no body, it profits no body. Our Saviour says so, Jo: 6. the flesh profits not. That is, by be∣ing bodily Eaten. Christs flesh profits by being taken into God; by suffering upon the Cross, by being believed on; but by being bodily Eaten, it has no effect either upon the body; or the Soul of the cater. Not upon the body, for that they confess is con∣cern'd only in the accidents of the bread and wine departed. Nor upon the Soul, for that feeds on Christ only Spiritually, Page 7viz. by Faith, Hope and Charity. Now is it credible that God would worke so ma∣ny miracles as are in the bowells of Tran∣substantiation, for no end in the World?
2ly, The course of nature is certainly the will of God; therefore we must not be∣lieve it is inverted, but where God himself declares it is so. Here they say God has declar'd for Transubstantiation in these words: This is my body &c. I answer, no more then in these: that rock was Christ. Or then in these of the same Apostle: We are all one bread. For all three sentences are equally positive, and are equally the word of God. Now, was the rock which followed the Israelites in the wilderness turned into the substance of Christ not then born? Or are all Christians turned substantially into bread? No, all say, that rock was Christ imports no more then that rock was the representative of Christ. We are all one bread; that is, we are all repre∣sented by one bread; Why not then, this is my body, that is, this is the representative of my body? If it be lawful to take one word Page 8 of God figuratively, it cannot be wicked to take another so, if the matter equally requires. And certainly there can be no greater necessity any where, than in the Eucharist of flying from Transubstantiati∣on to a figure.
3ly. tis Incredible that the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever thought of Transubstantiation; When our Saviour said I go to the Father, the Disciples asked what it was. When he told the Parable of the Sower, they asked what it meant, If they had thought of a change of substance by the words of Consecration, would they not have said: how can this be? do we not see there as formerly? and the bread and wine as formerly? But he had instructed them Jo. 6. how his flesh is meat indeed and his blood drink indeed, to wit Spiritually not bodily, therefore they boggl'd not.
Again, not one Apostle nor one Christi∣an Doctor for above six hundred years af∣ter Christ either mentions this change of substances, or (in all those vast volumnes) says one word that infers it. The Christi∣ans Page 9 spoke not of it; neither did the Jews or heathens object it; Yet Transubstantia∣tion in the eye of an unbeliever is a masse of contradictions.
What work would Lucian have made with it? But no such matter is mentioned by that scoffer, or by Porphyry, or Festus, or Julian the Apostate &c. In so incredi∣ble a doctrine would Beringarius (above a thousand years after Christ) have been the first Heritique? If Transubstantiation had been the setl'd doctrine of the Church in the days of Charlemaigne, would that Emperour have writ to Bertram the Priest for his opinion of the real Presence? Would Bertram have positively answered that the host is not the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary? Only that body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary is to be ador'd, therefore the adora∣tion of the host was not in fashion in Ber∣trams days.
4ly. As there is nothing in the Holy Scripture or ancient Fathers which can be rationally brought in favour of Transub∣stan∣tiation, Page 10 so there are in them very ma∣ny sayings which seem incompatible with it. Mat: 26. Me yee have not always. Which was spoken because of his Death and Ascension. Hear St. Austin upon it. Non semper &c. Not always according to his bodily presence, but as to his Majesty, as to his Providence, as to his invisible Grace is fulfilled that: Behold I am with you to the end of the World. So Act. 3. 31. Whom the Heavens must contain till the restituti∣on of all things. Yes, say they, he is only in Heaven locally, and in the Host but sacra∣mentally and not as in a place; his whole body being in the least part of the Host if separate from the other parts. Which to St. Austin I am sure would have imported that Christ is really in Heaven and not really in the Sacrament; for he says upon Psalm. 33. Si spatia &c. If space of place be taken from a body it is no where, that is, it is not. Does this sound as if he understood the quillets of Transubstantiation? Again to Boniface ep. 25. Si Sacramenta &c. If Sacraments had not the likeness of the things whereof Page 11 they are Sacraments, they would not be sacra∣ments; and because of this likeness they often take the names of the things themselves; As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sort the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of faith is faith. And against Adimantus the Mani∣chee: Non dubitavit &c. he doubted not to say: this is my body when he gave the sign of his body. And upon Psal, 3. mira est pa∣tientia &c. Wonderful is the patience of Christ who entertained Judas at that ban∣quet wherein he gave his disciples the figure of his body and his blood. And St. Ambrose de Sacramentis: Non iste panis &c. not that bread which goes down into the belly, but the bread of Eternal life which supports the soul. Many such other sayings the Rea∣der may find cited by old Bertram and of late by all the Protestant writers; but not a word like them is in any Roman Catho∣lique authour since the Council of Lateran. The stile of the Doctours is not altered for nothing. And so much for Transubstan∣tiation. Page 10〈1 page duplicate〉Page 11〈1 page duplicate〉
Page 12 Secondly, I name Purgatory for an in∣credible doctrin, Purgatory as maintained in the Church of Rome is a prison at the edge of hell, where souls are deteined till by suffering they satisfy for such venial sins as they dyed under, or for mortal sins for which they had not perfectly done their pennance. The pains differ from hell fire only in being Temporary; and the souls which suffer them are in high Charity, and at the last gasp were purg'd from all unfit∣ing affections; yet must they ly here and fry for their past trespasses, till the utmost farthing be pay'd. And all their own cha∣rity avails nothing towards their delive∣rance, but they are ordinarily ransom'd from long durance by the Charity of their friends on earth layd out upon Mas∣ses, Pilgrimages &c. And upon some occa∣sions whole sholes are let out by the Popes Indulgence.
Now I say this is an incredible doctrine in it self, for, 1. the Christian faith is that Christ satisfied for the sins of the World, how then can souls suffer meerly for the Page 13 satisfaction of the Divine Justice? Punish∣ments in this World are our corrections, but punishing when there can be no a∣mendment must be a meer wrecking of vengeance, tis so in hell, and they say it is so in Purgatory. 2. tis incredible that God should so horribly afflict those Souls which so entirely love him, and which he so highly loves. 3. Tis incredible that venial sins which upon earth are purg'd with an Ave, a Pater noster, a thump on the brest, or sprinkling of a little holy wa∣ter should after death merit such horrible torments, and which for ought I can hear may last many years. 4. If these sins do merit the great pains of Purgatory, then 'tis incredible that a Masse, or a pilgrimage should pay the debt. 5. If Purgatory be a necessary and also an assured passage into heaven, tis incredible that any fire there can be a torment; for the way to blisse is happy, In this world hope of salvation made Martyrs endure tortures with pati∣ence, but that torture which brings with it assurance is matter of triumph. 6. 'Tis Page 14 incredible that souls should be sensible of bodily fire: who can imagin what a scorch'd Soul is? or how fire can torment the un∣derstanding or the Wil? And the seperated soul has nothing in it besides them two. But to all this I am answered as I was a∣bout Transubstantiation, that God's power is incomprehensible, and his ways past finding out. However, I say Purgatory be∣ing so Irrational in it self has need to be well pro'vd from abroad; I mean by Texts of Scripture, and Expositions of ancient Fa∣thers: But there is not one Text in the whole Bible applyed to this Purgatory till after S. Austin. Nay tis impossible that many of the Ancient Fathers should hold Purgatory as it is now held in the Church of Rome; for they held that no Souls (at least very few of the most perfect) go to Heaven till the day of Judgment; and that in the interim they are kept in receptacles without any pain but that of delay'd Happi∣ness; and that at the day of Judgement they must all pass through fire; Origen: in Psalm: 36. Ʋt ego arbitror &c. As I think Page 15 it is necessary for us all to come to that fire: though one be a Paul or a Peter; Such a one indeed shall be told: though thou goest through the flame it shall not burn thee; But a sinner like me shall come to that fire like Peter or Paul, but shall not go through it like them. Ambros: in coment: Psalterji: Igne nos &c. David says: thou hast tryed us by fire, there∣fore we shall all be tryed by fire: and if we be not consum'd yet we shall be scorch'd. Lactant: 7 instit C. 1. Sed & justos &c. When God Judgeth even the just, he will exa∣min them with fire, then they whose sins are great either in weight or number shall be ve∣hemently scorched: the ripe in virtue shall not feel that fire. Hieronym: tomo 3. in Amos: Vocatus ignis &c. The fire call'd to Judgment, first devours the Abyss, that is, all the kind's of sins, Wood, Hay, Stubble. Aug: in 15. Gen. Ad solis &c. At the setting of the Sun, that is, at the End, By that fire is signified the day of Judgment, separating those carnalls who are to be sav'd by fire, from those who are to be damn'd in the fire. And in Psal. 6. Page 16Talem me &c. Render me such now as shall not need amendment by fire. And 20 de civ: Dei: Out of what has been said it seems evi∣dent that in the judgment some will suffer some purging pains.
I take this labour to clear the Purgato∣ry held by some of the ancient, because their sayings and the Texts which they cite for their Purgatory are all which they bring now for the Purgatory maintain'd in the Church of Rome; whereas tis impossible that they who held the former Purgatory should hold this latter, for, 1. the former Purgatory was in the judgment, this Latter is immediatly after Death. 2. The former Purgatory was for the amendment of the person, this latter punishes for Sin when the person is perfect. 3. The former Pur¦gatory afflicted the person till he had pay'• the utermost farthing, that is, till all hi• disorderly affections were worn off; this lat¦ter clears a man out of prison for the goo• deeds of others upon Earth viz. Prayer Pilgrimages, Masses, Indulgences &c. an• without this Appendix of Indulgences th•Page 17 Pope would not lift up a Finger for Purgato∣ry. In fine, he that in the Church of Rome holds no other Purgatory but that which the fore-quoted Fathers held, will be declar'd haeretical, of which Tho: White late an Eng∣lish Priest of the Church of Rome is an exam∣ple. See his book de medio animarum Statu.
But it may be said: The ancient Fathers holding one sort of Purgatory, and the pre∣sent Church of Rome holding another sort, how come we Protestants to hold none? I answer: The Church of Rome is to ac∣count for throwing off the Purgatory main∣tained by some of the Fathers; for she had thrown it off long before our Reforma∣tion; We indeed threw off that Purgatory which is maintained by the present Church of Rome, as new and invented; which is thus demonstrated out of the foregoing discourse. The present Church of Rome maintains a Purgatory absolutely in∣consistent with that which was main∣tained by the ancient Fathers (as is proved above); therefore the Purgatory of the present Church of Rome came not by tra∣dition Page 18 from the Fathers, but was invented by their children.
Add to this St. Austin ad Dulcitium q. 1. It is not incredible, says he, that such a thing should be after this life, and inquiry may be made whether it be so, and it may be found out, and it may be hid, that some of the faithful through a certain Purgatory fire should be sav'd sooner or later as they did more or less love the good things that perish. He says Purgatory is not incredible (that is, some sort of Purgatory) that it may be inquir'd after, and perhaps it may be found, and perhaps not. A good while af∣ter him Gregory said to Peter the Deacon, that many things are now known of sepa∣rate souls which were not known of old.
And Bede says that Purgatory became known in England upon the miraculous deliverance of a souldier from his bonds by the sacrifice of the Masse. In fine, the Greek Church never own'd Purgatory, and yet to them (as to gospel matters) was declar∣ed the whole council of God. Act. 20. 27.
But suppose Transubstantiation and Pur∣gatory Page 19 are fictious, is the Errour Damnable? I do not say whether it be or no; but I am sure that all errour is dangerous to the soul, because it is its blindness; and if the blind lead the blind &c. Besides, errour has a spawn of consequents in which the black∣ness is often more sensible than in the damm. For instance, the opinion of Tran∣substantiation has (though not by good consequence to my reason) brough forth a sacrilegious detention of the Cup from the Laity. Adoration of the Host is ano∣ther and a true birth of the same opinion; and that has in it many symptomes of Ido∣latry. But what soul-killing venom comes from Purgatory? Why, tis a grosse dispa∣ragment of the passion of Christ which we do accuse of imperfection, while we think it necessary to joyn our ownsufferings with it for the satisfaction of the divine Justice.
I have done with Transubstantiation and Purgatory, and need not name any more of the incredible doctrins of Popery; for this is one of their doctrins, that he who denies one Article of the Faith, denies Page 20 all; because the proposal of the Church is the only reason of believing any. Out of which I infer; that if they are baffl'd in any one Article; they are undone as to all; for their proposal has lost its infallibility. Therefore in the next place, as the doctrins of Popery are incredible and dangerous to our condition in the world to come, so I say the yoke of it is very grievous and the burthen almost insupportable in this world. For,
First, Popery deprives us of several rights of nature. It requires us to believe things naturally absurd, without giving us any supernatural proof, as appears in the in∣stances of Transubstantiation and Purga∣tory; and yet if we doubt, we are damn'd to the fire of this world, and that of the world to come. Agen, to make us pray and praise God in an unknown tongue; What is it but to rob us of the common rights of humanity: Parrots and Pies learn words, but to understand them is the priviledge of mankind. And he that should worship God only by saying what he does Page 21 not understand, were degenerate into a beast as to his religion. St. Paul says if in the Church they all speak with tongues, (though themselves do understand them) that a stranger coming in, will think them mad. Is it not madder for them all to speak with tongues which they do not understand? That Papist must be very much stupifyed to whom this imposition is not grievous.
2dly. Popery is a great Invader of our Civil Rights. The Pope can excommuni∣cate a King; and by so doing, his Subjects are absolv'd from their Oath of fidelity, and are commanded to pay no Obedience; so the Prince loses his government, and the people not only, lose their Protection but also are Embarras'd in insoluble doubts of conscience, between the pretensions of the Pope and those of the King. And this was the Popish Doctrin long before the Jesuits, as appears in Thomas Aquinas's Summ. Neither has the Pope ever been drawn to declare against that Branch of his power; though in several Provinces he might by Page 22 such a declaration have delivered abund∣ance of his people from very great troubles. Nay the Pope disposes of unforfeited King∣doms. He gave away the Kingdoms of Mexico and Peru; though those Kings had never been under his Jurisdiction, and S. Paul says; what have we to do with them that are without? But there is an instance of this grievance about which I am more concern'd. Our King John had troubles from his Subjects to that height, that he was fain to resign up his Crown to the Pope, and to receive it again from Pan∣dol• his Legate, and to hold it thence∣forth as from the Pope. This they say and brag off, and upon this accompt pre∣tend a Title to England at this day. Here are several matters hard to be understood. If the Pope was partner in the Rebel∣lion, what can be more dangerous than he to Soveraignty? If he was no par∣tner in the Rebellion, how came he to get the Crown by the Success of the Rebells? Again, if John was Persecuted as an Usurper, why was not the Crown Page 23 given to the right Heir? But nothing can be more unpolitick than their pretending a Title to England from this Transaction with King John; for it intitles them to the just Indignation of every King of England and of all his good Subjects.
Thirdly, Popery is very grievous to the private purse &c. consequently dwarfs any people that embraces it. Of what boundies numbers are their Clergy and Religious? The present state of France says that one third of that Kingdom is theirs; and it must be worse in Spain. Then, their Pilgrimages, Ransomes from Purgatory, Offrings at shrines and Divi∣fications are notable Pick-pockets. But how do divifications work? Why the people look upon a new Saint as a new Adovcate for them in Heaven.
But here it may be said, that some of our people think the Protestant Clergy (Espe∣cially of the Church of England) pretty chargeable. I answer, that the means of our Clergy is so small a pittance in com∣parison of that which went away with Page 24 Popery, that they must be very unrea∣sonable who grutch it. And really I never knew any maligne the decent main∣tenance of our Church but such as disco∣vered a great many other vices. In our late confusions, all that were against the Church were against God and the King and their fellow Subjects: they were shame∣fully prophane, and yet Hypocrites in contempt of all our senses. But this is a digression. The truth is, Religion must be in some degree Chargeable: for if we will serve God only out of that which costs us nothing; then in our Eye the service of God is nothing worth. But there may be too much taken as well as there may be too little given.
I might add other grievances: as the hor∣rible imposing on the vulgar by mira∣cles; to which no man of reason among themselves gives any credit. Then how restles are their Bigotts in Plotts! But they are told of that by Enough. We had here a Barbarous Rebellion in the year 1641. I do not know whither the Pope Page 25 rais'd it or no; but he own'd it, and encou∣rag'd it, and hindred all expedients offer'd for a closure of the Wound, to the un∣doing of very many Gentlemen of that party, who yet are so well natur'd as to love his Holiness never the less. Nay of late Fanaticisme thrives by Popery. The Presbyterians say the Indulgence to them and others was but to cover that to the Papists; But I never believe it the sooner for their saying it. No I think the Papists help'd the Fanatiques only by An∣tiperistasis. The late Plot makes them look so black, that the Ignorant people run to those Religions which pretend to greatest distance from Popery.
I would now draw to a conclusion, but that I find my work is not don against Popery till I cleare Protestancy from some dirt thrown on it, which I shall endeavour to do as briefly as I have don the rest.
Ob: 1. Protestants generally yield that a Papist may be sav'd, how then came Re∣formation from Popery to be necessary? why should the unity of the Church be broken Page 26 for That without which we may be Eternally happy? I answer, we condemne no man; there is one that will judge the world, and charity commands us to hope that well meaning Papists will be sav'd in that day. But if any man thinks the Popish doctrines false, and yet professes them as Articles of the Christian Faith, his Hy∣pocrisy is a damnable sin. Hence the Re∣formation became necessary. God open'd the Eyes of several people: They saw errours in the Church, refus'd to own them, declar'd against them, and in some Countries prevail'd against them. They must either do so, or be Hypocrites in pro∣fessing what they did not think. Not that men are every where bound to proclaim their Religion, but in the Church of Rome they are. There they must profess every thing with the Church, or suffer as Hereticks. In Summe, the Church of Rome kept the Christian Faith, there∣fore we did not, neither might we leave it because of some erronious superstructi∣ous; not, for example sake, because they Page 27 believed Transubstantiation and ador'd the host; but because they compelled us to be∣lieve and to do so.
Ob 2. If it be lawfull for Protestants to reform from Popery for conscience sake; then it is lawfull upon the same account for Presbyterians to reform from Protestants, and for Independents, and for Anabaptists, Quakers &c. without end. And if this be allowed, in what a perpetual toss of troubles will Christian Countries be? One crying up one way to Heaven, and another crying up another way, and their words often pro∣ceeding to blows, each one party condemn∣ing all the rest: but most of them joyning a∣gainst the Chief Magistrate? Besides the unity of the Church is gone, the Com∣munion of Saints is gone, and the Church will soon be gone; for division is not many steps before destruction.
This objection goes a great way with many people, therefore I will set down my answer distinctly in branches.
1. I confess that divisions in the Church do naturally tend to the destruction of it; Page 28 but of this Evil they only are guilty who cause the division. Now who caus'd our departure from the Church of Rome, we that were driven, or they who drove us away? If it be said: who drove you a∣way? I answer: They that made it mor∣tal for us to stay. We must either hear our Conscience, or them, or the Word.
2dly. Every man is bound to reform himself according to his conscience, that is, he is bound not to profess that which he does not believe, and not to do that which he thinks is unlawfull. But though every mans reason be his own guide; yet no one mans reason is the guide of other men (unless they make it so as in the case of Magistracy &c.) therefore no particular person ought to press the Reformation of other men, unles he be authorised by God or man. Yet it is possi∣ble, that private persons may think them∣selves bound in conscience not only to re∣form themselves but others also; to Preach and perhaps fight up their own way. And when this frenzy is prevalent, tis a great Page 29 judgment from God both upon the per∣sons possess'd with it, and upon the Nati∣on in which it happens. But the rule is, that as they follow their own erronious con∣science in these pranks; so the chief Ma∣gistrate is to follow his conscience, which is not to suffer them to do hurt to the Church or State.
3ly. I confess that our being subject to troubles from Presbyterians &c. is an im∣becility in our Church; but tis common to us with the Church of Rome; We are vex∣ed with Sectaries, and they are vex'd with the same Sectaries, and with us too.
4ly. But I shal be told that the strength of the Objection is in this, That by our Refor∣mation from Popery We gave a Precedent inviting others to Reform from Us; To this I say, that in our Reformation the King and People were of a mind and Reform'd according to order of Law; therefore Our Reformation is no Precedent for the tumul∣tous, and violent Endeavours of Presbyte∣rians &c. Again, the Sectaries have not the same necessity of Seperating from us as we Page 30 had for Separation from Rome; for we could not stay there without declaring for Tran∣substantiation &c. which we could not be∣lieve; but the Presbyterians, Anabaptists &c. may hold their own Opinions in our Church without ever being enquir'd into a∣bout it, nay if they are known to be of such Opinions, there is not the least punishment for it. So that our Reformation was of Necessity, Their's of Wantonness. We are no Precedent for them. To conclude upon this Objection, I say human affairs cannot but be subject to inconveniences; & there∣fore we must not reject any thing for an adhering Inconvenience, unles its Opposite be less Inconvenient. Let us then consider whether possible Troubles from Sectaries, or the certain Intolerablenes of the Roman Yoke upon our Consciences, Lives, and Fortunes be the greater Inconvenience.
Ob. 3. At least the Romish Religion, by the power it has upon peoples Consciences seems apter than the Protestant to keep the people in Obedience to a Catholick Prince, and so ought to be cherish'd by such Page 31 Princes. I answer: Popery is not so good at keeping Subjects quiet as it is at raising tumults; witnes the French League a∣gainst a Roman Catholick King. Yes, Popery has made many Rebellions where no interest was concern'd but its own: but where did it ever hinder a Rebellion to which other interests invited? Did it hinder the Barons Wars in England? Did it hinder the Rebellion of almost all Spain against Charles the first? Did it hinder Massanello in Naples? Did it hinder the Suiss-Cantons from revolting from the house of Austria? Papists have often Re∣bell'd, But we can say of the Protestants (I mean the Church of England) that they have never yet rebell'd, & that if ever they would Rebell; they would have done it in the late times, when their Loyalty con∣tended with all the miseries of an unsuc∣cessful War, of long penury, of Captivity, of banishment, of shameful Deaths. But they bore all these; and also despis'd Crom∣wells many slattering invitations. Whereas the Papists of England were then said to Page 32 offer in purchase of their Liberty an Abju∣ration of the Royal Line and a Submission to the Line of that Ʋsurper. I am not ab∣solutely sure of this last; but I perfect∣ly sure, that in those dayes Mr. White a Romish Priest of England published a book (Dedicated to Sr. Kenelm Digby) en∣titl'd Of Government and Obedience; where∣in he pretends to prove that God Himselfe is no otherwise Monarch of the World than by his Omnipotence, and consequently that an Earthly King loosing his Power▪ loses his Authority: and that neither ought others to raise troubles for the recovering of his right, nor would he, if honest, desire it. Certainly what ever Religion a King himself is of, he has reason to wish for Protestant Subjects.