QUERIES UPON QUERIES: OR Inquiries into certain QUERIES UPON Dr. PIERCE'S Sermon at Whitehall, Feb. 1.  
Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to his most Sacred Majesty.   
Queries upon Queries.  

QUERIE I.  
WHether for the Papists with restless importunities to solicit for an indulgence, be to sit down peaceably and grant themselves erroneous? Do they call that only a sitting down peaceably, not to grow outrageous, and arming themselves with public force to fight for their Religion? or is it not moreover not to repine at their present happiness, and to desist from craving any public favour? If you grant yourselves erroneous, is it fit you should be indulged in your errors? Is it not favour enough to be Connived at, when there are such sanguinary laws in force against you, which, if his Majesty so pleased, might be put into execution? Or if he should gratify you, since you are so erroneous as to advance the Pope's Supremacy above that of Kings, whether when you have gathered strength by being cherished under his wing, will you not take the boldness to assert what you have now the confidence to affirm, and proceed from humble desires of public favour and indulgence, to impudent demands of public Countenance and settlement? If so, whether it be not seasonable to give the King a Caveat against such Dissenters, who are wont to sit down peaceably no longer than they must needs?   

QUERIE II.  
Though his Majesty had declared his Resolution against your Doctrines before, yet was that Resolution so strong that 'twas impossible to fortify it? or were there like to be no assaults made against it? If not, whence come your frequent desires of a Toleration? If there were, was there not need also of a Confirmation? Do you not too much over-value the Courtiers, when you say they neither know the Fathers and other Authors, nor can judge of those quotations the Sermon does refer to? If they don't know, nor can't judge, must you needs imply them so stupid as to be incapable of instruction? If they have no reason to suspect them, nor ability to view or disprove the quotations, why may they not satisfy themselves without an Ocular search? If they have, they are submitted to their Examination as well as yours, and 'tis no question but you will both find them to be exact. How could the Preacher know but that some of you would hear him? He might assure himself you were usually present, though not as Auditors, yet as Spies; if not to be converted by it, yet to pick quarrels at the Sermon. And presuming you there, why might he not intend to convert you, when he knew that what he delivered was able to persuade you, if it did not meet with prejudices more invincible than your judgements to subdue? Might not the Discourse be directed to check your insolence, who upon the King's Declaration began to walk undisguised? or to prevent the growth of Popery, that though you compassed Sea and land, yet you might gain no more Proselytes by your industry? or— etc.   

QUERIE III.  
Suppose we should say, by what was from the Beginning we mean Primitive examples: Can these be no rule of Reformation, because we are not to do as men have done, but as men ought to do? Does not the same Reason destroy all Patterns, and oblige us to abstain even from doing well, because others have done so before us? Christ, to reform the Pharisees, sends them to the Beginning for a Rule; we, to reform the Romanists, send them to the Beginning too. If Christ did as he ought, why may not we imitate him, and at the same time do what has been done, and what ought to be done? If not— Blasphemy. If to do as has been done, and as aught to be done, which you so carefully distinguish, be inconsistent; Is it not easy to infer, because the Papists do now as they have done, therefore they do not as they ought to do? Suppose again, that we understand Primitive Rules contained in Scripture: As for those Articles which lie plain and open, they need not the Light either of yours, or ours, or another's Interpretation to discover them; so that your Dilemma has no horns, or but blunt ones: As for the other, the Query is, whether you or we more closely follow the confessed Rules of interpretation. If you have, do you not lay that crime to your own charge, which we endeavour but to prove you guilty of, a partiality in your own cause? If we have, why do you still hug your own errors, and not rather close with our Truths, while our Arms are open to embrace you?   

QUERIE IU.  
When you imply that the Preacher in Contending only for the old Protestant way, contended not for that which was from the Beginning: what do you mean by the old Protestant way? That good old way, before it had the Name of Protestant, or after? If before, it was and is the same way which was from the beginning; and did not he in contending for it, contend for that which was from the beginning? If after, he confesses 'twas so called p. 36. because the Assertors of it protested against the cruel edict of Worms, and that the Title was almost as novel as a very great part of the Roman Creed is; why then do you say, that he contended only for the New, when 'twas indeed for the old Protestant way? When you say, that the Eastern Churches claim a greater Antiquity than ours; do you mean, the Articles of their faith were more Ancient, or they were more early in embracing them? If the former; why is it not proved? If the latter; what is it to the purpose? Do we pretend to have received the Christian faith before all other Churches? or rather do we not avow ourselves to own the same Truths, which if they received sooner, yet both of us from the Beginning?   

QUERIE V.  
It had been said, Serm. p. 10. That in matters of Indifferency which are brought into the Government, every Church has the liberty to make her own Constitutions; but we are to look upon nothing as an Article of Faith, unless it comes from the Beginning, etc. Which passage did you read, or no? If not, why do you undertake to make Queries upon it? If you did, why do you talk of Surplices, Organs, Bishoprics, Officials, Pluralities, etc. and take so much pains to no purpose, unless it be to amuse the ignorant and unobserving Reader? Did the Sermon say all things must be reduced to what they were in the Beginning, or only Articles of Faith? And are Organs, etc. Articles of Faith? While you personate the Fanatic, don't you talk as impertinently as if you indeed were one? But, perhaps, the whole Query was raised on purpose to tell the world, the Preacher had Pluralities. If so, why had you not withal told us, how he came by them? Not by purchase, but desert? not by seeking, but acceptance, when they were cast upon him? That they are Dignities, not Cures? But setting all this aside, Do you think him worthy of his Preferments, or not? If not, why do you bestow one upon him? for he was never Canon of York till you made him. If you do, why do you envy him, and discover this envy, in reckoning his being Chaplain to the King as one of those Preferments, when the world knows there's nothing but trouble and honour, no Emolument at all? Whether therefore is it lawful to dissemble and falsify, or no? If not, why do you do it? If it be, sure from the Beginning, unless among the Romanists, it was not so.   

QUERIE VI.  
Whether there be any Heresy in the world which never had a Beginning? If not, whether it may not be said to begin with its first Author and raiser? If so, whether all of the same persuasion may not derive their Antiquity from him? Why then may not the Disciplinarians fetch theirs as far as the Heretic Aerius, who says as plainly as Epiphanius can make him speak, that a Bishop does not at all excel a Presbyter, either in order, honour, or dignity? Whether was S. Peter any more than an ordinary Presbyter or no? If he was, than he was not the first Presbyterian, as you would have him. If he was not, how come his Successors to be Bishops? If a Presbyter and a Bishop be all one, why does not the Bishop of Rome levelly himself with his brother Presbyters? And why may not the Socinian look upon Sabellius, who, if Epiphanius speaks truth, did think such a thing as that the Son and holy Ghost were no Gods, or not coequal and coeternal with the Father? But to stir that no farther which stinks already, To what end is your whole sixth Query directed? Is it any advantage to your Cause, whether the Anabaptists look upon Agrippinus, the Solifidians upon Eunomius, or no? Are you angry that such petite heresies should have founders of so great names, while your own great one pretends to S. Peter, but has indeed none? Were you not afraid, lest the other parts of your Pamphlet should fall under the censure of the Preacher's pen, and therefore endeavoured by such little plots to divert him? If you were, Whether your whole Religion, like your Queries, have any more than a flattering outside, not to be searched into by a severer eye than that of a Novice?   

QUERIE VII.  
When Christ tells S. Peter, his faith should not fail, did he mean it should be impossible to deceive him? Are those Scriptures that speak of full Assurance of faith, to be understood of full perfection of knowledge? When our Saviour says that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church, are the words to be understood of infallibility or perpetuity? To enter into Heaven through persecutions and tribulations, is it not to be saved so as by fire? Were not those imprisoned spirits, the souls of those who perished in the Flood, and were reserved in some safe, but tolerable custody, till Christ came and preached Repentance to them, which, upon their delivery, immediately vanished? Or if Purgatory be that prison, is it not an excellent employment for the Pope to be the Gaoler? Was Maximilian the second forced by the Protestants, or by the Reasonableness of the thing itself, to write that Letter asserting Priest's Marriage, considering all which Thuanus says is, that he did it Re ipsâ urgente? Why is it not as lawful to marry, as to keep a Concubine, one being allowed by God, the other by the Pope only? Why did Scotus say that Transubstantiation was not a Truth before the Lateran Council, if he might not be quoted for it? And when he says non fuit dogma fidei, who taught you thus to construe it, that 'twas only forecast till then? May not a man be damned for eating that bread, and drinking that wine unworthily, which represents the Body and Blood of Christ▪ Again, Did Christ give the Bread to any but Disciples and Ministers, or not? If not, why do you not withhold this from the Laity too? If he did, how does it appear that he gave them not wine also? If there were none besides Disciples present at the Administration, how could Christ give either Bread or Wine to them, they being not there to receive it? If there were any, by the same evidence by which it appears they were there, is it not clear likewise that they received both? When the Christians went from house to house breaking Bread, would it not be a hard case, if they should have no drink to it? Did they not encourage Nero to clothe them with Beasts-skins by confining themselves to Horse-meals, it being fit their garb should be suitable to their fare? Suppose the Jewish Liturgy was in Hebrew, could not the Jews understand that Hebrew, no, not their Mother-tongue? Were not the Proselytes to their Religion proficients in their Language too? If not, how came they to be Proselytes, the only probable way of their Conversion being either by reading the Jew's Books, or conversing with their persons? and could they do either without understanding their Language? If they were, though the Jewish Liturgy were in Hebrew, why could they not understand it? You grant the Primitive Liturgies were in Greek and Latin; were not they the most Common Tongues, one of the Eastern, the other of the Western world? If ignorance of the Tongue had been requisite, why did they suffer them to remain in such known Languages? If praying in an unknown Tongue was estaeblished by primitive practice before Gregory the Great's time, was that practice corrupt or no? If it was, why did he establish it by an Ecclesiastical Law? If not, how do you reconcile it with S. Paul's command to pray with understanding? 1 Cor. 14. If Invocation of Saints were heard of in Ignatius his time, it was not in Christ's, who forbids us to pray to Angels, which sure are greater Favourites than the Saints. If an Universal Supremacy was from S. Peter by right, though it could not be got till Boniface the third; did Gregory the Great know that it was his Right, or no? If he did, why was he so injurious to S. Peter himself, and that See, as to disclaim it, and that with so much spleen and indignation, as to call him Antichrist who should usurp it? If not, how comes the Enquirer to be wiser than his Holiness? If that Pope was Infallible, then Omniscient too; and if you know more than he, you must know more than he who knows all things; then likewise Boniface must be Antichrist, because Gregory says so: If he was not, how did his Successors gain that Prerogative, who had far less knowledge than himself?   

QUERIE VIII.  
May not the Catholic Church have many parts, and yet preserve its unity? As in the same Natural body there are many Members, yet but one Body. Are not the Churches of the several Kingdoms of Christendom these parts? Whether is it possible for Corruptions either in Doctrine or Government to creep into them? If not, how came they into the Church of Rome? If it be, is the Church so corrupted to be Reformed or not? If not, why does not our Saviour permit the Pharisees quietly to enjoy their old Customs of Divorce? If a Member be diseased, may we not endeavour after a Cure? If it may be Reformed, what Physician must we consult? Must we go to Rome for a Remedy? from thence possibly come our Corruptions, and can we expect a Reformation from them? Will the same Enemy that sowed our Tares, pull them up too? Can the sword which made the wound, become the plaster? Is not every King Supreme in his own Dominions? Have we not the same warrantable Rules of Reformation, plain Scripture, Natural Reason, and Moral Prudence, which others have? If we are Corrupt, why may not he reform us? Does Christ bid us follow a Multitude to do evil? or rather are we not commanded to let them depart from us, and purge ourselves to a Primitive integrity? Is that one way we are all bid to be of to be found in the Roman or the English Church? If you say in the Roman, where do you read that? If in the English, do you not walk in a wrong way, because in a way that is not ours?   

QUERIE IX.  
Were our Reformers here in England members of the Catholic Church, or no? If not, than the Roman Church is no part of the Catholic, because they were of the Roman Faith, and yet according to you not Catholics. If they were, may the same person be a member of the Catholic, and the Head of a particular Church, or not? If not, do you not split yourself upon those dangerous Assertions, That a King can be no Christian, or a Christian no King? If he may, why may he not reform the Church he is Head of, as head of that part, though not as a Member of the whole? If therefore those Members of our Church who desire a farther Reformation, were Heads of it too, they might reform us: but so long as they are only Members, I think they may not; what think you? If it be your judgement, that they may, why might not our first Reformers, though Members of the Roman Church, yet reform it? If you think that the Head only can reform, whether is the King Head of the Church which is in his own Kingdom or no? If not, are you not traitorous, while you go about to rob him of his Supremacy, and do you not deserve favour and indulgence from him▪ If he be, why do you quarrel with our first Reformers, when you know the chief of them was the King?   

QUERIE X.  
Whether those points commanded to be believed by the Council of Trent upon pain of damnation, were to be believed upon that severe penalty, before the sitting of that Council. If they were, than those are damned who died before the Creation of those Articles, because they did not believe them; how then fare the souls of our Sires? If not, was not that a Charitable Council, to make the way to Heaven narrower than Christ had left it? But supposing, with you, that they were not necessary, the Query will be, whether they were lawful before it. If they were, than were they not added by the Council of Trent, as you acknowledge they were, but established by a more Ancient Sanction: If not, could that Council make an Article of Faith, which is beyond the power of any Authority under heaven to do? Gal. 1. 8. Can that which is unlawful in itself, be made lawful by a Command? or may the daughters drink poison, because they are bid to do so by their Mother? or if they might, is not Rome a kind Mother, that will prescribe it? Suppose again, that those points were Antecedently indifferent, such as might be believed, or might not; were they enjoined because they might be believed, or because they might not? If because they might, then either that doctrine may be believed which is not Apostolical, contrary to S. Paul; or those Injunctions were Apostolical, contrary to yourselves, who confess they were New. If because they might not, Oh the power of the Council of Trent, which can make us believe those things that an Angel from Heaven may not do! How does it now follow, because a lawful Magistrate may command a lawful thing to be done upon pain of damnation, disobedience to a lawful command being damnable; therefore the Council of Trent may as well command things to be believed that are utterly unlawful, upon the same penalty?   

QUERIE XI.  
What do you mean by the Church? The virtual Church, as you are pleased to call the Pope? or the Representative Church, as you always style your Councils? or, as we understand it, The whole Company of Believers? If you take it in this latter sense, the Scriptures and the Primitive Fathers were to be found in the Church; why might we not then have recourse to them? When we suspected that the Pragmatical Romanists delivered to us Traditions of men, instead of the Doctrines of the Gospel, might we not consult those Oracles for satisfaction? If in the two former senses, why might we not run from the Church, i. e. from the Pope and his Councils, to the Scriptures and Fathers? If we might, have you any reason to be angry with our Reformers for doing what you allow them? If not, do you not advance your own Constitutions above those of the Scriptures and the Fathers, while you will us to obey yours and slight theirs? Again, Let us by the Church understand the whole number of Christians that lived betwixt Christ's days and those of our Reformers, called by you the Essential Church; was there not in that great Interval of time a succession of different Ages and Centuries? Did not a part of this whole number of Christians fill up those several Ages? Do we not call those the Primitive Christians, that the Primitive Church, which lived and flourished in the Age of Christ, or the Centuries next succeeding? Had not you in the latter Ages, by entertaining new Articles of Faith, by introducing other Doctrines then what were from the Beginning, corrupted yourselves, and so became Separatists from the Primitive faith, truth, and Church? Why might not our Reformers then make a secession from the corrupted Romanists, as they did from the purer Christians? If there be any difference in the Schisms, 'tis this; you separated from the Primitive by defiling, we from you by reforming ourselves: And which, I pray, is the greater credit?   

QUERIE XII.  
Whether when the Protestants left Rome, they did not take the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, and the four first general Councils along with them. If they did not, why don't you show us that jota as to which they left them? If they did take them, is it any doubt whether they left them?   

QUERIE XIII.  
Whether he that said Jerusalem was the Mother-Church of the Jews, did not say Antioch was the Mother, at least the eldest, Church of the Gentiles? If so, is it possible that Rome should be their Mother too? If there be two mothers, must not Rome, which was the latter, be a stepmother to them? And are they not like to lead a prosperous and happy life under such an indulgent Matron, who is wont even to kill her children out of very kindness to them?   

QUERIE XIV.  
If S. Peter brought Christianity into Britain, as Gildas says, and you consent, whether this will not exempt the British Church from any subjection to the See of Rome. If ever Peter was there (which is a question not to be decided) did he bring it hither before he carried it thither, or after? If before, why must we, who were the first Christians, truckle under Rome that is our junior? If after, was it while he was living, or after his Death? If while alive, what will become of your pretensions, that he seated himself at Rome, there exercised Episcopal Authority, and dying there bequeathed his chair to Clemens, or Linus, and the succeeding Popes? If in his absence he left a Deputy, it will seem strange that one man's head should fit another's shoulders: If not, 'twill be more strange that the body should tarry there while the head travailed into England. If after his Death, are we not beholding to him that he would rise out of his grave, and take such a long journey to plant the Gospel here? And will it not become you who are so much devoted to S. Peter, to own us for your Superiors, if for no other Reason, yet for the miraculous plantation?   

QUERIE XV.  
Whether you do well to make a Comparison between Henry 8. and Phocas, who was indeed an incomparable villain. Was not one a King by Birth, the other of an obscure parentage, and by merit but a Centurion? One came to his Crown by rightful succession; the other to the Empire by the unnatural murder of his Master Mauritius and his children. One had reason to be displeased at Clement 7. who had so often deluded him in his appeals, so long usurped what was his Right; the other had not the same reason to be displeased at Cyriacus, who could not invade his Right, that had no other Right to be invaded but what blood and rapine could give him to the gallows. Suppose he had been the lawful Emperor, if he had denied Cyriacus the Title of Universal, and made himself supreme within his own Dominions, he had done well, And did H. 8. who was indeed our lawful King, do any more than throw off the Pope, and restore his own Supremacy to himself? You applaud Phocas his justice for robbing Constantinople, and placing the Title of Universal in the Bishop of Rome, that being the chief Seat of his Empire; would you have been content if H. 8. when he degraded Clement, had made the Bishop of London Universal, that being the Metropolis of his Kingdom? If not, do you not do to others as you would not be done to yourselves, in permitting Phocas to strip Cyriacus, and not suffering King H. to do the like to you? If you would, why do you appropriate that title to yourselves, while you confess that, if the King had so pleased, the Bishop of London might have been as Universal as my Lord of Rome is?   

QUERIE XVI.  
S. Peter says Christ is the Cornerstone, 1 Pet. 2. 6. you say S. Peter is: which must we hearken to? If S. Peter were a p illar, could he be a Cornerstone too? Whether S. Paul Knew S. Peter or no? If not, why did he not excuse himself for rebuking him, as he did for his reviling the High priest, with an I wist not who he was? If he did, sure he knew him to be not so much, or no more than his equal, when he rebuked him so openly, and made no Apology for his boldness neither. Whether the Pope be not S. Peter's successor, as in his Chair, so in his Dissimulation too, because he can pretend to humility in the midst of so great pride, and exactly counterfeit it, while he has such an Absolute Authority. Whether from this Humility does not proceed his so inveterate Enmity to Ambition in others, that he will not suffer them to aspire beyond his own great toe. Whether S. Paul might not be born among the Jews, and yet Preach among the Heathens; and so though he were an Hebrew of Hebrews by parentage, yet be an Apostle of the Gentiles by employment? If the Pope be Lord of Kings, as you say, does he not Lord it over God's heritage? Are Kings, no part of God's heritage? Does not Christ's Vicar too much disgrace his master, by condescending so far as to be the servant of the servants of God? They that rule over the Gentiles exercise Lordship; but do our Lords Bishops rule over the Gentiles? A Gentile and a Heathen, you say, are all one: and is it not enough to make us Heretics, but you must make us Heathens too? and so neither keep Faith with us, because we are Heretics, nor suffer us to hold the same Faith with you, because we are Heathens?   

Imprimatur.  
Dan. Nicols, R. P. D. Arch. Cant. Capel. Domesticus. Ex aedibus Lambethanis Martii 21. 1662./ 3.  
FINIS.