SOME QUERIES TO THE PROTESTANTS Concerning the English Reformation.  
By J. W. Gent.  
✚  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Nathaniel Thompson at the Entrance into the Old Spring-Garden near Charing-Cross, 1687.   

Some Queries to the PROTESTANTS, concerning the English REFORMATION,  
THe Church of England is either the whole Catholic Church, or a Member thereof; If a Member only, name me that Church or Congregation under the Sun, whose Sacraments and Liturgy she embraces, unless she have cut herself off from the rest of the Body?  
Does she allow the Sacraments of Lutherans or Calvinists?  
From whence was Cranmer that first Patriarch or Reformer of the Church of England, sent? Who gave him Authority to Preach his Reformed Gospel? Was it just or honest for him to rise up against the Church of Rome, by virtue of a Commission from her received? And if so, I pray inform me whether a Bishop or Minister fallen from the Church of England, may not also take upon him to Preach against the Church of England, by pretence of the Orders received from her Hands?  
Whether want of Mission be not an error in the Foundation of any Church? It being Theft and Robbery (as our Saviour hath taught us) not to enter by the door into the Sheep-fold.  
Whether Cranmer entered by the Parliament-dore, or by the Gate of the Scriptures? But this latter is the old Song of Heretics and Sectaries, perpetually boasting of Scripture. I demand therefore, does not the Bible admit of various Interpretations? whence of necessity some Judge is to be assigned, to determine which is the true Interpretation, unless your inclinations be to wrangle to all Eternity.  
To these Queries I have often times-desired an Answer, but never yet met with any. If you pretend (as many do) that Cranmer and his Associates derived their Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles, by the hands of Roman Catholic Bishops. It follows inevitably, that Roman Catholic Bishops did also receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles, and consequently are true Bishops; and therefore to be heard. By this Answer, the Protestants seem to me, to destroy their own Cause. But you will say perhaps, that Roman Catholic Bishops did receive their Orders, not their Doctrine from Christ and his Apostles; Very good: I would fain know then, by whose Authority the first Reformers risen up against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome? Untie this knot, or confess that Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, etc. made themselves Judges, Witnesses, and Accusers.  
But the more common Answer is, that every National Church may Reform itself. Be it so: Then it follows, Scotland may Reform itself to Calvinism, Saxony to Lutheranism, etc. Moreover, 'tis false, that the change of Religion was made here in England by Vote of the National Church, or Clergy of England. No, no, but by the giddiness of a Few, during the Minority of Edward VI. being then a Child of Ten years old. Read the Annals of those times, (even Fox himself) where 'tis evident that almost all the English Bishops (Cranmer and two or three more excepted) were utterly against the pretended Reformation.  
Yet let us suppose, but not grant, Religion to have been reformed here by the Major part of the English Clergy: I understand not how it may be Lawful for the Church of England, being in actual Communion with the Catholic Church, to separate itself from the rest of the Body. If you say this was not done by fault of the English Church, but of the Church of Rome obtruding on the World her Errors and Corruptions; I answer in short, that all Heretics, themselves being Judges, will escape Condemnation. And further, let the Reader take notice that all Presbyterians are wont to urge this very instance in their own defence against the Church of England, to wit, that they have left only the Errors and Corruptions of the English Church.  
Whether the true Service of God had been corrupted throughout the whole World before Cranmers rise? If not, tell me in what Provinces of the Earth did it exist? Whether among the Waldenses? But I am ignorant from whence Peter Waldo, the Merchant of Lions, received his Mission. Nor do I know whether his Sacraments are approved by the Church of England.  
Whether at this day there be no Pure and Apostolical Service of God in the World, except that established by Law in England and Ireland? Whether it be Lawful for the People of England to invent a Church to themselves, divided from all the rest of the Christian World? By what Authority do they censure the Sacraments and Rites of the Roman Church?  
Whether Cranmer was the first Archbishop of the Church of England? The reason of my doubt, is, because the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury for nine preceding Ages were all Roman Catholics? If he was the first, he wanted Episcopal Succession, because being the first of his Sect, he succeeded to none. Then how could he be a Lawful Pastor, who had neither Succession, Mission, nor Miracles to recommend his New Doctrine? I say New, and strange at that time, and for many Ages before.  
Whether that be a true Church that wants Lawful Pastors? And whether Pastors, not Lawful and True, can be said to have true Sacraments? If not, then, is it not better to Communicate under One Kind with Catholics, than under No Kind with Reformers?  
Whether the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England be Articles of Faith, yea or no? If not, than no body is bound to believe them under pain of Damnation. If they be, then hath the Church of England invented new Articles of Faith besides those XII. instituted by Christ & his Apostles.  
Whether the Reformed Religion may not be divided and subdivided into endless Reformations?  
Whether in the matter of the Eucharist, the Argument drawn from our Senses be not fallible? The reason of this question is, because the Serpent deceived our first Parents by persuading them to believe their own Eyes rather than the Word of God. As that they should eat of the Tree of Knowledge because it was fair to the Eye. Now if Mankind were so deceived by their Sight, pray whence should their other Senses deserve more credit?  
Whether the Church of England be not changeable according to the various inclinations of English Parliaments?  
Whether the Spirit of Calvin denying, and that of Luther affirming a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, be the same Spirit? If not, than both cannot be of God.  
Was not John Calvin a most impudent Creature in assuming to himself the Office of Reforming the World, being yet but a young Man of 25 or 26 years of age, and that without all pretence of Miracles, a thing which Christ himself undertook not under 30 years of age.  
Whether, from the Womb of the Reformation have not issued all those Slaughters, Rapines, Tumults, Plundering of Churches, Schisms, and Civil Wars which broke out in the year 1641?  
Whether Africa produces more variety of Monsters, than Britain does fanatics, where every Man may Read, and Interpret the Scriptures according to his own Judgement of Discretion?  
Whether Queen Elizabeth, born of Ann Bolen, Queen Katherine yet living, can be thought Legitimate?  
How admirable was the Wisdom of Henry VIII. by expelling one Pope of Rome, to raise up infinite Popes of his own Subjects?  
By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Katherine? His own, or a Foreign? If by his own, why may not other Kings also put away their Wives at their pleasure? If Mary his Daughter by Queen Katherine, was Legitimate Heiress of the Kingdom, than Elizabeth was not; because it was not Lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once.  
If that Religion be Sacred that's Established by Law, why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholic Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament?  
Elisabeth Expelled 14 Catholic Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy. But how could they Swear her to be Head or supreme Governess of the Church, when they could not Swear she was Head of the Kingdom?  
Did not Cranmer and his Reforming Associates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal, Ritual and Breviary?  
Are not Protestants bound by their Oath of Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal? What mean they by these words, As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes, etc. But that Protestants are Sworn to yield to the King all manner of Obedience, both Civil and Religious? Are they not obliged therefore according to this Oath, to become Catholics with a Catholic King, Calvinists with a Calvinist King? Arians with an Arian? I say according to this Oath, because the King's Majesty is the only Supreme Governor (under Christ) as well in all Spiritual as Temporal Causes. Which words confess in the King a Spiritual as well as Civil Jurisdiction. But whence does his Spiritual Jurisdiction appear without the Power of the Keys?  
You will say the King is to be obeyed so far as we may by the Laws of God, and the Kingdom. Be it so, than it follows, that the King is not Supreme Governor under Christ, but the Laws of God and the Kingdom. And what if Controversy rise between the King and his Subjects about the true Sense of Scripture? Who shall be Judge? the private Spirit, or not? Hence, if I am not mistaken, came the Rise of our late Civil Wars.  
Why did so many Noble Men under Edward VI and Q. Elizabeth, so readily embrace the Reformation? Was't for Conscience-sake, or the Lucre of Church-Lands?  
Why do Englishmen, (so desirous of Novelties,) hate Popery? Perhaps because Popery is no Novelty.  
The Church of England is either Fallible, or Infallible; if Fallible (as is confessed by all) then is she not Founded upon a Rock, because she may Deceive, and be Deceived.  
Whether Cardinal Wolsey did wisely by Demolishing Monasteries to Found Colleges? The reason of this doubt is, because the Tree of Knowledge was not the Tree of Life.  
Is there not wanting in the Church of England a more correct Translation of the Bible? Many material Errors being found in our present English Bible tending to Schism and liberty of the Flesh. For instance, Gal. 5.17. Dan. 4.24. where the Prophet speaks thus to King Nebuchadnezar, Quamobrem, Rex, consilium meum placeat tibi, & peccata tua ele●mosynis redime, & Iniquitates tuas misericordiis Pauperum. Which Text the present English Translation thus renders, viciously enough. Wherefore O King, break off thy Sins by Righteousness, and thine Iniquities by showing mercy to the Poor. Whereas it ought to have been Translated Redeem thy Sins by Alms-deeds, and thine Iniquities by showing mercy to the Poor. Again, how are St, Paul's words to the Corinthians misrendred, 1 Cor. 7.9. Quod si non se continent, nubant; But if they cannot contain, let them Marry; where this word (cannot) not being found in the Greek, was devised in favour of the Flesh.  
Likewise the words of Christ Matth. 19.11. are corrupted in favour of the Flesh, Non omnes capiunt verbum istud sed quibus datum est. All Men (cannot) receive this saying, but such to whom it is given. It ought to be, all Men do not receive this saying. Also the words of Job, Chapter 7.1. and many other Texts, especially Exod. 20.4. in hatred of the Picture of our Saviour. Non facies tibi sculptile. Which word Sculptile, is by the 70 Interpreters Translated Idol, as indeed it ought to be, because God did not forbid Images, but Idols.  
FINIS.