What mean they by these words As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes c. 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 the Oath to become Catholicks with a Catholick King Calvinists with a Calvinist King Arians with an Arian I say according to this Oath because the Kings 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 Answ You have been as often told what we mean by these words As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes as you have asked the Question but you would never take notice of the Answer nor make any exception to it and yet 't is an even wager that the next set of Queries which you intend to astonish us with brings this over again But once more you are desired to take notice of the meaning of our Church where 't is most plainly expressed viz. in Artic. 37. Title Of Civil Magistrates The Kings Majesty hath the chief Power in the Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of the Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the Minds of some standerous folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testisie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and Evil Doers You see then our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme Governor in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical viz. that no Quality in the Church nor cause of the Church exempts a Subject from the Secular Laws and the Sword of Justice which may be very true as it undoubtedly is and yet all manner of Obedience in Religious Matters shall not presently become due to the King. For when Sovereigns require their Subjects to do things contrary to true Religion if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws which goes with us under the name of Passive Obedience it saves at once their acknowledgment of the Sovereigns Supremacy over them and Gods Supremacy over All. So that we are not obliged by our Oath to become Calvinists with a Calvinist King nor Arians with an Arian King nor Roman Catholicks with such a King nor in a word to be of the Kings Religion but to submit to his Authority let his Religion be what it will. In short let the Persons or the Causes be what they will out Church acknowledgeth the King to be Supreme Governor in his Dominions he only having the Civil Sword. But now as for you that make the Pope the Head of the Catholick Church and Union to him necessary to your being a Member of it who laugh at us for that dependence which our Ecclesiasticks have upon the King and depend in effect for all the benefits of Christianity upon your Ecclesiastical Union to the Pope which is something more than the Article recognizes of our Sovereigns you I say would do well to tell us how you can avoid being Arians with a Pope Liberius or Monothelites with a Pope Honorius or No Image-Worshippers with a Pope Gregory I. or Image-Worshippers with a Pope Adrian I. Sect. 32 Quer. 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 then it follows that the King is not Supreme Governor under Christ but the Laws of God and the Kingdom Answ To this silly Stuff I oppose a little plain Sense That the Laws of the Kingdom are not to be opposed to the Supremacy of the King whose Laws they are That the King is our Supreme Governor under God but that we know of no Supreme Governor that is to be Obeyed absolutely without any Limitation whatsoever but God himself Sect. 33 Quer. What if Controversies rise between the King and his Subjects about the True Sense of Scripture Who shall be Judge The Private Spirit or not Hence If am not mistaken came the Rise of our late Civil Wars Answ I dare say you are the first that ever found out the want of a Judge betwixt King and People to be the Rise of the late Civil Wars 'T is pity the Observation should be lost for 't is a notable one and would mend the History of those Times not a little But pray who should that Judge be to determine the True Sense of Scripture between the King and his Subjects The Pope without doubt And so we are gotten into the old Circle again For if they must take the Judgement of the Pope at a venture then any Man may be agreed upon to be the Judge and he will serve the turn as well as the Pope But if God has made the Pope Judge that indeed is another case But how shall we know it By the Scripture Who then must be Judge of the True Sense of Scripture with reference to the Question The Pope says 't is a plain case on his side But it may be neither the King says it nor his Subjects Who therefore must be the Judge between the King and the Pope or between his Subjects and the Pope Not the private Spirit for the World for thence come Wars So that the Pope must be Judge because the Scripture says so and the Scripture says so because the Pope must Judge Now if instead of Pope you put in Council you will find the Circle go as round with one as t'other Nor do I see how you can avoid it but by running out into the long line of a Judge upon a Judge without end which I gave you some warning of before To Conclude When you have tired yourselves with these frivolous Expedients for the Ending of Controversies do what you can you will find it best to come to that which you disgrace under the Name of a Private Spirit the Good use whereof is that which must do the business Men must be Honest and hearken to Instruction and love Truth and remember that the Day of Judgment is coming This you cannot deny to be the Duty of All. And if you and every Body else could be brought to it then about plain Things there would be no Controversie at all and those about Points that are indeed difficult might do
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus Several Captious Queries c. Guil. Needham May 10. 1688. Several Captious QUERIES Concerning the English Reformation First Proposed By Dean Manby an Irish Convert in Latin And afterwards by T.W. in English Briefly and Fully ANSWER'D By the late Reverend and Learned Dr. CLAGETT Preacher to the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed by H. Clark for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVIII AN ANSWER TO T. W's QUERIES Sect. 1 Quer. THe Church of England is either the whole Catholick 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 her self off form the rest of the Body Answ If the Church of Rome were spread over the Face of the whole Earth excepting here in England and nothing would serve but we or they must be the Catholick Church Reason would require that the Church of England should be so which is the better and not the Church of Rome which would be but the bigger Church But we pretend not to be the Catholick Church because we neither need nor ought to boast beyond Truth The Sacraments we embrace are received by All Christian Churches in the World and no Church ought to receive any more We embrace the Liturgies of the other Reformed Churches and use our own as they use their own and embrace ours We embrace all that honest Chistians can embrace in the Liturgies of the Vnreformed and we reject the rest We have not cut our selves off from the rest of the Body but the Church of Rome has done so because she is resolved to be All or Nothing Sect. 2 Quer. Does she allow the Sacraments of Lutherans or Calvinists Answ She allows and administers the same Sacraments that Lutherans and Calvinists do not because they are Sacraments celebrated by them or by any others but because they are Sacraments instituted by Christ. Sect. 3 Quer. 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 vertue 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 Answ Cranmer was immediately sent by the Bishops that Ordained and Consecrated him Originally by Christ who left that Power in the Church by which they did so So far therefore as he was the First Reformer of the Church of England he did what became his Mission better than if he had gone on to maintain False Doctrins as the Patriarch of Rome did That he was the First Reformer was not his fault but theirs who went before him in that great Station and should have done the same thing but did it not The Gospel which he preached was not the Gospel of Man and therefore not his own but the Gospel of Christ Nor was it properly a Reformed Gospel which he preached since the Gospel of Christ is in all Ages one and the same But if because he reformed the Profession of the Church in some things which were no part of the Gospel though they were pretended to be so he must be said to have preached a Reformed Gospel neither was he to blame for that whose Duty it was to cast Errors out of the Church but they only were to blame who had been so careless and treacherous as to let them in He did rise up against the Church of Rome when he arose against the Corruptions of that Church which had obtained in England unless the Church of Rome cannot subsist without such notorious Errors as he rose up against He was not her Enemy unless he became so by telling her the Truth Nor is it true that he receiv'd his Commission from Rome though he receiv'd it by the hands of Bishops that were in servitude to that See For his Commission had been every whit as good if they had not been subject to the Roman Bishop as they ought not to have been But since his Obligation to Christ from whom he received his Commission by their hands was infinitely greater than to them it was just and honest in him to rise up against those Unchristian Doctrins and Practices which they maintained and no less justifiable then to have risen up against the Arian Heresie if he had received his Orders from Arian Bishops And if ever the Church of England should fall into the like Corruptions again which God forbid those Bishops and Ministers that have received Orders from her hands and who in discharge thereof take upon them to preach not against the Church of England but against the wicked Doctrines and Practices of the Church those Bishops c. I say will do not only what they may but what they ought to do and for the doing of which they shall be rewarded at the last day by the Great Bishop and Shepherd of Souls by whose Authority and Command they so did Sect. 4 Quer. 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 Sheepfold Answ That Cranmer did or that our Pastors now do want Mission is Falshood insinuated by this Query Their Mission has been more Canonical than that of many of your Popes has been But for once to Answer directly to an Impertinent Question The want of such Mission does not destroy the Being or as you call it the Foundation of a Church Nor is that the Door of which our Saviour spake in Joh. X. since in the needs of the Church Good Shepherd may come into the Fold without Canonical Mission and it has on the other side too often happened that Thieves and Robbers have come into the Fold by it who came not but for to steal and to kill and to destroy Sect. 5 Quer. Whether Cranmer entred by the Parliament Door or by the Gate of the Scriptures But this latter is the Old Song of Hereticks 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 determin which is the true Interpretation unless your Inclinations be to wrangle to all Eternity Answ To the first of these profound Interrogations I Answer thus That if Cranmer entred by the Parliament Door 't is a Door at which you whoever you are would be glad to enter too provided you could get in without first passing the Gate of the Scriptures which you shut up against men for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in For your saying
That Scripture is the old Song of Hereticks and Secretaries c. I know not whether it betrays more ignorance or profaneness The Scriptures if they must be so called were the Old Song of the Good Old Fathers of the Church and the Old Song of the Old Hereticks and Sectaries was Tradition Tradition unwritten Tradition the taking up of which Song is that that gives you some Title to Antiquity To your Second Interrogatiory I Answer That if by admitting various Interpretations you mean that the words of the Bible are not so plain as to exclude all possibility of various Interpretations and perveting them to a wrong sence 't is then a very idle Demand Whether the Bible does not admit of various Interpretations For I defie your Judge whom you speak of presently after be he Man or Men to put words so together that it shall be impossible to pervert them to a wrong meaning But if you mean that upon a fair Construction of the Words of the Bible they admit various Interpretations I Answer That in some places they do and in others they do not admit more than one which is therefore undoubtedly the true one But for you consequence that of necessity some Judge is to be assigned c. I beg your pardon that I do not see it unless of necessity Men must be either so wanton and quarrelsom as to wrangle to all eternity about the meaning of words which may be diversly expounded without any harm done or so perverse as to cavil at a Text which has but one plain meaning If you find yourselves given this way you indeed ought to have a Judge assigned for you and more than One. You should have one Judge assigned whose constant business it should be to determin the true Interpretation of all other Scriptures but those that speak of him to keep you from wrangling about them And you would need another Extraordinary Judge to assign the Ordinary Judge from those Texts that mention him and a Third to assign the Second and so on till you come to a Judge for whose Credit you must take his own Word that ye may not wrangle about a Judge to all Eternity Sect. 6 Quer. To these Queries I have often desired an Answer but never yet met with any Answ Why that was hard indeed but I must tell you that these Queries tho' they were Printed yet went abroad so privately as if they were more affraid than desirous to meet with an Answer Whether you ever met with an Answer I cannot say perhaps you have not and it may be you will never own that you have But let us go on Sect. 7 Quer. 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 Catholick Bishops it follows inevitably that Roman Catholick Bishops did also receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles and consequently are therefore to be heard By this Answer the Protestants seem to me to destroy their own Cause Answ If they destroy their own Cause you are to give them thanks for 't is more than their Enemies can do But I do not see how this Answer destroys it for if those whom you call Roman Catholick Bishops can give good Orders then were the Orders of Cranmer and his Associates good It is enough for us that they had their Orders from Bishops And as we contend that their Orders were never the better so we willingly grant that they were never the worse for being conferred by those whom you must needs style Roman Catholick Bishops Well but you say If we pretend to derive our Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops it follows inevitably that these also did receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles So that though our Orders are never the worse from coming through their hands yet the Roman Catholick Bishops themselves are in a better case for our granting it since their Orders must therefore by our Confession be from Christ and his Apostles Very well and if your Doctrine be true it will I think be found that Judas received his Orders from Christ too when Christ said to him and to the rest Hoc Facite Perhaps you will say that those were not Bishops Orders To go on with you therefore What follows from Roman Catholick Bishops having received their Orders from Christ Why therefore they are true Bishops and to be heard Undoubtedly But what then Therefore Protestants seem to destroy their own Cause This is so much out of the Common Rode of Reasoning that surely you have some Logick by yourself which the World yet never saw and therefore you would do very well to let us have it if ever it should come into your head to Query again Not to have heard you had been unreasonable I confess and this whether your Bishops were True or not But we have heard them over and over and this although they have said the same thing over and over again You may also perceive that I have read which may serve instead of hearing yourself too whom I fancy to be no Bishop and this I assure you not without some tryal of my own Patience to read such rambling and unedifying things as you have here brought together Sect. 8 Quer. But you will say perhaps that Roman Catholick 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 rose up against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome Unty this Knot or Confess that Cranmer Luther Calvin Socinis c. made themselves Judges Witnesses and Accusers Answ Here again we are at a loss for want of your private Logick for why Judges Witnesses and Accusers should come in here no Man alive it may be knows but yourself and perhaps not you neither To so much as I understand I am content to Answer True Bishops then may Preach False Doctrine and against your Bishops we have terrible Evidence that those Doctrins of theirs which we reject are so far from being received from Christ that many of them are contrary to what we have received from him Now every Christian not only may but ought to reject such Doctrins and that by the same Authority which requires every one to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good And much more may Bishops and other Spiritual Guids rise up against them Nay by their Orders and Station in the Church they have not only Authority so to do but it will be severely required of them if they do it not I know not what ayl'd you to tye an invisible Knot and then to bid us unty it As for Socinus we are no more bound to Answer for his or any other Mans Errors because he holds many Truths with us against you than we are bound to answer for yours because we hold some Truths with you
against him Sect. 9 Quer. But 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 c. Answ And so you leave us to gather the rest in this manner but Scotland ought not to reform to Calvinism Saxony to Lutheranism and therefore a National Church may not reform itself Which is as much as to say That because the National Churches which reformed themselves did not all of them agree in every Point of Doctrine and Discipline with one another therefore they ought not to have reformed the most manifest Abuses notorious Errors in the taking a way of which they all agreed If you intended to insinuate that we Confess some defects in this or that National Church since they reformed your Argument is just such another as this Because the National Churches in reforming themselves did not do every good thing which they might therefore they ought not to have done the Good which they did You may Sir observe if you please that the Authority of any National Church to reform itself does not imply it to be an Indifferent thing how she proceeds in doing it Nor does it follow that because 't is possible for a National Church to use Authority in this Matter better or worse therefore she has no Authority at all in it If you are Ignorant of these things you do well to make Queries upon them but it should have been done modestly and without pretending to dispute of things in which you are so very unskilful Quer. Moreover 't is 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 't is evident that almost all the English Bishops Cranmer and two or three more excepted were utterly against the pretended Reformation Sect. 10 Answ If the Reformation were not a Pretended only but a Real Reformation and if all the English Bishops almost were against it the more to blame they but the Reformation was not the less necessary Truth is to be followed with a Few if they are but Few that follow it but thou shalt not follow a Multitude to do evil It is better to be in the right with a Young King though he be but a Child than to be in the wrong with an Old Pope But for what you say That the Change of Religion in England was made by the Giddiness of a Few 't is notoriously False for they were but few in Comparison that opposed it and it was so generally received that Fire and Faggot in the next Reign was not able to destroy it Sect. 11 Quer. 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 Catholick Church to separate itself from the rest of the Body Answ She has not separated herself from the rest of the Body though she has not now for some time been in Actual Conjunction with one part of it and that the most corrupted part of all the Rest the true Reason whereof is that you will have no Communion with us but we must pay for it at the price of our Souls If to reform our selves be to separate from your Church look you to that who have it seems made both these things to be in effect the same thing by your hating to be Reformed We for our parts are amazed that Men who talk so much for Unity of Communion will not do that for the sake of Unity which ought to be done though Discord and Separation would certainly follow upon it Sect. 12 Quer. 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 Hereticks themselves being Judges will escape Condemnation And father let the Reader take notice that all Presbyterians are wont to urge this very Instance in their own defence against the Church England to wit that they have left only the Errors and Corruption of the English Church Answ If you say this was not done by Fault of the Roman Church but of the Church of England refusing to submit to the Supreme Pastor and rejecting the Catholick Faith I answer in short That All Vsurpers and Deceivers themselves being Judges will escape Condemnation And farther let the Reader take notice that though this Plea of forsaking the Errors of a Church lies in the middle to be taken up by every one that separates from a Church yet one may take it up with very good reason against one Church while another lays hold on it without any just cause for so doing against another Church Nor ought it to be esteemed any prejudice against using such a Plea when there is Cause for it that others may using when there is none For otherwise 't is impossible that the Innocent should ever make a good Plea for themselves since they that are guilty may if they can but speak take the same Words into their Mouths When the two Apostles said to the Council Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken anto you more than unto God judge ye they might have been told that this was no more than what every Deceiver might say And yet I suppose you will not deny but the Plea in their Mouths was a very just and sufficient Plea. Sect. 13 Quer. Whether the true Service of God had been corrupted throughout the whole World before Cranmer's Rise If not tell me in what Province of the Earth did exist Whether among the Waldenses But I am ignorant from whence Peter Waldo the Merchant of Lyons received his Mission Nor do I know whether his Sacraments are approved by the Church of England Answ The whole World is a very wide place and the Query is a very Impertinent Query For whether the true Service of God bad been corrupted throughout the whole World before Cramner's Rise or not one thing we are sure of that it was most vilely corrupted here and therefore that there was crying need to have it Reformed But if you long to have a more positive Answer to the Question first go and learn that every Corruption in the Service of God does not destroy the Truth though it lessens the Purity of it and that every Defect does not deserve to be called a Corruption that as to this Matter some Churches were better and others worse none I doubt perfect but that there was one worst of all so very bad that Peter Waldo needed not anny Mission to declare against the Corruptions of it Learn these things as you ought to do against the next time
and if you intend to go on in this way then you shall hear farther from me Concerning the Sacraments which the Church of England appears I have told you my mind once already Sect. 14 Quer. Whether at this day there be no Pure and Apostolical Service of God in the World except that established by Law in England and Irealnd 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 Answ For an Answer to the first part of the Query I send you back but to the last Query of all where you may find it As to the second I say 't is not lawful for the people of England or for any other People to invent a Church by which you mean I should think to invent a New Religion New Doctrins Worships and Governments But what came into your Head to ask this Question I am not able to imagin since our people have Invented no New Church but only retrieved the Old Whilst you all people have been the best at this Invention and by Inventing a New Creed and New Objects of Worship and New Sacraments and a New Head of the Catholick Church have effectually divided yourselves from all the rest of the Christian World that stick to the Old Religion and will have none of your Inventions 2. I must acquaint you that the two former Branches of this Query seem to me to make up a kind of Nonsence between them for in the first you suppose that we pretend to have a pure Apostolical Service amongst us and in the second that we must needs grant our Church to be one of our own Invention Now we might take it ill to have Questions put upon us as if we were such Ninnies as to pretend to an Apostolical Service and yet to grant that we our selves were the Inventors of it 3. Take all together and the most I can make is this that you lay great weight upon your Presumption that by our Service we stand divided from the rest of the Christian World which I have already told you is notoriously false But for your better Instructions I shall add that if indeed we only had a Pure and Apostolical Service and yet upon the account of our Service no other Christians would Communicate with us the rest of the Christian World ought to be ashamed of it but we not at all By the run of your Queries you seem to be ignorant of one of the plainest things in the World which therefore I do again commend to your Consideration viz. that Truth is the same and changes not whether they be many or few that profess it and that our Religion stands not in a multitude of Pretenders but in a Holy Doctrin and a Holy Practice which all ought to follow even when the most do not As for the third Branch of this Query By what Authority c it comes in as if you could never ask it often enough But if I have not given you a sufficient Answer pray do you try to give a better if you can to this By what Authority do you censure the Sacraments and Rites of the English Church Quer. Whether Cranmer was the first Arch-Bishop of the Church of England The reason of my doubt is this because Archbiships of Canterbury for nine preceeding Ages were all Roman Catholicks 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 Doctrin I say New and strange at that time and for many Ages before Sect. 15 Answ He that affirms there were Roman Catholick Archbishops of Canterbury for Nine Ages before Cranmer and yet makes a doubt whether Cranmer were the first Archbishop of Canterbury or not shall doubt on for me If indeed Cranmer was the first Archbishop of Canterbury then as you say he wanted Episcopal Succession in the See of Canterbury that is he had no Bishops that were his Predecessors in that See because he was the first and I am very glad that you don't doubt of that too And yet I think there is as much reason to doubt of that as of the other But then you are come to an end of the first doubt presently for now you do not doubt but Cranmer was the first Archbishop tho' there were Archbishops for Nine Ages before him and wanted Episcopal Succession I suppose you do not care to stand doubting long upon a Matter But in the name of sence how can this be Why Because being the first of his Sect he succeeded none Notably spoken and all is now as plain as can be Because Cranmer was the First of his Sect in the See of Canterbury Therefore he was also the First of his Order for if there were no Archbishop of his Sect before him without all doubt there were no Archbishops before him at all And yet there were too therefore I begin to doubt this will prove but a bad business at last However Sir I give you many thanks for your Argument such as it is for the distinction which it proceeds upon we have been tugging for this hundred and fifty years and you at last have very civilly yielded it to us For in plain English you would prove that Cranmer wanted Episcopal Succession because he wanted Doctrinal Succession he was say you the First of his Sect and therefore he succeeded to none And again How could he be a lawful Pastor who had neither Succession c. to recommend his New Doctrin Now tho' I can by no means grant that want of Doctrinal Succession implies the want of Episcopal Succession nor will you neither when you have taken something to clear your Brain yet I do very thankfully acknowledge that to make a Good Pastor there ought not to be an Episcopal Succession only but a Doctrinal Succession also Now Cranmer we say received his Orders from the Bishops of his Age and his Episcopal Succession from his immediate Predecessor in the See of Canterbury and so upward Thus far now we are very well But then for his Doctrin for which you would make him the First of his Sect he took a far better course than as you would have had him to receive it for good and all from his immediate Predecessors for it was possible and upon trial he found it certainly true that his Predecessors had made a failure in Successon of Doctrin and innovated against the Antient Faith and Worship of the Christian Church He therefore went to the Records of the Primitive Church and to the Scriptures which are the most Antient of all and the only Infallible Rule of Faith by which he found and so may you if you have Grace to do it that some of those Bishops whom you speak of that went
Body think himself Infallible when once they depended upon his Holiness no longer When you design a witty Query take care whilst you live that there be some Sence and a little Truth at the bottom and in one Word that it be not like this which is a meer Bubble and turns to nothing Sect. 27 Quer. By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Catharine 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 Catharine was Legimate Heiress of the Kingdom then Elizabeth was not because it was not lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once Answ I doubt not but Queen Catharine was a Vertuous Wife but under favour since you will needs be medling with these Matters you should have put your Question either with more honesty or with more skill and instead of asking By whose Authority he divorced his Virtuous Wife you should have asked by what Authority he divorced his Brothers Wife For there lay the point and here I must tell you that after that Question whether the Pope had Power to dispense with that Marriage had been debated and determined in the Negative by the most famous Universities of Europe for you an unskilful Querist to ask by what Authority the King did as he did shews that you have spent your time to little purpose and are to be admonished to bestow it better for the future As for your other difficulty how Mary and Elizabeth could be both Legitimate I Answer that the Legitimacy of Elizabeth is plain supposing the Marriage of Queen Catharine to King Henry to be void but yet Mary the Child of that Marriage was not Illegitimate because the Marriage was made without Fraud But if one or other of them must necessarily be Illegitimate pray look you to the consequence who I suppose apprehend some great Matter to depend upon this Dispute For my own part these kind of Queries seem to be very impertinent for if Queen Mary was Illegitimate our Religion is not one jot the truer for it and if she was Legitimate neither is it the worse But there is a time to answer Questions that are none of the wisest Sect. 28 Quer. If that Religion be Sacred that is established by Law why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholick Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament Answ It seems then that what you call the Catholick Religion may be destroyed And yet these Queries are publish'd with Allowance Your Superiors surely can instruct you that to destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing and to destroy the Religion is another But they saw that if you had expressed the former the Query had looked so ridiculously that it had been a shame to let it go For all the Sacredness that Human Law can give to a Religion is a legal Sacredness and no more or if you please a legal Establishment And so this is the English of your Quaere If that Religion has a legal Establishment that 's established by Law why did the Queen destroy the legal Establishment of the Catholick Religion which was of estalibshed by so many Laws In my opinion it had been much better to Query thus like a plain man If the Catholick Religion was established by so many Laws why did Queen Elizabeth unestablish it by Law again And now having brought your Query to this Form I Answer that yours is not the Catholick Religion and it was pity that it should have that Sacredness which the Law gave it because it had no Sacredness of its own to deserve it and therefore it was a very good Law that took away the other Sacredness from it If you think this Answer not to be full enough you may pick out somerhing more in Answ to Sect. 20. whither I refer you Sect. 29 Quer. Queen Elizabeth expelled fourteen Catholick Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy But how could they swear her to be Head or Supreme Governor of the Church when they could not swear she was Head of this Kingdom Answ I think truly Fourteen Bishops were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and that for not taking the Oath of Supremacy But take this along with you too that most of these Bishops if not All had taken the very same Oath before and some of 'em assisted at the framing of it So that one would think that their refusing to take the same Oath under Elizabeth was as much as to deny her to be Head of the Kingdom as you say which all modest Men must grant to have been a sufficient cause for their Deprivation But yet as tender as Princes are of their Titles it is to be remembred to her immortal Credit that she did not serve them as her Predecessor did Cranmer Latimer Ridley and Hooper but used them in all other respects with great gentleness What their true reasons were for refusing the Oath of Supremacy I shall not go about to Divine But as for you who will needs have it to be this in part at least that they could not swear she was Head of the Kingdom Thus far you are to be commended that you have chosen a more modest expression of your Malice than that impudent Writer did who told us the other day that she was a known Bastard But in the Calumny I perceive you are both agreed And heark ye Gentlemen I do in behalf of the dead Queen and of that Age which universally acknowledge her Title defie you both to make good your teproach and fix the Title of Calumniators upon you both if you neither can justifie it nor will publickly retract it Sect. 30 Quer. Did not Cranmer and his Reforming Associates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary Answ Or rather did not you steal this Query from the Dissenters Sure I am that hitherto it has been theirs saving only the rudeness of the expression which you have added to it Go to them and they can furnish you with an abundant Answer to this terrible Objection But if something must be said here our Liturgy if it must be stolen looks as if it were stolen not out of your Roman but the Old Gallican Missal which once was ours and therefore it was not stolen but now every Body has his own again But if we had taken your Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary only and compiled our Liturgy out of them yet we took nothing of your peculiar Goods from them but only what every part of the Catholick Church has as much right to as your selves and as for that which is peculiarly and properly your own there we have left it entirely to you and much good may it do you Sect. 31 Quer. Are not Protestants bound by their Dath de Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal