Queries Upon Queries, Query 1 – Query 6
QUERIES UPON QUERIES: OR Enquiries 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 reſtleſſe importunities to ſollicite for an indulgence, be to ſit down peaceably and grant themſelves erroneous? Do they call that only a ſitting down peaceably, not to grow outragious, and arming themſelves with publick force to fight for their Religion? or is it not moreover not to repine at their preſent happineſs, and to deſiſt from craving any publick favour? If you grant your ſelves erroneous, is it fit you ſhould be indulg'd in your errours? Is it not favour enough to be Conniv'd at, when there are ſuch ſanguinary laws in force againſt you, which, if his Majeſty ſo pleas'd, might be put into execution? Or if he ſhould gratifie 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 publick favour and indulgence, to impudent demands of publick 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 then 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 fortifie 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 referre 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 ſatisfie 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 Auditours, 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 perſwade you, if it did not meet with prejudices more invincible then your judgments to ſubdue? Might not the Diſcourſe be directed to check your inſolence, who upon the King's Declaration began to walk undisguis'd? or to prevent the growth of Popery, that though you compaſs'd Sea and land, yet you might gain no more Proſelytes by your induſtry? or—&c.
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 doe as men have done, but as men ought to doe? 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 doe what has been done, and what ought to be done? If not—Blaſphemy. If to doe as has been done, and as ought to be done, which you ſo carefully diſtinguiſh, be inconſiſtent; Is it not eaſy to inferre, becauſe the Papiſts doe now as they have done, therefore they doe not as they ought to doe? Suppoſe again, that we underſtand Primitive Rules contain'd in Scripture: As for thoſe Articles which lye plain and open, they need not the Light either of yours, or ours, or anothers Interpretation to diſcover them; ſo that your Dilemma has no horns, or but blunt ones: As for the other, the Querie is, whether you or we more cloſely follow the confeſs'd 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 hugge your own errours, and not rather cloſe with our Truths, while our Arms are open to embrace you?
QUERIE IV.
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 call'd 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 then 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 prov'd? If the latter; what is it to the purpoſe? Do we pretend to have receiv'd the Chriſtian faith before all other Churches? or rather do we not avow our ſelves to own the ſame Truths, which if they receiv'd ſooner, yet both of us from the Beginning?
QUERIE V.
It had been ſaid, Serm. p. 10. That in matters of Indifferencie 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, &c. Which paſſage did you reade, or no? If not, why do you undertake to make Queries upon it? If you did, why do you talk of Surplices, Organs, Biſhopricks, Officials, Pluralities, &c. 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, &c. Articles of Faith? While you perſonate the Fanatick, don't you talk as impertinently as if you indeed were one? But, perhaps, the whole Querie was rais'd on purpoſe to tell the world, the Preacher had Pluralities. If ſo, why had you not withall 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 falſifie, or no? If not, why do you doe it? If it be, ſure from the Beginning, unleſs among the Romaniſts, it was not ſo.
QUERIE VI.
Whether there be any Hereſie in the world which never had a Beginning? If not, whether it may not be ſaid to begin with its firſt Authour and raiſer? If ſo, whether all of the ſame perſwaſion may not derive their Antiquity from him? Why then may not the Diſciplinarians fetch theirs as far as the Heretick 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 then an ordinary Presbyter or no? If he was, then he was not the firſt Presbyterian, as you would have him. If he was not, how come his Succeſſours to be Biſhops? If a Presbyter and a Biſhop be all one, why does not the Biſhop of Rome level 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 Querie 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 herefies 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 endeavour'd by ſuch little plots to divert him? If you were, Whether your whole Religion, like your Queries, have any more then a flattering outſide, not to be ſearch'd into by a ſeverer eye then that of a Novice?