Queries Upon Queries, Query 7 – Query 16
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 infallability or perpetuity? To enter into Heaven through perſecutions and tribulations, is it not to be ſaved ſo as by fire? Were not thoſe impriſon'd ſpirits, the ſouls of thoſe who periſh'd in the Flood, and were reſerv'd in ſome ſafe, but tolerable cuſtody, till Chriſt came and preach'd Repentance to them, which, upon their delivery, immediately vaniſh'd? Or if Purgatory be that priſon, is it not an excellent employment for the Pope to be the Gaoler? Was Maximilian the ſecond forc'd by the Proteſtants, or by the Reaſonableneſs of the thing it ſelf, 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 lawfull 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 onelyonly forecaſt till then? May not a man be damn'd for eating that bread, and drinking that wine unworthily, which repreſents the Body and Bloud of Chriſt▪ Again, Did Chriſt give the Bread to any but Diſciples and Miniſters, or not? If not, why doe 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 cloath them with Beaſts-skins by confining themſelves to Horſe-meals, it being fit their garb ſhould be ſutable 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 doe 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 Latine; 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 then 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 then his Holineſs? If that Pope was Infallible, then Omniſcient too; and if you know more then he, you muſt know more then he who knows all things; then likewiſe Boniface muſt be Antichriſt, becauſe Gregory ſays ſo: If he was not, how did his Succeſſours gain that Prerogative, who had far leſs knowledge then himſelf?
QUERIE VIII.
May not the Catholick 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 Kingdomes of Chriſtendome 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 Reform'd or not? If not, why does not our Saviour permit the Phariſees quietly to enjoy their old Cuſtomes of Divorce? If a Member be diſeaſed, may we not endeavour after a Cure? If it may be Reform'd, 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 ſow'd our Tares, pull them up too? Can the ſword which made the wound, become the plaiſter? 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 doe evil? or rather are we not commanded to let them depart from us, and purge our ſelves 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 reade 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 Catholick Church, or no? If not, then the Roman Church is no part of the Catholick, becauſe they were of the Roman Faith, and yet according to you not Catholicks. If they were, may the ſame perſon be a member of the Catholick, and the Head of a particular Church, or not? If not, do you not ſplit your ſelf 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 Kingdome 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 believ'd by the Council of Trent upon pain of damnation, were to be believ'd upon that ſevere penalty, before the ſitting of that Council. If they were, then thoſe are damn'd 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 then Chriſt had left it? But ſuppoſing, with you, that they were not neceſſary, the Querie will be, whether they were lawful before it. If they were, then were they not added by the Council of Trent, as you acknowledge they were, but eſtabliſh'd 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 doe? Gal. 1. 8. Can that which is unlawful in it ſelf, be made lawful by a Command? or may the daughters drink poiſon, becauſe they are bid to doe 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 believ'd, or might not; were they enjoyn'd becauſe they might be believ'd, or becauſe they might not? If becauſe they might, then either that doctrine may be believ'd which is not Apoſtolical, contrary to S. Paul; or thoſe Injunctions were Apoſtolical, contrary to your ſelves, 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 believ'd that are utterly unlawful, upon the ſame penalty?
QUERIE XI.
What do you mean by the Church? The virtual Church, as you are pleas'd to call the Pope? or the Repreſentative Church, as you alwaies 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 deliver'd 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 liv'd betwixt Chriſt's daies and thoſe of our Reformers, call'd by you the Eſſential Church; was there not in that great Intervall 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 liv'd and flouriſh'd 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 your ſelves, 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 our ſelves: 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 ſhew us that Iota 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 ſtep-mother 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 ſayes, 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 bequeath'd his chaire to Clemens, or Linus, and the ſucceeding Popes? If in his abſence he left a Deputy, it will ſeem ſtrange that one mans head ſhould fit anothers ſhoulders: If not, 'twill be more ſtrange that the body ſhould tarry there while the head travail'd 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 doe 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 rightfull ſucceſſion; the other to the Empire by the unnatural murther of his Maſter Mauritius and his children. One had reaſon to be diſpleas'd at Clement 7. who had ſo often deluded him in his appeals, ſo long uſurp'd what was his Right; the other had not the ſame reaſon to be diſpleas'd at Cyriacus, who could not invade his Right, that had no other Right to be invaded but what bloud and rapine could give him to the gallows. Suppoſe he had been the lawfull Emperour, 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, doe any more then 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 Kingdome? If not, do you not doe to others as you would not be done to your ſelves, in permitting Phocas to ſtrip Cyriacus, and not ſuffering King H. to doe the like to you? If you would, why do you appropriate that title to your ſelves, while you confeſs that, if the King had ſo pleas'd, the Biſhop of London might have been as Univerſal as my Lord of Rome is?
QUERIE XVI.
S. Peter ſaies Chriſt is the Corner-ſtone, 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 Corner-ſtone 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 then his equal, when he rebuk'd him ſo openly, and made no Apology for his boldneſs neither. Whether the Pope be not S. Peter's ſucceſſour, 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 Autority. 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 farre 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 Hereticks, but you muſt make us Heathens too? and ſo neither keep Faith with us, becauſe we are Hereticks, 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.
End of the text · John Dobson, Queries Upon Queries (1663)