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 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 errour in the Founda­tion of any Church? It being Theft and Robbery (as our Savi­our hath taught us) not to enter by the dore into the Sheep-fold.

Whether Cranmer enter'd by the Parliament-dore, 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 assign'd, to determine which is the true Interpretation, un­less your inclinations be to wrangle to all Eternity.

To these Quaeries 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 Ca­tholick Bishops. It follows inevitably, that Roman Catholick Bishops did also receive their Orders from Christ and his [Page 4] 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 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? Untie this knot, or confess that Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, &c. made themselves Judges, Witnesses, and Accusers.

But the more common Answer is, that every National Church may Reform it self. Be it so: Then it follows, Scot­land may Reform it self to Calvinism, Saxony to Luthera­nism, &c. 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 reform'd 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 it self 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 Errours and Corruptions; I answer in short, that all Here­ticks, 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 Errours and Corruptions of the English Church.

Whether the true Service of God had been corrupted throughout the whole World before Cranmers rise? If not, [Page 4] 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 Lyons, received his Mission. Nor do I know whether his Sacraments are approv'd by the Church of England.

Whether at this day there be no Pure and Apostolical Ser­vice of God in the World, except that establish'd 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 Arch-Bishop of the Church of England? The reason of my doubt, is, because the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury for nine preceding 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 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 Catholicks, than un­der No Kind with Reformers?

Whether the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England be Articles of Faith, yea or no? If not, then 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 sub-divided 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 deceiv'd our first Parents by [Page 6] perswading 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 deceiv'd 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, then 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 Fanaticks, 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, then 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 Catholick Religion Establish'd by so many Acts of Parliament?

Elisabeth Expell'd 14 Catholick Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy. But how could they Swear her to be Head or supream 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 Supream Governour, 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, &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 this 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 King's Ma­jesty is the only Supream Governour (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 obey'd so far as we may by the Laws of God, and the Kingdom. Be it so, then it follows, that the King is not Supream Governour 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 English-men, (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 confest by all) then is she not Founded upon a Rock, because she may Deceive, and be Deceiv'd.

Whether Cardinal Wolsey did wisely by Demolishing Monasteries to Found Colledges? 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 Errours 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 shewing mercy to the Poor. Whereas it ought to have been Translated Redeem thy Sins by Alms-deeds, and thine Iniquities by shewing mercy to the Poor. Again, how are St, Pauls 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.