dele that p. 46. l. 15. f. very be r. be very p. 84. l. 3 Consider them though but as so many single persons the Covenant bending p. 85. l. 1. r. Which being a former bond no mans Allegiance was p. 145. l. 10. r. perswaded the Nobles that Prelates SHORT Strictures or Animadversions on so much of Mr. Croftons Fastning S. Peters bonds as concerns The Reasons of the University of Oxf. concerning the Covenant THE Oxford men say They could not swear as not being able to say That the Rage Power and Presumption of the Enemies of God was in the sense there intended encreased p. 1. Which was no more then this They durst not mock God and the World by solemnly pretending to call to minde as the phrase there is what they did not believe to be at all To which Mr. Cr. p. 26. Their ability to say so is of little moment c. Is it a small Consideration in an Oath that I am not Able to say the thing I swear to be true nay believe and think my self Able to prove false Others were able to say it Though this with the former being wrote in another Character may obtain our Notice though not Assent May I Swear upon another mans Knowledge Must all the Church of Romes bad Tenents be reformed into worse practices Doth our not assenting by implicite Faith qualifie for swearing upon implicite belief The Oxf. men say That this way of Imposing an Oath intrenches upon the Kings Prerogative and surely Mr. Cr. Censures upon the Refusers of it intrenches upon Gods The judicial Incapacity c. he there suggests is because without ground without Charity The best of it is it is easier to vote Malignants then make Reprobates The Visitours who could by a vote turn men out of Oxford could not do any more then barely wish them out of heaven I cannot but tell the resolved Covenanters those I mean who glory in and so are far from shaking off this Bond of Iniquity that there is something in themselves which looks more like what is or may end in Iudicial incapacity then any thing which can be pretended against the Oxf. men viz. A resolution never to be perswaded otherwise As the Sixth Article enjoynes i. e. They must never more consider or if they do it must be only to shew they dare despise whatever Reason or Religion can say against those courses they are before-hand resolved of Which thing though it might make me despair to deal with them doth it self encourage me Sure I shall easily perswade men that there is something very suspicious in that Cause which will not endure any of its Proselytes should attend to what can be said against it Mr. Cr. hath yet another Answer to this If they did know it though they were not able to say it it was for us sufficient Words which shall not be answered till they are explained Words as well as Men may scape by being in the dark to be unintelligible is security against being confuted I perceive it is good Policy to write some non-sense that we may be sure that that at least will remain unanswered The two next Paragraphs are proofs of what the University professes not to be convinced of the encrease of the Rage Power Presumption of the enemies of God being encreased in the sense intended which were The troubles the three Kingdoms were at present in the Spanish Armado the Gun-powder Treason the Colledge of Propagators Cuneus his plot discovered to Sir William Boswel and by him to Archbishop Laud laid open in Romes Masterpiece First I observe by this and other Treatises referred to particularly The Soveraign Power of Parliaments wrote as Mr. Cr. sayes solidly by Mr. Prynn and some will not stick to say as solidly by him since confuted it is too apparent That Presbyterians those I mean who plead for the Covenant want nothing but Opportunity to play over their old Game Contending so earnestly for old Premises can be nothing but an earnest desire to infer the same Conclusion Me-thinks they should not desire the King to forget what themselves will not But all this is far from proving the Rage Presumption of the enemies of God to be encreased in the intâ—nded sense as appears thus The Covenant was made against that Party the King headed who for those and such like Reasons were the Open enemies Which name they deserved either because they propagated Popery or because others did it The latter will not though practised be asserted nor the former proved First I hope the old Plots the Spanish Armado the Gun-powder Treason do not evince the King and his Party to have been Popish and for that later one of Cuneus that it was discovered to the Archbishop is no demonstration at Oxon. that he drove it on If the Archbishop was a Papist I would willingly be resolved whether the Jesuite Fisher was a Protestant The Scotch Service Book is an argument much used by those who never saw or least considered it Retaining Formes and Ceremonies used in the Church of Rome which were Ancient Useful and Innocent is of great use as to demonstrate our conformity with the Primitive Church and to convince Rome we would not leave her but where she left her self Which is to prove our Reformation to be the result of Reason and Conscience not Spite and Humour Nor is this an evidence of but a bar from our return to Rome For they who will not separate but upon and no farther then there are weighty Causes are not like to return till those weighty Causes are removed whereas they who separate in an Humour may in a Humour unite again Nay they who are but partly guilty who will abstain from actions otherwise innocent because some they think ill of use them acknowledge themselves guilty of separating more then there is cause for that is as I understand it out of Spite be the name it bears never so solemn A deportment Christians of all men in the world much more Christian Churches should not use one toward another To Object our readiness to return to Rome upon so incompetent a ground at the best was Weakness but to Object it now when all those the ruine of whom this Book endevours have been resolute examples of our averseness from Rome notwithstanding the sore temptations which by means of this Covenant they have been exercised with can be nothing but Malice Unless we will suppose that those who would not part with a good cause when God seems to forsake it should throw it away now he appears to own it They tendred a Cardinals cap to the Archbishop It is no new trick to be rid of a most dangerous adversary to make him suspected and so not used by his own party Hannibal quickly understood Fabius and as quickly foresaw his own speedy ruin unless the Romans discarded that General The Carthaginians could not beat him therefore he was so maliciously kind to him as not to injure
their King when Perjury nay Covenant-Breaking Sacriledge and Treason were easier in those dayes swallowed then a Ceremony in these My own faults in the Performance are so many that I would not willingly be obliged to answer for any more then mine own viz. The Ill-timing c. But how to assure those men I before spoke of of the truth of any thing I shall assert about my own intentions in that or any thing else I profess I am utterly Ignorant since they out of their own experience of themselves very well know that the most Solemn Oaths and Imprecations are not sufficient Evidences of ones sincere meaning But there are others who are capable of and therefore deserve a better account who as they abhorred Time-serving in themselves are loath to suspect it in another it being very hard for him who doth no ill himself to think without great cause Ill of another To them I say thus Whoever thinks this time unseasonable for a Treatise of this Nature my opinion is so perfectly the same with his that had it been in mine own choyce I should not have needed to have told the World so And this I insisted upon in several Letters to one of that place and prudence whose commands it was scarce manners for me to dispute more pressingly then many others perhaps the most censorious would I urged that the Contest was about the Covenant which had been already answered by the Parliament The only way it deserved to be considered And to compose such a Treatise would be but to produce evidence against one who was executed the week before But this Objection doth not I confess reach the case so fully as I apprehended it would before I had exactly read over Mr. Cr. Book because Mr. Cr. sometimes in pursuit of his Argument oftner in running away from it doth insert Principles no way relating to the Covenant then as they may be subservient to the main though disowned end of the Composers of it viz. Anarchy in Church and State as several notions about the Kings Prerogative Liberty Propriety the Original of Government Sacriledge Will-worship the Power of the Church Holy-dayes Superstition Scandal c. Which according to his explication who to say the truth speaks out all the Covenanters were more wary then professedly to own Now I suppose there is no Reason why Errours because they are in a Book wrote in defence of the Covenant should be priviledged from Confutation this were to invest the Covenant in the Grave with the same Power it exercised in the Throne There are two Reasons Reader which I have prevented thee from using which had they seemed sufficient to One who is better able to judge then I or possibly thy self canst pretend to be thou hadst missed of that sport thou thinkest thy self to make with them Which yet I cannot deny but that there is some ground of suspicion for when I consider the practices of some in and the opinions thence drawn others have of the Place I live in For it may be thought first That I write now against the Covenant upon the same score in these times upon which I would have wrote for it in others Tenents as well as Cloths changing with the Fashion As to this I only say this Of those few that do know me many can witness me to be innocent in this particular even when they dare not say themselves have been so But if not this it may perhaps be thought that this is a sage Contrivance of a sneaking Schollar who being resolved to write against some body chose one who durst not answer I must confess this would have troubled me had this been my first attempt It is well known I appeared as to the civil part and to the Covenant as it referred to that when the Presse was open enough since which all Mr. Cr. Books on that subject have been writ There was one thing more which diswaded me from and hindered me in the finishing this and that alone would have me have suppressed now it is done which I to that end proposed to that Reverend Person who engaged me in it viz. A fear that it might displease the judicious Royalists as being an occasion to multiply the number of what is already too great Seditious Pamphlets it being not probable that of those numerous Abettors of Mr. Cr. and his cause he brags of not one should offer to assert either But I do assure all those worthy persons I received a Negative as to this too from one in whose judgment they would readily acquiesce and desired me to go on for that the Times did require what sure this Book did not an Answer to Mr. Cr. This Book I must confess comes out late against the Covenant I wish some men had more honesty or lesse countenance that this may be the last or if not so That there may never be need of other weapons besides Pens against it If thou wilt yet be satisfied Reader that I was only passive in the Publishing I am glad if not I am resolved not to be sorry The Introduction EIther the Covenant is in its sense as Loyal and in its obligation as indispensable as it is at present thought convenient to be asserted or it is not If not why is there such a do made about that which if in any circumstances of affairs certainly in these obligeth not But if it is How came it to pass that it was totally forgot by themselves when the Rump or the Cromwels appeared to be in good earnest against it Sure I am the very Covenanters thrived by contrary Oaths and practises Sure I am that whole party very very few particulars excepted have been such base complyers with nay flatterers of every thing but their lawful Prince take as unworthy conditions from an unlawful Power as themselves would fain have imposed upon the one only lawful one That they have discovered hitherto no other use of their conscience but in scrupling at things indifferent and that too when it brought along with it gain and credit Be turned out of a Benefice of 30 l. a year when to be a silenced Minister was worth a 100. The instances of other sufferers are not very numerous nor when tryal comes to be made will I suppose be Where was their Allegiance to King Charles in Queen Richards dayes Him they courted upon these two accounts He was an Usurper and so obliged to secure them in other mens estates Qualis Rex talis Grex. And secondly he was an easie fool and so apt to be ruled by crafty Knaves Nor did they trouble Him with their Covenant because they were sure to enjoy what they intended by it viz. other mens Estates No matter for the Scotch Government when without it they can securely keep English Livings Nor was it of any great Concern to have this Church reformed according to their principles when the best endowed Churches were reformed into their possession He who endeavours to perswade
make a sufficient ground for separation and the godly Non-conformists contended against separation This seems to me a very pretty Argumentation There was no necessity to separate from the Church as it was by Law established in Discipline Ceremonies c. yet there was a necessity to pull it down lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so of their plagues c. with other such like phrases as the Covenant expresses it Sure I am if there was no sufficient ground for separation there was no sufficient ground for a Covenant to reform in so violent a way and to pull down that Church from which there was sufficient reason in your own judgement to separate If as you truly urge Our Saviour kept Communion with a Church much in need of Reformation and taught men so to do I would willingly learn Who taught men to take up Arms to destroy what you acknowledge to be only such a Church If there was no necessity for even those who did not approve the Worship and Ceremonies to separate as you do and say the godly Non-conformists alwayes did What imaginable necessity could there be for these English men who were subjects and the Scots strangers to compel by force Prince and People who approve of both to swear it down Now come p. 53. some Endeavours to prove the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church to be not agreeable to the Word of God First Can. 36. Enjoyns Common Prayer and no other which they had broke by Praying at St. Maryes and is it self a limitation of the Spirit c. To the first That the Church ever intended to bind men to say those Prayers in the Pulpit before Sermon is not true but contrary to her own Laws and practice Those universal words must as all others of that sort are to be be referred ad subjectam materiam The Liturgy was made for what indeed it is and hath approved it self to be so far as skill and malice never questioned but carped only at particular phrases it was made I say only for a Compleat Form of Publick Prayer comprehensive of all our common needs imaginable from whence none could pretend upon that score reason to vary But it was never intended to banish occasional Prayers of which nature those before Sermons are for which a peculiar Canon is provided and that penned in words which admit of latitude I suppose because they are looked upon as occasional and so may better endure to be various Limitation of the Spirit is a phrase equally admired by those who understand nothing as laught at by those who do It is vulgarly granted but upon what reasons I could never yet learn That Praying by the Spirit signifies in Scripture To pray Ex tempore Though to me it seems rather a sign of a voluble tongue then inspired heart and to pray without considering is rather I should think boldness then grace But if that be the import of that phrase as Women and Lecturers generally hold the Prayer of Christ is least said by the Spirit of Christ and so the most unacceptable Prayer we can put up to him in all the world is his own But now I begin to think on that phrase I profess my self unable to understand it which makes me think the reason many do not apprehend when the Argument drawn from thence is answered is Because they do not know what it means It would be no inconsiderable damage to the Puritan Cause if they would explain those terms Limitation of the Spirit I will pawn my Credit on it the very admiring Rowt shall laugh at it the very same moment they understand it the whole force of it consisting like that of a charm in being unintelligible Whatever I can guess it to be according to those principles and purposes it is used for amounts clearly to this He limits the Spirit in himself who gives over while he hath one word left to say and he limits it in another when he suffers any body to hear him because he confines him to his words when the Spirit might possibly suggest to him different And this is really so in every Auditory unless we can suppose that every man there were he called to exercise would use the same matter and words which he who carryeth on the work of the day doth make use of But some men have ventured to say and prove too which I wonder Mr. Cr. took no notice of it if he thought it possible to answer it That the Directory it self was guilty of this evil viz. Limiting the Spirit if it be an evil which it was intended to remove That Directory prescribed matter and in most cases the very order of Praying Seeing it prescribes the matter the only excellency whereby it differs is it gives weak and careless that men which are by much the major part leave to choose words unapt to express that matter it self prescribes It hath then all the real inconveniences of unprescribed Prayers and that one fancyed one of prescribed The second Exception of his p. 54. is very Tragical and vaunting In comes great zeal and little wit and tells us of a fault so very gross that the very plain Popish Scotch service-Service-Book shall be commended for not being guilty The very first sentence so called of Scripture is not there At what time soever a sinner doth repent c. I perswade my self Mr. Cr. hath read in the New-Testament of proofs alleadged out of the Old barely according to the sense the express words whereof are no where to be found the instances are various I mention but one Mat. 2.6 taken out of Micah 5.2 But what need I stand to prove that some men can very be angry when there is little cause for it Nor scape we so and therefore Thirdly In the last we did read that which is not Scripture now we do not read what confessedly is Much of the Canonical Scripture is omitted Apocrypha read some parts of the Scripture dignified above others as the Gospel by standing c. Many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture not being read in course was one of the mighty faults the wise Assembly took upon them to mend and it amounted to this When the vulgar people came to Church to hear the Law of God according to which they must frame their lives a considerable part of the year they caused to be spent in Genealogies or less Edifying History which could not but have had the same effect upon the people read in Hebrew as English or else the Ceremonial Law which at this day concerns no body and never did concern them at all This was so apparently absurd that no imaginable account can be given of it besides that not very Christian resolution of spite and singularity or that politick Art of not receiving Pay Preferment and Applause without seeming to do something for it Our Dignifying as they phrase it some parts of Scripture above other as the Gospel by standing is a thing
of the Lords Supper as of greater solemnity and consequently requiring greater preparation Yet Baptism alwayes so esteemed as not to be administred by a Deacon but in the absence of a Priest The great clamor amounts to this then The Sacrament of Baptism because of the sudden occasions which may often require haste hath therefore been thought fit by the wisdom of the Church rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted to be permitted to be performed by a Deacon in case a Priest be not at hand to perform it The case in the Lords Supper is clear otherwise because that is not usually administred without publike notice given to the People some convenient time before when it shall be done at which time it is presumed the Priest who gave the notice will be present to attend the service There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments those Reasons which Apologize for Permission in case of the one will by no means reach the other Nor do we want evidence for the Deacons power to Baptize out of Scripture it self In the 8. of the Acts we read that Philip the Deacon ver 12. Baptized that it was that Philip not the Apostle appears because we find Peter and Iohn sent to lay hands on those he preached to that they might receive the Holy Ghost and accordingly we read that they two did lay their hands but no manner of intimation that he did joyn with them which he would certainly have done had he been an Apostle In the 21. of the Acts where his being one of the seven i. e. a Deacon is expresly mentioned he is there owned an Evangelist though but a Deacon He who will say he was a Presbyter ought well to consider how to prove it The next of the Oxf. Reasons is That in taking this Oath they should break another And what security can they expect by an Oath who themselves teach men to break them By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain in the Protestation 5. of May 1641. Which Mr. Cr. thus reconciles p. 65. The House of Commons the then known Legislators explained the Protestation to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery That is to say The House of Commons are Legislators distinct from King and Peers For in that capacity they made that interpretation of an Oath which sure they were not solely to interpret because they were not the sole Imposers and they declared the Lords meaning contrary to their Lordships express protest to the contrary that that was not their meaning Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers for so it was in that case is very prety Doctrine which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted But indeed Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared The House of Commons were then known to be c. I must confess there were many prety things then known to be though no man knew why The words of the Protestation The Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England c. Now what is in the 39. Articles is I suppose The Doctrine of the Church of England and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those these are contradictory Oaths The 36. Article which declares that there is nothing in the Book of Consecration superstitious or ungodly is hardly reconcileable to the second Article of the Covenant Sure the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcileable with the 21. Article if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time As to the explication of it by the House of Commons notwithstanding the Lords express dissent it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power and more to themselves solely and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly And then declaring none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication and so concur with and assist them in that violence was against the Liberty of the Subject as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited Where the Legislative Power resides I do not here mean to decide But certainly according to the worst Principles then owned The Commons were not the sole Legislators and then sure not the sole Interpreters and therefore the Oxf. Men had very little cause to accept of their meaning for Authentick That Man is little obeyed whose words must be taken in the sense that another and he as frequently in our case his declared Enemy shall put upon them The next is The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Supremacy which binds us to defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies granted or belonging united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. this is one That the Clergy are not to Enact Promulge c. any new Canons Constitutions c. or by whatever Name they shall be called unless the KINGS ROYAL Assent first be had to make promulge c. Now the very meeting of the Assembly and this Covenant was a defiance to this His Prerogative unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KINGS ROYAL Assent Mr. Cr. answer to this is p. 67. in short High Treason That the Power given to the King is such a Power as Bishops Cardinals Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Iurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown As I understand words Your Majesties humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament signifies not your Lords and Masters How comes Treason to be against the King and not against them if they are Supream How come they to have ever retained a Iurisdiction over the Crown when our Law so often owns all Iurisdiction to flow from the Crown How comes the Kings Masters to be so absolutely at His disposal as to be turned out as easily as it is possible for him to say so How comes England in our own and other Chronicles and Laws to be styled a Monarchy an Imperial Crown How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor promise Allegiance to these our true Soveraigns The King is expresly called sole Supream Governour in the Oath of Supremacy and yet he hath Superiours Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all I had thought would have been required not retaining Iurisdiction over him I wonder if this be true That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren when he pleaded as he calls it for the King when it was indeed only against the Sectaries and so was not Loyalty but Spite But why did he if this be true urge Precepts for and Examples of Obedience out of Scripture and the Primitive Church though by the way they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or answer Why did he urge them when they reached
not why before the third I find nothing material only p. 92. in answer to that acknowledgement That the Holy Church was founded in Prelacy because the Church when that Statute was made was Popish he insinuates that it was so when it was first founded in Prelacy A thing which the Romanists have long in vain laboured to prove and if Mr. Cr. will at last do it effectually the Pope will no doubt acknowledge his good sevice with many thanks The third of the Oxf. Reasons is now considered Why it was not in its own turn considered I know not unless this Book was wrote by a Club and he to whose lot this fell was not timely provided The first was this The Oxf. men alleadge That they had as they were by Law required testified their approbation to that Government as agreeable to the Word of God which they are now required to swear down as contrary to it To which Mr. Cr. if not for the above mentioned Reason his fellow-helper tells us The Article might only intend it to be a Political Civil Constitution as indeed all our Statutes do suggest and so an adiaphoron c. p. 94. This is the best Salvo to reconcile this Oath with the Subscription and this Mr. Cr. himself refutes p. 95. By telling us That in the Book Ordering Priests c. It is directly affirmed That it is evident by the Holy Scriptures c. That from the Apostles Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Which words declare their intent to found that Government upon the Word of God not the Law of the Land and so that Interpretation of his is false and the Oxf. mens Reason good and the Covenant irreconcileable with the Subscription The Oxf. mens second Reason is They had received Orders from Bishops Hands and therefâ—re could not so ill requite them as to lay to their hands to pull them down To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 96. In so doing they would do the Bishops a real kindness of which he gives us this satisfactory account Richard Havering Archbishop of Dublin dreamt that a Monster heavier then the whole world stood upon him and when he waked thought it to be his Bishoprick and renounced it Sure Mr. Cr. was scarse awake when he thought to answer the University with a dream The fourth Reason is this They held their livelyhoods by such Titles c. And sure being not convict of any crime were not to be bound to undo themselves and were to the contrary sworn Cr. p. 97. They held their Estates at the pleasure of the Parliament whose Powâ—r is over the enjoyment of all publick much more particular Societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind them We have already shewed how this Covenant destroyes the Kings Prerogative this Doctrine teaches us in what a high degree it asserts the Proprieties and Liberties of the Subject The Power of Parliaments over our Estates so as to dispose of some part in Taxes according to our several Proportions is indeed clear and legal To prevent wilful mistakes I do not mean to justifie the Taxes the Long Parliament imposed For they may dispose of the Subjects money to the King They have no pretence of right to dispose of it to themselves But this Power of Parliaments which Mr. Cr pleads for is equally groundless and unreasonable a power so unlimited both in regard to their King and Countrey as it is not fit in regard of either they should have nor doth it at all appear how or when they came to have it It can never be made appear to be one of the due priviledges of Parliament unless we suppose whatever it is possible for them to Vote to be so though against all the Laws and the King and then what a prety Animal is his Majesty of England But in earnest if it be considered by any but those who no otherwise are like to get Estates or can justifie what they have already got That the two Houses may dispose at pleasure of all the Lands of publick and particular Societies and sure then private mens for so beside that other capacity are those who are interessed in Publick Lands though câ—nvict of no crime That they may cancel all Oaths is what I never till now thought to be one of the Liberties of the Kingdom If their Power and Trust be so great I would we had not at least the security of an Oath that they would use it well By this Doctrine they may even strike up a bargain and share all amongst themselves And call you this Securing Propriety A Monarchy may possibly be founded in Nature and so in himself retain all rights he hath not parted with But such a thing as an Assembly as our Parliaments can have no pretence to any thing as I before have observed but what they have by Grant from him who calls them or compact with those who send them Whatever therefore they cannot thus shew they are not to pretend to for Assemblies are not born but made As to Lands that the two Houses have any thing to do further then by Established Laws they are enabled which receive all force from the Kings assent I cannot imagine ground for Our Lands we all receive from and hold of the KING as Sir Edward Cook in the first part of his Instit and as I remember in the very beginning but that we at all depend upon the two Houses for them He though a great adorer of that Assembly affirmeth not But if we had received them partly from the two Houses of which there is not the least shadow or colour yet that would not justifie this Doctrine They may dispose of them at pleasure as Mr. Cr. prodigiously affirms to the Oxf. men who alleadge That they were not convict of any crime because they had not broke the conditions upon which they received them Did they at the same time give them and keep them at their own dispose And upon this ground it is that His Majesty could not without injustice and consequently without sin should He have agreed to the Houses in that particular though in the Courts of Earth it might have had the effect of a Law yet in that of Heaven it would have passed for Iniquity established by a Law because by giving it to another he passed away that interest from himseif when he gave it away The Dominium utile I mean and in this I think consists the propriety of the Subject But Mr. Cr. hath placed this All-disposing Power in the two Houses when they were in hostile opposition to the King and so makes us as great Slaves as Earth hath any to our fellow-Subjects And much greater slaves are all we free-born People of England made by the assertors of our Liberties then Villains were among our selves For I remember though not the page and have not the book by me that Sir Edw. Cook in his Chap. of Villenage affirmes That whatever the slave had was his