which provokes their anger and Mr. Cr. like an angry Disputant confutes himself Is that our fault that we shew a peculiar respect to that part of it which peculiarly concerns our Saviour his Words and Works Our particular obligation assures us it were ill if it were otherwise Outward Reverence provided we do not let it serve in stead of but use it to signifie and promote inward cannot in that case be a crime But if to dignifie some parts of Scripture above others be a crime themselves are guilty as doing so to the Psalms of David only they are not Davids but Sternholds by singing them before every Sermon a thing in Scripture no where commanded But so have I seen a distempered person in spite to another beat himself The next thing considerable is p. 55 56. Christmas Easter c. and the Holy-days are superstitious plainly repugnant to Gal. 4.10 Col. 2.16 If the Feasts there mentioned were evidently not Christian Festivals I suppose I may safely conclude Christian Festivals not to be plainly forbid in that place where they are not so much as spoke of The Text in the Galatians mentions expresly Moneths and Years proportions of Time no way to be accommodated to Christian Festivals or then or now That in the Colossians is so plain that it must be a worse Principle than Inconsideration which occasioned the mistake not only because it expresses New Moons a thing not established by Christian Authority but in the words following the 17. verse gives a clear account of the unlawfulness of those Feasts of the Observance of which he there complains which are a shadow of things to come but the Body is Christ Those Feasts therefore were not reproved as having been commanded by any Christian Church which it is clear they were not but because they had in them not only a general malignity as being kept in Obedience to the Iewish Law and so must suppose that to be still in force but had besides a peculiar malignity in their nature being and for that very reason reproved a shadow of Christ to come and so consequently denyed His coming Now then all which can be gathered from this place is Christians must not keep Feasts which prefigured Christ to come Ergo they may not keep Feasts in remembrance that He is come There is a pretty piece of Divinity p. 56. to enforce the former Conclusion which no doubt would be admirable if it were but sense To observe the Nativity Circumcision Passion Resurrection Ascension severally is irrational and irreligious irrational because they are not in themselves Mercies to the Church but as they center in Mans Redemption irreligious because without Divine warrant That none of all these signal condescensions of Divine goodness should be esteemed in themselves Mercies or worth giving thanks for when Edge-Hill and Nasby Battails though but in order to the undoing of the King were so accounted argues a more passionate esteem and concernment for the Covenant of Scotland than that of Grace That it is irreligious because without Divine warrant is said but not proved For a thing becomes unlawful only by being against some Law that is by being forbidden not barely by being not commanded Our Saviour Christ we are sure observed Feasts which had not such Institution notwithstanding that prohibition which was as strict to the Iews whose Authority instituted those Feasts and in obedience to which He kept them as it can possibly be to us Ye shall not add c. Christ did indeed abolish the Ceremonial Law of the Iews and that was all He did abolish so as to make unlawful From hence men gather That it is â— sin for us to imitate them in any thing we find done by them according to the Principles and Dictates of Nature Gratitude c. as Feasts of Commemorations clearly are Though this is a Proposition sufficiently distant upon this pitiful ground without any more ado do men put off all which can be fetcht out of the Old Testament whereas though Christ abolisht the Ceremonial Law he left all other Laws and Rules as he found them But as Christ observed Feasts not instituted by divine Authority so possibly doth Mr. Cr the command in Scripture for Sunday being not so very clear that Mr. Cr. cannot but doubt to be Irreligion and Will-worship in his notions of those terms No man can ground it on the fourth Commandement that doth not take the seventh and first to be the same day i. e. Seven and one to be the same number If he will interpret the Seventh-day to signifie one in seven I desire to know whether the Iews might have observed which of the seven days they pleased and whether then the Reason of the fourth Commandement was not strangely impertinent to the Matter of it That being expressed to be For in the Seventh day God rested c. seeing that was the very seventh and no other and a command in the New-Testament for it I suppose is not to be found The next three leaves 57 58 59. are spent in proving what none ever denyed That There are several things in the Form of our Service and Discipline not commanded in the Word of God A thing comes to be unlawful sure by being forbid not by being uncommanded Seeing this is the only fault I ask Is the Directory the Form there prescribed in the Word of God I desire a direct Answer to that Can that pretend to anything but to be the result of Prudence and Authority Both Directory and Common-Prayer agree in that which the Directory was made to differ from the Liturgy in both were made by Men. The only imaginable difference is the one was made by those who had Authority the other by those who had none That the Scripture is a compleat Rule of Faith And what cannot be proved thereby as it is interpreted by that Original and unquestionable Tradition by which we receive the Scripture it self is not to be believed as a revealed Article of Faith We not only assert but in the defence of this Practice of ours whereby we are said to over-throw the Scriptures being a compleat Rule we contend for it as an advantagious Truth in this Cause Because this Doctrine Nothing is to be in Discipline or Order but what we find in Scripture is a Doctrine in Scripture no where to be found So that the very Accusation is the same Crime it would be thought to reprove And what is clear concerning this Principle is as clear concerning their Practice Till the Form and Order in the Directory prescribed be shewed to be so in the Bible too The demand of the Written Word for every particular of Order and Discipline is hugely plausible and senseless I will not throw away Reason upon unreasonable men to show the vanity of that admired tenent That whatever though but of Order Decency Discipline is not in the Written Word which is a compleat Rule for all is Will-Worship c. I shall
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
him The silly vulgar suspected and the crafty knaves proclaimed him to be a Confederate of Hannibals Nor was that errour discovered till there was reason to repent it Timeo Danaos vel dona ferentes Had there been lesse ability and resolution to oppose Rome in that head it might in all probability have stood longer upon its own shoulders Mr. Cr. wonders at that expression In the intended sense without which words the Oxf. men would never have denyed the Rage c. of the enemies of God and Religion to be at that time encreased because they saw and felt it And truly on which side they were Mr. Cr. shall witness even where he is professedly handling the Argument p. 28. Who abetted the murther of the late King Which Army did that needs no dispute Who commissioned the men that did that furnished them with Principles and opportunity in prosecution of whose avowed Declarations and Resolves that Act might be justified The men of Oxf. saw then as clearly as all the World do easily now If the Kings death was as Mr. Cr. urges a design of the Papists the King the Bishops and the Royal Party were not sure their only Factors You see Sir one may believe the presumption of the enemies of God to have been at that time increased and yet not in that sense That Papists rejoyced at our Troubles is granted and withal that they have not at all discovered their sorrow their joy they have that this Covenant pulled down that Church which themselves by strength of Arguments and Armies could not do Oxf. Second Reason is They could not truly say That they had used or given consent to any Supplication or Remonstrance to the purpose therein expressed The force of this is plainly thus They durst not swear they had done what they knew they never did To which Mr. Cr. p. 29. Had not they Representees in Parliament did they give No to such Supplications or if they did were they not carryed by the major Vote and is not the Negative swallowed therein that all persons and bodies Corporate did thereunto consent This a strange piece of sense Whatever the Parliament upon other mens Supplications Vote though of such a nature as many men from their very souls abhor the thought of it is for that sole reason true that they supplicated for it and they may swear it though they know they did not On the other side I conceive I may be bound to submit to many Laws as proceeding from a competent Authority which I may truly affirm I neither did nor was at all bound to desire Had the Parliament when they first voted No-Addresse in 1647. Voted the Kings death which they might have done by the same law of Reason nor could their ablest defenders ever answer Goodwin and others upon that Head did every man in England therefore supplicate for it But for Him we need not be sollicitous seeing at the very beginning of the War he was declared but a Trustee who had shamefully betrayed his Trust c. But if this Logick be good there is a worse story behind even this Blessed Covenant hath lost its ablest defendor not to say at one blow it hath lost them all seeing the Parliament have voted the Covenant burnt and Mr. Cr. himself may swear he hath supplicated for it Sure he will finde a way to evade this special piece of Law so applyed That by the Parliament all Persons and Towns Corporate did consent that in things belonging to their cognisance the Majority concludes the whole House and they the Nation I believe true and account it reasonable But Mr. Cr. good friend Mr. Baxter tells us another story and endeavours to prove it in the enlargement of his 179. Thesis of the Efficient and Conveying causes of Power p. 185 186. The Minor part if it be the better and wiser are not concluded and if they have any advantage as strength c. they may use it I suppose that he thinks with the Minor he will perswade them who will be not unapt to believe it of themselves that they are the wiser and better The next thing considerable is p. 30. an answer to the fourth Reason which is that they apprehended it not to be according to the Commendable practise of these Kingdoms or the example of Gods people in other Nations nay the Defenders tels us The world never saw the like before To which M. Cr. tels us That Israel did in the dayes of Ioash Iosiah c. The only difference is in short one of the greatest reasons for which this Covenant was expresly and frequently refused and refuted Those were with This expresly against him in whom that Obligatory Power lay the Prince In his Reconciling these words with those of Mr. Nye Mr. Cr. grants what is abundantly enough to prove what he denies That for Matter Persons and other Circumstances the like had not been in Any age or Oath we read of in Sacred or Profane Stories Whence I thus argue If there is so much in this Covenant distinct from what was ever in any before and that so considerable as to make a distinct Argument to commend this Covenant to the world more then any other ever could pretend to That for Matter and Persons i. e. The thing sworn and persons swearing besides other circumstances there had never been the like before It is not imaginable this should be warranted by former examples when neither in Matter nor Persons the thing sworn or persons swearing besides other attendant circumstances the like had ever been before It seems it was done after and warranted by the example of a thing nothing like it According to Mr. Cr. method we proceed to The First ARTICLE First exception is They are not satisfyed how they can in judgement Swear to preserve the Religion of another Kingdom To which Mr. Cr. p. 39. T is but Reason they suspend their act till they can swear in judgement If so the Visitors the tender-conscienced Visitors turned the Oxf. Heads out of their places and by the way put themselves in for not doing what in Mr. Cr. judgement they ought not to have done But neither hath he given or offered any thing to satisfie us How and where Christ bound us to Swear the Reformation of another Kingdom by fire and sword Gods people sure we are Jewish and Christian had Idolators in the Regions round about them yet we do not finde them Covenanting to pull down the Idols of silver and gold that they might put the silver and gold in their own Pockets If the Scots may Covenant to reform England and Ireland why not France and Spain Doth Religion forbid them violence in its cause against all but their own Prince or is Rebellion never sanctified till it is against him to whom we owe particular Allegiance But besides the general unwarrantableness of such courses the Oxf. men render several Reasons peculiarly relating to Themselves and that Cause As first That as
changed without manifest scandal to the Papist and Separatist 1. By yielding the Cause our godly Bishops have by writings and sufferings maintained 2. By justifying the Papists in calling Ours A Parliamentary Religion 3. By acknowledgement that something to which conformity is required is not agreeable to the Word of God and so justifying Recusancy and Separation 4. A confession that our punishing of Papists was unjust because it was for not joyning with Us in a form of worship which our selves approve not of as well as they To all which Cr. bravely retorts much at the rate of City-Logick p. 45. T is well Scandal is at length become an Argument of some force had it been regarded from the Non-conformists c. Here is a triumph when there is not only no victury but no fight When the true sense of an Argument is not to be avoided or endured some can entertain themselves and some Readers with putting on it a sense they can answer Scandal in the Reason and in the Reply are no otherwise akin then that the English words answerable to them may upon an occasion be drawn to make a quarter quibble Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated Offence Therefore every one who is offended in a different sense i. e. angry is forsooth scandalized A Doctrine which hath brought greater Scandals then those it pretended to remove were ever fancied to be It hath been it self a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stumbling-block whereat many have fallen I shall discover and remove it Offence which in Scripture as hath by many learned men beyond all exception been proved and will demonstrate it self to any that will but consult the places where that word is used is any action of Ours by which a Brother may be led on to sin And that either by misunderstanding an Action of Ours which was the case of eating meat offered to Idols which might have been interpreted as in honour to the Idol and so one who thought well of us might be induced to do it indeed or else something directly criminal which we by word or example encourage others to The other notion of the word Offence which the Non-conformist urged and Mr. Cr. revives That whatever another is pleased to be angry at is a sin for me to do is in it self absurd and in its consequence intolerable For then the rule of my actions should not be the Law of God and the commands of my Superiour not repugnant to them both which the Scripture expresly obligeth me to if it doth to any thing at all but every peevish fellowes humour and melancholy and contrary to our Saviours rule If my Brother were angry with me without a cause not he but I should be in danger of the Iudgement Nor could our consciences be any longer satisfied in any action than they were assured there were no mistaken or humorous well-meaning men in the world St. Paul tels us If meat make my Brother offend I will eat no meat while I live If this mistaken sense of Scandal in this and such like cases were true and we obliged upon such penalties as are assigned in Scripture to men guilty of that sin Christianity were a bondage greater then that which Christ came to remove and free us from Should a sect of well-meaning ignorants arise who thought all Flesh and Wine abominable and some such there have been are we all bound upon pain of hell to forbear Because they are angry is it therefore true that we sinned because they upon no ground thought so Do Erronious conceits alter the nature of things Do false opinions by being stifly held become true A Surplise must not be used in Divine Service nor worn because a godly brother is angry The same Reason will conclude for a black Gown For Sectaries were once and possibly are esteemed agaâ—â— Godly and Brethren This palpable mistake I have the longer stood upon not only because it occasioned Triumph but because I could not easily apprehend it other than wilful Because the Reasons have expressed it so plain as to prevent all possible misunderstanding In these words they have shewed wherein the Scandal did consist viz. In justifying the Recusancy of One and Separation of the Other i. e. in helping them to a reason to encourage and so continue their sin not in making them angry but pleasing them too well Nor is it likely for him who is offended in the vulgar sense to be offended in the Scripture-sense He who is angry with me for doing a thing is not like to do it because I do it to imitate me in that for which he doth abominate me But here I cannot but observe that Reason in this Section should be acknowledged when by being so it overthrowes their whole cause The Reasons are indeed so pressing and the words so uncapable of a sinister interpretation that the Covenant it self must undergo one to avoid their reach Where after the droling Preface of These serious Casuists with reverence may I note it understand the Words of the Covenant Sophistically p. 46. He then presents us with this Notion Religion as it denotes the Matter c. is different from the Circumstances Order and Ceremonies annexed and appendant and none but ignorant Idiots will deem the change of them the change of Religion p. 46. This is the first Salvo The Oxf. Arguments are not concluding because nothing of the Religion but Circumstances Order and Ceremonies were to be changed which was not that our Martyrs suffered for What ignorant Idiots as Mr. Cr. cals them are these Oxford Schollars who must understand words in their true plain literal meaning What a silly University this was Give me Mr. Cr. there is a man indeed can find out a meaning of words they are in no wise capable of By the Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline is meant in Circumstances Order and Ceremonies If this be the meaning the words were very ill chosen to express it But withal Mr. Cr. hath not at all mended the matter by enforming us plainly That they will use such violent proceedings when only Circumstances Order and Ceremonies are the Debate But the vanity of the former Plea being possibly to himself apparent The next salvo is p. 46 47 48 49. We must make a distinction between what is Established and what is Exercised in Engl. c. Because all the Declaiming is about the latter What is calâ—ed the Religion exercised I shall not flourish that is use many words not to express what I would say but to hide my having nothing to say but ask directly because I would be answered to where I suspect jugling They have Sworn to reform the Doctrine Worship c. in England according to several not at present to say inconsistent Rules the Word of God the Church of Scotland the best Reformed Church I ask then Do they mean to alter the established Doctrine or No If yes the distintion is vain and crafty A sleight instead
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