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
Oath to any one we do necessarily break that part of it which was taken to another and in all probability observing in it any one is breaking it to both the other The Covenant obligeth us to reform England according to the best Reformed Church but determines not which it is as Mr. Cr. acknowledges The reason of which is clear because by that reservedness they engaged all Sects to them when by declaring their meaning they had engaged but one every one by this means who was for the Covenant the Covenant was for him and such ambiguity sure is not an Oath but a Iuggle But from this proceeds another Ambiguity Who are the common Enemies c. How shall I know who are Enemies to the best Reformed Church if I know not which is so Can I prosecute any as an Enemy to the best reformed as such and know it not or shall I tell him I know him to be an Enemy to I know not what Mr. Cr. p. 128. waves this Plea and assures us That the words plainly run to the Church of Scotland c. and Independents by their enmity to the Church of Scotland are our common Enemies This Explication I must needs say fits the meaning of the Covenanters and the no meaning of the Covenant In different Pages it is as in different States of Affairs one while the best Reformed Church is not determined another while it is plainly Scotland If Independents were common Enemies sure it was from the Presbyterians they received Arms and Authority There is a Contradiction alledged by the Oxf. men which I thought not to have considered which because Mr. Cr. professes not to see I shall shew it him out of himself It is We are bound absolutely and without exception to preserve and yet upon supposition to extirpate the present Religion in the Church of Scotland To which Mr. Cr. p. 131. That Supposition must be plainly expressed in the Covenant to make it a contradictâ—ry Oath which is not done The best way of proving a Contradiction is to lay the Propositions contended so to be together which will clearly if they are so shew themselves Thus then We are absolutely bound to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline c. of Scotland We are to bring the three Kingdoms of which Scotland is one to Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline We are to reform 2. England and Ireland according to the best Reformed Church See the first Article of the Covenant The Covenant asserts not which are the best Reformed Churches but binds the Covenanters to reform England whatever shall appear to be the best Reformed Church Cr. p. 129. Thus then The first Proposition binds us to preserve the Doctrine and Discipline of Scotland absolutely The second to bring the English Church and the Scottish Church to an Uniformity in Doctrine and Discipline The third to reform England according to the best Reformed Church The fourth assures us that the Covenant asserts not Scotland to be the best Reformed Church but binds to reform England according to whatever shall appear to be so Now then if Scotland doth not appear to be the best Reformed Church the third Proposition binds me to alter what the first binds me absolutely to maintain If I am obliged to make the same thing exactly after several Patterns if they happen not to be exactly the same I must necessarily in following one differ so much from the other as I follow that which differs for to agree with what differs is sure so far to differ I perceive the Covenant is as it was at first urged to several men so as to comply with their several humors and interests The well-meaning and undiscerning Populacy they now as they did formerly before things were ripe engage to the Covenant and tell them those horrid Consequences deduced from it belong not to it but afterwards engage men to them by vertue of the Covenant they have taken whose Obligation never fully appears til due season Their first aim is at that part which is least guarded Religion which being that wherein most are least concerned is their first attempt Because the Church would not pull down the State the State must pull down the Church But what followed They who perswaded that the Nobles Prelates were nor good enough to be their Equals made it out that Coblers and Draymen were good enough to be their Masters And besides the Grandees who acted in that change the whole Party were as forward to own the other House as ready at any time to take the other Oath I very well know many will not in spite of Reason and Experience be perswaded but that reforming the Church is the sole aim of the Covenanters In the new sense of reforming the Church-Lands being already in their opinion disposed of Reformation must begin at the State and surely it is great pity but they who will not beware by the examples of others should be made examples to others The second Article of the Covenant is only talked of and that being the concernment of the Church others think themselves not interessed in But he who considers that they are in the sixth Article sworn never to be wrought off no not so much as to an indifferency or neutrality but zealously and constantly in despight of all impediments pursue all they have sworn And that in the fourth Article they swear to bring all to punishment who have been Malignants Which words signifie what they please and expresly all who have acted contrary to the Covenant and they to be punished as the Supream Iudicatories i. e. no doubt the two Houses who are no Court at all or others from them shall think fit will find the Cavaliers in an ill case nay all who at any time did any thing which was ever Voted Malignancy by the two Houses The rigour of whose Sentence they not being in a now capacity to pardon being dissolved must be now executed upon the first opportunity nor must they at all question the reasonableness or legality because the Rule is As they or any from them i. e. their Committees shall think convenient One thing I shall observe that though the Parliament may be trusted to act arbitrarily beside or against the Law which they are not yet that they may delegate such an extravagant power over Lives and Fortunes as is here mentioned to oothers though men of such Principles and Fortunes as our Committees were who were to make Offenders by whom they might thrive having nothing to grow rich with but an ill Conscience and other mens faults is such a Liberty of the Subject as destroyes all the trust Besides it is a rule in Law and Reason Offices of confidence and trust by our Representatives in Parliament are not cannot be delegated because that trust is only personal I have before observed That that Invitation in the conclusion to forraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Power must be to them confessedly as Subjects whom notwithstanding they absolve from their Allegiance Though it is not delivered in Scripture that freedom from a Master or Prince who is a Heathen is any part of that liberty wherein Christ hath installed us and so is seditious Having shewed it to be against Duty I will in a word shew it to be against our Interest It engages us to pursue by the way of the Sword as their Practice and the Invitation in the conclusion shews all we have sworn to all our dayes which is Whatever is contrary to the power of Godliness So then Every man is to slay his brother who commits any sin that deserves it so many Covenanters so many Commissioned Officers There is a Tribunal in every brest to condemn and execute both And if their Oath obligeth them to any thing it doth to this they being equally sworn to all the other Articles though that alone takes up all their thoughts What horrid effects there would follow hence themselves would quickly feel should they thus begin to assert the Covenant themselves would quickly find its edge They who set a house on fire themselves be soon made a part of that fire It is not then more dishonourable to God injurious to the King and the Nation then it would if pursued be quickly found to be to its most violent assertors All that is desired of them is they would either pursue the Covenant in all things or none that is deal equally and sincerely shew that they act out of the sense of an Oath not of a party or rather let the Covenant be buryed placed in the Regions of Rottenness and Forgetfulness and let them be quiet and suffer others to be so If any Reproofs seem in these Papers too sharp I wish the unreasonablâ—ness of those expressions may thus appear that few deserve them But then as few are concerned in them I should willingly make a distinction between those of the Presbyterian Iudgement and those of the Presbyterian Party and I hope themselves will concurre with me in it by making it appear that there are those who may approve that way of Government yet abhorr the usual way of promoting it The former may possibly be reclaimed by rational discourses the latter by nothing but severe Laws FINIS * By whatever Combination Perswasion c.
of an answer If no doth reforming according to those rules that is as I understand it bringing in the Doctrine of Scotland c. signifie Doing some new act to continue the established Doctrine in England or to let it alone as it is If either of these let that word have the same meaning in all parallel places and this Controversie is at an end But how we shall be brought to the same Confession of Faith Directory c. which is also sworn without altering the establisht Doctrine Worship Government which are different is not very clear As to the Doctrines themselves here called The Religion exercised Though it is no Demonstration at Oxon that they are false because the Scotch Army made them a Pretence to get Money with yet being they are as Mr. Cr. acknowledges private men he must also acknowledge it concerns only those private men to defend them But from that Answer of his I shall conclude a little farther and over-throw it by its own self prove what it denies out of what it grants For it is in it self very clear seeing the Quarrel was at the Religion exercised not established Those Opinions called the exercised Religion ought only to have been discarded and the establisht Doctrine have been made the Rule to reform by by which they might have had the Law and their Adversaries too on their side But because they name another Rule It is plain they mean to alter that too and so are lyable to those inconveniencies Mr. Cr. endeavours to free them from by a strained Interpretation which their words and actions are no way capable of Though it is a pretty strange account of bringing Englands established Religion to the Scotish mode by Allegations out of Authors which are contended for to be no part of that Religion so established Mr. Cr. doth indeed set several Doctrines and name Authors many of which have been eminently useful to this Church and therefore hated by Rome and Scotland but being there are no references to any part of their Works with what sincerity it is done I am not able to say But I may guess it to be done with very little if I may conclude by one which I single out because that sort of people have so little shame or conscience as to Preach it down to the people as Arminianism It is p. 47. That men had free will of themselves to believe and repent he may justly say The University was poysoned with Arminianism if this horrid Tenent was owned and there countenanced Arminians need not be angry that they are slandered for that is a tacit Confession there is not truth enough to object against them Men must bely them to make them odious part with their own Innocency to darken theirs But I much wonder Mr. Cr. should tell the Masters of Oxf. That This Tenent among others was defended by them from censure Though people are apt to believe any thing of Papists Arminians yet the Oxf. men are not so apt to believe any story of themselves They challenge all the world to tell when and by whom they defended that horrid Doctrine from censure The utmost ground of this accusation is some men in Oxf. might possibly affirm they understood not what it was to be made willing whether we would or no how freedom and force liberty and necessiâ—ation were the same thing This is far enough from the purpose But censure is there a judicial word I demand therefore Whether the University defended the men he means from the censure of these who had authority to censure them or from those who had nothing to do in the matter If from the former I desire to know How it was possible for them to do it and when they did it If from the later those who had nothing to do with it sure the harm is not great If I should grant all the Tenents he reckons up to be false because it were perhaps too hard to prove them so to one who would deny it I do not apprehend the considerable advantage he would get by it toward his Cause because they are only particular mens He will not sure think himself concerned in all we can prove preached in Camp and City and the men not only defended against the King and the Laws but encouraged applauded and preferred Might not men safely preach at London Believers to be above all Ordinances but those of the two Houses Was any more care taken at London even when the Covenant was Triumphant and set up in Churches instead of the Lords Prayer and Ten Commandements of what Opinions men were of any more then of what Countrey if they would but fight against the King Was there any Heresie but Loyalty or Common Enemy but the King Might not those take the Scripture in any or no sense who would take the Laws in equitable sense It is altogether as reasonable to pull down Presbytery because there were Independents in the Parliaments Army as they to Covenant us into the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland because some men preached what their ablest Defender acknowledges no part of the Doctrine of the Church of England And this is equal supposing those Doctrines false which as yet are only said to be so But at last comes an Attempt to answer those Arguments the force of which Mr. Cr. hath hitherto evaded by pretences which I have proved and perhaps himself perceived groundless It will not saith he p. 49. justifie the Recusancy of the Papists because these things were never a reason of it This answer is none at all because if those things to which their conformity was required were really sins we cannot at all blame nor justly punish them for refusing to be partakers in them It is not easie to think of any thing which would more please them in or justifie them for disobeying our established Laws than our proclaiming them thus to be grosly horrid so apparently abominable as there was an unavoidable necessity of using the worst of remedies a Civil War and the worst of dangers hazarding our souls in the most suspicious of actions the defiance of our Prince to remove them It is from hence if this be once granted clear we have all along punished Papists for not conforming to what it is a Christians duty not to conform to And this is sure a competent ground for not assenting to this part of the Covenant for be the grounds of sinfulness what it will our selves by this should own that to be sin which we punished them for not joyning in the concession of which would be so pleasing to them that I wonder to see those men plead for it who make spite to Rome the only rule they walk by As to the second part of the scandal justifying the Separatists Mr. Cr. answers not much better p. 50. Neither can such an acknowledgment justifie the Separatists For that the corruptions established were never made such Essential parts of the Worship as to
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
approved at Rome The clearing of this should in all Reason commend Episcopacy to those men who make opposition to Rome the rule of their Faith But oh the intolerable though holy villany of those godly Cheats who Preached up this Tenent for Popery which all who understand what Popery means know to be the bane of it and was at Trent by the See of Romes most skilful Advancers discarded as such It seems some not esteemed Iesuites can lie for God and pious frauds can be used and rayled at It is said by the Oxf. men in their third ground of their first exception That they are not satisfyed of that Phrase in the Covenant Lest we be partakers of other mens sins They do not apprehend how they are guilty of those sins suppose them to be sins which is not yet proved unless they endeavour by fire and sword to root them out To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 76. That they are so guilty but hath not one word to prove it That Saints in Scripture did weep for other mens sins I read But that they esteemed them to be made their own if they did not fight them down I do not read There were Kings of Israel who were Idolaters and the Law was general that they who were such should be put to death yet I do not find the Prophets telling the People that it was the same thing for them not to stone the King as it was for him to worship stones And yet this is the Import of that expression Those are our sins we are partakers of them if we do not pull them down The Foundation of the second Article of the Covenant is harder then all the Laws of God besides if it self be one It binds us to the extirpation of all Superstition Heresie Schism Profaneness or whatever shall be found contrary to the Power of Godliness and this they make to be every mans duty and swear him to it under no milder expressions then these Lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so in danger to receive their plagues And here if we consider the way of endeavouring this Covenant practised and required viz. Fire and Sword and with this their Invitation to Foraign Churches where there are no Parliaments with pretence of share in the Government so that they must only be looked upon as so many private men on whom yet this duty is incumbent It teaches us this by that Engagement Lest we partakers of other mens sins c. That a godly man can never be at peace with himself till he be at war with every one he knows or thinks wicked He must perpetually expect Gods vengeance on himself when he is not executing it upon another The first thing of moment against this Article is p. 78. That the Universal alleadged Practise of 1500 years will more weaken then strengthen the Divine Right for the most pure estate was before that in the first 140. years I shall not at all insist upon the Catalogues of Bishops in unquestionable Histories to be had even from the beginning But only say this That all Christian Churches in those dayes should deviate from the Primitive pattern and all the same way no common cause imaginable inducing them to err the same way is a thing highly incredible As to that which is ordinarily urged viz. Ambition it could not if we consider the Persons or Times have been universal nor if we consider the thing have been at all Being a Bishop having only the priviledge of being burnt next Mr. Cr. in the following Pages makes demands for Texts Though the Article insists only on Practise and so is not concerned Which if not granted good National Parochial Churches The Canon of the Scripture and the Lords-Day are lost Nor is this Truth utterly past by in Scripture though if it had considering that the intent was to deliver to us Doctrine not the precise Form of Discipline we might rationally have appealed to Antiquity in that Point i. e. to the Practise of those from whom we receive the Canon of the Scripture and without whose Suffrage were it once questioned it were not possible without immediate Revelation to have it sufficiently attested to be what it pretends to be Mr. Cr. tells us that Bishops and Presbyters are intrusted with the same Power of Governing But I cannot be satisfied in this particular since I find Timothy and Titus being single men are without any intimation of others being equal with them directed how to receive accusations and to rebuke and censure Evidences in my apprehension pregnant enough of sole Iurisdiction To disprove the Universal alleadged Practise he tells us That the King of Denmark in the year 1537. exstirpated it and so did the Scots since Goodly goodly And so did those he pleads for the long Parliament I cannot apprehend but that either he droles or is utterly ignorant of the nature of Tradition as taking it to be what none ever contradicted a notion of it which they that understand what it means have not Sure I am at that rate the Deity of Christ cannot approve it self to be Catholick Doctrine because there were Arians of old and are Socinians now The mutual correspondence by Letters which was at that time used in the Church forbad any Church to be ignorant of what all the Churches do hold so that Innovations could not but be discovered And to suppose that the same Imposture should be imposed upon all the Churches together in those early dayes as an Apostolick Tradition upon so many various Countries and Inclinations upon men whose choisest care was in delivering and dying for that Faith they had once received from the Apostles is to suppose all the World to be out of their wits together If they tell us It was the ambition of Pastors that introduced that Order no account can be given how this should be universal and yet not perceived or resisted and this is as strange as to the Exemplar Piety of those Times And yet more in the nature of the thing it is absurd For their ambition in that case could tend to nothing but a more quick and severe Martyrdom to be sooner burnt then their fellows The Heathens spite was at the Bishops as well as the Presbyterians Aerius being called a Heretick for promoting that Opinion himself glories in he qualifieth with this That Austin only calleth it Proprium dogma p. 87. Which term in St. Austin's esteem signifieth nothing less In his judgement for a private man to oppose his own private Opinion dictated by discontent as some late ones are known to have been for not being Bishops themselves in a matter of fact against all Records Histories and the owned Practise of all the Churches was Spiritual Pride and Folly And St. Austin in that case would if pertinaciously held not at all have stickt to have called it Heresie If the expression he useth do not import as much In the Answer to the fourth Exception handled I know