THE RITES OF THE Christian Church further defended, In Answer to the Appeal of Dr. WAKE.

With a Letter to Mr. Hill Rector of Kilmington, on the account of THE Municipium Ecclesiasticum. As also an Answer.

By Sam. Hill Rector of Kilmington.

John 18.23.

If I have spoken evil, bear wit­ness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?

Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster. 1698.

A LETTER Written to Mr. HILL on the account of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum, With the Answer, &c.

SIR,

TAking it for granted that you are the Author of Municipium Eeclesia­sticum, and that you will think your self obliged to remove those [Page 2]Charges laid upon you in your Adversary's Appeal, I think fit on so ticklish a Point, to offer you some Considerations, neces­sary, in my Opinion, to allay the Prejudices that seem to lye a­gainst you.

For first of all, There are some that conceive you to be the Au­thor of the Letter to a Convo­cation man, and therein to have thrown a needless Bone of Con­tention in a time of great Jea­lousies under the late Plot and War, with very suspicious Re­flections upon the Greatest in the Government; and consider­ing your daring Attempt not long before upon a formidable Adver­sary, your Enemies stick not to [Page 3]represent you as a Man of Incen­diary Humours, a Prejudice ve­ry easie to take among Strangers and Persons disaffected, espe­cially in a soft Age dissolved in­to Courtship and Caresses. On which account I should with submission think it not expedient to avert those Misconstructions, by setting forth Truth under its fair and equal Reasons for the generous Ʋndertaking, and this with your Name set to take off the Reproach of a Libel fixed on it. The part that apper­tains to the intrinsick Merits and Substance of the Cause, appears in the Appeal it self, which you know best how to treat; and therefore I do not pretend to ad­vertise [Page 4]you thereupon; but wish­ing you all Success, Reward, and Happiness for your many Pious, Hazardous, and — Labours for this poor Church, I subscribe,

Worthy Sir,
Yours Entirely N. N.

The Answer.

SIR,

SInce you were not pleased to let me know you, nor where to return Thanks for so en­dearing an Office, yet since you have given such Useful Intima­tions, you have fixed me in a Me­thod how to appear on this Appeal, about which I was before very an­xious and undetermined; for now I think it the most proper way for me to give you an Epistolary ac­count of my sense in this matter; which being sent by the Press, will find you in your Secrecy, and satis­fie [Page 6]at once both you and the Impar­tial World against such Surmises which such an Adventure must needs draw upon it.

Know you then that we are so far from being the first starter of this con­troversie, that after all possible inqui­sitiveness we have not been able so much as to guess at him, nor are we at all concern'd in those (whether real or pretended) reflections, at which his adversaries are all so fired. And to be free with you and the world, if the passages taxed, did in truth design reproach, his own conscience ought to smite him, & will one time or other do so severely, if for nothing else, yet for the Hypocrisie and false Colours: but since his language carries in it an apparent zeal and veneration for all authorities now in being, and particularly hopes for vengeance on those that reflect upon His Majesty to create a Jealousie with his people, we think his Oppon­ents have no warrant from any rules of [Page 7]Justice and Charity to pronounce him a reviler so absolutely as they have done; and if God, who searcheth the hearts, finds him to be as intentionally innocent as his words are, then these Men have brought that guilt of male­dicence on themselves with which they now load him. So that herein they seem not to have considered our Saviours precepts against Censo­riousness, as much as how to gratifie their own malice or ambitions. But as to what really concerns us, we are not very solicitous what partial men say of us, because no prote­stations in the world can inhibit their malice, and therefore in what we are accountable to God alone, to him alone will we reserve our ac­count, being contented to leave with the world these arguments of our integrity, that though we could have laid trains of assentation in order to advancement, by avoiding all dis­gusting writings, and by bending our capacities to serve the present Ge­nius [Page 8]in Officious Treatises and fulsom Dedications, and had prospects fair enough before us to have led us into such temptation, yet have we never slained our concisence or our pen by any such little and illiberal Artifices, but have always chosen rather to please God in the Cause of the Catho­lick Faith and Church against all unjust displeasures of Men, than to be sacrilegiously guilty in corrupting or betraying those Divine Principles and Constitutions: and if it be pos­sible that any person, especially of the sacred Robe, can be offended at us for serving the Cause of Christianity at the Expence of our powers, and at the loss of all our worldly Interests, we can only recommend them to Gods mercy, and in the mean time condole the state of the Church in that there are some in her that are more concerned for her promotions than her fundamentals.

But though Integrity is under no such great Obligations to stand in awe of the delicate or censorious world in order to any internal com­fort and satisfaction, yet that its designs may be more serviceable to the holy Ends proposed, we shall not grudge to shew what just rea­sons there were to oppose the Coun­sels and Principles of this Doctor tending so openly and violently to the ruine of the Ecclesiastical Pow­ers and Constitutions. It is too in­timately known to all considering and religious Persons, how much the ram­pant Advances of Heresie and new Schemes of Christian Faith created in the Church a desire of a free Con­vocation, to correct these Extrava­gancies by the methods used in such cases through all Ages. And we wish we could not say that the Interest of the Criminals hath found a party against the general appetite and be­nefit of the Church, inspired with a Spite from the dead against the lower [Page 10]house of Convocation, not to be a­bated till they can hope to introduce thereinto a number and majority ready and sequacious in the execution of their purposes. In which unna­tural and irreligious Project they club in with all the Atheists, Infidels and Sectaries of the Nation, a splen­did Instance wherof we have in this Doctor, who has for Complices in this Adven­ture Author of the Essay concerning the power of the Magistrate and Rites of Man­kind in matters of Religion, in his Postscript concerning the Letter to a Con­vocation Man. one profligate Anti-christian Infidel, and foul-mouth reviler of the whole Church of God through all Ages, and egregiously of the Re­formed Church of Eng­land in this last Age, in com­parison with which not only his Darlings the Sectaries (his service­able tools to Irreligion and Scepticism) but even the Papists, (against whom however he inveighs sufficiently) nay the very Heathens are very Lambs and Saints; and another Anti-Eccle­siastical [Page 11]and Anti-Aca­demical Lawyer of the same bran, Author of the Letter to a Mem­ber of Parlia­ment, &c. and this discernibly enough, tho' not so raging, but more tect and sly in his Methods of Mischief. Of this fraternity all along have been those worthy Monitors of the Con­vocation at their last Session, and those raging Calumniators of it that malign it ever since, because not waxen enough for some Mens Impressions. Which sawcy Treat­ments, if offered to the Guardians of our Civil Liberties, would have brought the Adventurers under the Zeal and Inquisition of the State, while the grand depository of Chri­stianity is securely vilified and used as our Lord and Master, which is however the greatest honour in the sight of God, though otherwise in­tended by malicious and vexatious Men. And yet while open Ene­mies do us this dishonour, we can the better bear it, but to be be­trayed [Page 12]trayed up to the scorn of all our Enemies by those that eat the same bread, and drink of the same cup, is that which calls back the saddest Example of horrour in this kind to our Remembrance and Resentments. All which being considered, will easily justifie the Municipium Eccle­siasticum from the suspicion of a causeless and incendiary Undertaking. Nor can we think that even the Civil State will conceive any offence at it, since they that undermine the Authority of the Church in Spirituals, overturn the Superstru­cture of the Magistrates Interest in the Civil Conduct of Religion. For no Man can think that a Secular Authority has a more Interiour Right in Ecclesiasticals than the Church its self, and therefore the illustrious Author of the Essay above-mentio­ned, has with the same hand de­stroyed all Civil as well as Eccle­siastical power in matters religious; which when the State shall be at [Page 13]leisure to recollect, it will no doubt be jealous for its own Authority in the most important Concern, and when it shall appear that this is overturned by destroying the Foun­dations of the Church, what will be thought of those Church-men that have supplied these Caitiffs with Match and Powder? And if the Church shall not disclaim such Proditors of her own, how can the State think that we will be true and trusty to the Civil Rights and Liberties of the Nation, that are so negligent and prodigal of our own, and hereby at once become the publick scorn and scandal?

But if we are not to sollicit the cares or sentiments of the State, as to their own Matters; yet we think we may be permitted to re­sent and correct the Insolencies of Clergy-men, making all possible sail to preferment by a spiteful and contemptuous Carriage toward the [Page 14]supreamest powers in the Church, who can traduce the use, wisdom, and gravity of all Ec­clesiastical Synods in ge­neral, Author of Christ. Prine. p. 306. by Reflections that will destroy as much the Authority of Par­liaments, p 317. not sparing any as far as appears of the great Constantines Synods p 307. for the sake of those that were corrupted purely on the Court Interest, which he fraudu­lently conceals; who in the times of Popery scouts the Con­vocations, even when opposing the avarice of the Pope, p. 195, 197, 198. as well as for asserting their im­munities against the King upon the Authority and Injunctions of the Pope, p. 205, 350 to 356. and 298 to 303. while yet his own historical Deduction ascribes the first Introduction of the Papal Au­thority to the Acts and Contri­vances of Kings against the Dome­stick Power of the Church, on [Page 15]which however he passes no censure, p. 178, 179, 181, 182, 186, 187, 194, 195, 197, 199, 203. above the bare rela­tion of fact and an in­timation of Weakness; who beside all this is more Satyrical upon the Reputation of Con­vocations, even now in a state of Reformation, and vast Learning, and Experience, p. 42, 43, 82, 112, 270, 271, 272, 297, 316, 317, 320, 325, 329, 330, 337, 343. Ap­peal. p. 121. as if they were the most peevish, untractable, spiteful, imprudent and dangerous Societies to Kings and States, that can be ima­gined, in no wise to be trusted, but under. Guards and Irons; who can when no provocation is given, not only vilify his Adversary, and even at the same time pre­tend a tenderness in this point, Dedi. p 3, 4. Pref. p. vij. Book p. 5. p. 261, 262, 296, 304, 305, 339, 345, 346, 347. Pref. to Appeal. p. xxiij. xxiv. compared with the whole malicious Book. but even take occasion, where none of­fered it self, to render the present Clergy, or a great part of them, odious, as Men quar­relsome [Page 16]and barbarous Author of Princ. Pref. p. vij. viij. Book p. 332, 333, 334. hypocriti­cally perjured for the sake of their Preferment, and yet Seditious against the Government p. 349, 355. Dedic. to Appeal. p. 2. to which they have Sworn and some associated; as if he were not con­tented with the fall of those un­happy Clergy-men, who have sunk under false Notions and Principles of Allegiance, but had an appetite to exasperate the Publick unto more discriminating and more di­stracting Tests in order to a more Numerous and Tragical Evacuation of Churches; for certainly that Spite and Wickedness of surmise against such a supposed mischievous Party, yet remaining in the Bosom and Communion of the Church, can import no less; that so we might have an History of the Per­secution of the Church of Eng­land in all things conformable, or in no wise inseriour to that of [Page 17] Scotland. Hence is it that this Inhumanity of Design, as well as Corruption of Principles, has ex­posed it self to the just scorn and detestation of the Clergy of this Kingdom, and there is no Charge in the Municipium, equal to the Malignity of the Project.

And having thus given you (as I think) sufficient Reasons, why such a malicious and calumnious Book should be refuted, we think little need be said for the Muni­cipium's being nameless to purge it from the imputation of Libel­lous; For if a Book be good, that concealment cannot, impeach it; if it be naught, the prefix­ing a Name does not so much excuse the Libel as attest and ag­gravate the Impudence; the O­pinion of which the Municipium was willing to decline with those who would be sure or likely to reproach the Author with that As­persion, [Page 18]and if to avoid this Rock he has dashed upon the other, he must bear his Fortune as well as he can, and commit his Cause to him that judgeth righteously.

From these Provocations, come we now to the Appeal it self, to consi­der both the Exteriour Pretence, as well as the Interiour Weight and Substance of it, that so the Readers may be able, by easie and obvious Views, to discern its Pertinency and its Justice.

First, Then we must begin with the Pretence set forth in the Title of the Appeal, which runs thus; An Ap­peal to all the true Members of the Church of England in behalf of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, as by Law Established; by our Convoca­tions approved; by our most Eminent Bishops and Clergy men Stated, and Defended; against both the Popish and Fanatical Opposers of it. So that [Page 19]herein four things present themselves to our Consideration.

First, Of what form this Book is; namely, that 'tis an Appeal.

Secondly, To whom 'tis offered; to all true Members of the Church of England.

Thirdly, In what Cause; in the behalf of the King's Supremacy, as by Law Established, &c.

Fourthly, Against whom; and they are both Popish and Fanatick Oppo­sers. The Title Page being thus ta­ken into parts, is accordingly in or­der to be considered.

Now First, Appeals in Law are forms of action against some Illegal Process or Sentence of an Inferiour Judge, which he, supposing himself to have sustained by the Municipium, appeals to all true Members of this [Page 20]Church, as more righteous and equal Judges. So that if he alledge any such Gravamen or false Judgment, and prove it by the exhibition or pro­duction of the acts, in all such In­stances he ought to carry, otherwise to lose his Cause.

Secondly, The Judges appealed to are all true Members of this Church; on which the Party appellate is in suspence; not that he suspects such Judges, but knows not whom the Appellant intends. For it appears by other repetitions App. p. 117. lin. 3, 4., that 'tis a Critical and Distinctive Character from false Members in this Doctors design, tho' he has left them as in­discernible for want of a particular Note as the Subject of Infallibility in the Roman Church. For first, the Deprived Clergy claim this as their Peculiar Honour merited by their Cause and Sufferings: And in the next place, among the undeprived [Page 21]this Drs, Acumen has smelt out a Par­ty of perjured railing Incendiary Hy­pocrites, that are setting up for a third Church of Eng­land Ap. p. 3., namely, those that are for the Municipium, which to his utter grief he finds to be the Body of the Clergy every where, even home to his Doors. Now these are dangerous Judges for the Dr. to trust such an Appeal with. So that in the third place the Mystery is, that those few of his Party that are against all Divine Authorities in the Church, are his secure Judges, his allowed Members of the Church of England, and then indeed we and the Church too is undone, if we decline not such Judges. Either therefore let him shew us our very Judges, or be content to carry the Appeal to the Apostles and Fathers of the Church Catholick, and we will rea­dily joyn with him, if need be.

Thirdly, The Cause or Matter in Appeal is here pretended to be the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy as by Law Established, &c. But how this comes to be the Subject of an Ap­peal against the Municipium, and for his former Book, I cannot conceive. 'Tis true, the Letter to a Convocation-man after his Assertion of the Divine Right of Synods, endeavours, not to deny the King's Ecclesiastical Supre­macy, but under that, to assert a like Legal Liberty to Convocations as to Parliaments, in which latter part upon our Legal Establishment the Minicipium did not concern it self. But being dissatisfied with the Drs. denial of the Sacred Powers, and with that unlimited System of Regal Authorities ascribed to all Christian Princes on the meer Right of their Magistracy, which are truly collected into nine Aphorisms out of the Drs. Book in the 108 and 109 pages of the Municipium, it undertakes the refutation of these his general Maxims [Page 23]So that the Dr. has appealed in a Cause in which we never prosecuted him. So that except it appear up­on production of sayings in the Mu­nicipium, that the particular Legal Establishment of our King's Eccle­siastical Supremacy is impaired or impeached therein, it ought to be ac­quitted by our Judges; and this is what we stand to in this Appeal, re­monstrating that according to the Title of the former Book (now shift­ed from all Princes to ours only) he ought to have laid his Appeal in behalf of the Authority of Christian Princes [in general and simply] over their Ecclesiastical Synods; as by him­self stated and asserted, &c. that is, against the Divine Right of Synods in the Church, and for those Au­thorities of all Christian Princes sum­med up in those nine Aphorisms. This then is a defect in the very Title and Pretence of Body of it he yet if really in the Body of it he has made out these his Maxims for [Page 24]all Christian Princes, we will be content that the Municipium be con­demned as severely as the Doctor desires.

Fourthly, The Adversaries against whom he Appeals, are all Popish and Fanatical Opposers of the Kings Ec­clesiastical Supremacy; (for so the interpunctation of the Semicolons after three Participles, does deter­mine his intention, that herein he may not shuffle) but all along the Appeal you find no Book reflected on but the Municipium; So that this seemed a pretty Artifice, to ex­pose his Adversary under hated and ignominious Characters, tho' he knows him as far from those Imputations, as any Man in England. For as he knows the Catholick Ballance against Popery, and the Dissertation de Pres­byteratu against Franticks, to have been as unanswered, and perhaps as unanswerable by those Parties, as the Municipium is by himself, so the [Page 25]very Municipium it self asserting the Divine Rights of the Episcopal Hier­archy does herein at once as well oppose the Council of Trent as the Genevian or Scotch Consistories. So that if this part of the Title be sincere, we are not the Person against whom this Appeal is brought; if it be calumnious, it will affect no Mans Integrity or Reputation but his own. But to gratify the pretty Caprice for once, let us be Popish or Fanatick, or any other Exotick or Invidious Name; what then will the Consequence be? Namely this, that then we may fairly decline his Judges the True Members of this Church; and his Authorities therein, namely, the Ar­ticles, Canons and Laws, and the Sayings of her Bishops and Doctors; It being an unequal thing that we should be concluded by prejudicate Parties, especially considering that all the Fanaticks, who deny the Kings Ecclesiastical Supremacy, as much as [Page 26]Papists; and as equally the Autho­rities owned in the Church of England, are tolerated in the whole Profession of their Fanaticisms against this Su­premacy and these Authorities, even by the Supream Civil Powers them­selves.

And consequently if the Doctor has not proved his Authorities pro­duced in this Church, to be good upon Prior and more Eminent Au­thorities, such as are those of Scrip­ture, Common Reason, and the Antient Church Catholick, to which the Municipium yields and refers it self, and ought so to do; but has left the Arguments of the Muni­cipium with no other answer but this, that they are contrary to the Principles establish'd, and Notions receiv'd in this Church, what does he else but betray his Church to contempt, and confess that the Ar­guments in the Municipium have overthrown the Senses of this Church [Page 27]by Scripture, Reason and Ecclesia­stical Antiquity, on which the Dr. was not able to reply one word. To such Absurdities, indeliberate Rages use to betray Men.

From the Titular Form of this Appeal, proceed we now to the inner Part and Body thereof, if perhaps he has therein discharged himself from the Convictions of the Municipium, which challenged him of two dangerous Principles; one for disowning the Church to be a Society, or to be endued with any Synodical Authorities till In­corporated into the State; Auth. of Chri­sti. Princ. p. 265, 266, 267. cit. ap. Munic. Eccles. p. 2, 3, 4. the other in asserting to all Christian Princes, on the meer Right of their Magistracy all those Au­thorities in and over Synods, Collected into the Nine Apho­risms. p. 108, 109. of the Munici­pium.

To refute the first Principle of the Doctor, the Municipium spends its Eight first Chapters upon Rea­son, Scripture, and Antiquity, and shews him, that by this Principle of his he unwittingly denies the Unity of the Catholick Church, to which (so civil and benign are Men when baffled) the Learned Doctor replies not one word. But here­upon we must challenge him to Answer those Eight Chapters effe­ctually, or we must conclude upon his persistence in this Errour, that he will obstinately renounce one Article of his Creed, and one part of his Baptismal Vow and Liturgy, the 8th, 19th, 20th and 34th Ar­ticles of our Religion, to which he has given assent in all his Ele­vations, the penal Consequences of which, even in this World, he may remember from those objected to the Municipium in this pretended Appeal. In the mean, however, here [Page 29]being no defence made against these Eight Chapters, for the Churches Divine Powers, we crave Right and Justice of our Judges, and desire a clear dismission as to this Article, because this Synodical and Recto­ral Authority in the Church, be­fore any Civil Incor­poration is asserted also in the Testimonies and Authorities, 1 Can. of 1640. Appeal. p. 8. Dr. Heylin. ibid. p. 88, 89. Bishop Taylor. p. 97. Bi­shop Parker, p. 98, 100. Dr. Falkner 103, 104. Dr. Barrow, p. 160. produced in this Appeal, as well as by our 20th and 34th Article of Religion, and 139th Canon.

So much then, and so little for the first Matter charged on the Dr. by the Municipium; come we now to enquire what he has done for his Nine Aphorisms, which we must here transcribe with a little Verbal Correction and Expunction of the word [Canons] in the 7th, because he pretends himself wrong­ed in it, tho' he that considers his [Page 30]89th page, referred to in the Mar­gin of the Municipium, will find that the word [Constitutions] im­ports the same with [Canons] and that every where else he Assigns a far greater Power over Canons, than a bare Suspension of their Exe­cution, which yet he neither dis­owns, nor dares to disown. Municip. Eccles. Chap. 9. § 4. Now the Do­ctrine of the Dr. chiefly consists in these Aphorisms;

  • 1.
    p. 14, 41, 48, 76.
    That under the Do­minion of the Christian Magistrate the Church has no inherent Right or Authority to Convene in Synods, but what it de­rives from the express Concession of the Christi­an Prince.
  • 2.
    p. 84, 85, 136 to 139, 289, 38, 286.
    For that all Sy­nods are but of Coun­sel to the Prince, and [Page 31]entirely in his hands; and so
  • 3. Not any to be sent to the Synod, but such as he shall allow; nor
  • 4.
    p. 79 to 83, 106, 107, 110, 112, &c. 132.
    When convened; to Sit, Debate, Propose, Deliberate, or Con­clude, or Decree any Matter of Doctrine, or Discipline whatsoever;
  • 5.
    p. 44, 53, 54, 71.
    Nor in any Form, Method or Manner whatsoever, save what the Prince admits; and that
  • 6.
    p. 81 to 86, 133.
    The Prince may Ra­tifie, Annihilate, or Alter all their Acts, and Procedures, or as many of them as he pleases; and
  • [Page 32]7.
    p. 85 to [89] 125, 126.
    Suspend the Execu­tion of all or any of their [Constitutions and] Sentences;
  • 8.
    p. 288.
    The Authority of their Acts being en­tirely and only. his; and lastly, that
  • 9.
    p. 77 to 79
    No Synod hath Right to dissolve it self without the Kings License.

Now these Aphorisms he pre­tended to support sometimes, and rarely by interspersed Intimations or hints of Reason, but professedly by Ecclesiastical History.

As to his Reasons, they are all answered in the Ninth Chapter of the Municipium, to which he has not given one Syllable in order to Refutation.

The Ecclesiastical History is re­served for a second Part; only in preparation thereunto, the Tenth Chapter does examine what Legal Grounds there can be to justifie Regal Interpositions in Synodical Concerns, without which they must be taken for injurious Acts of Do­mination; which Chapter lays down such Principles, as will destroy all Pleas of general Prescription or Ju­stification from those Acts of Prin­ces, which go beyond the Lines of Regal Authority allowed in the Mu­nictpium, p. 105, 106, 123, 124. where a particular Contract with a particu­lar Prince, cannot be proved or well presumed. But this is nothing to the general Right of all Princes, for whom the Doctor would pre­scribe from some Facts recorded in History, which cannot presume a Contract for all Princes with all Churches universally.

Now to this tenth Chapter, laid as a bar and prejudice to all his Inferences, for the general Omni­potency of all Kings in Spirituals, what replies the Doctor? Truly to be Uniform, and all of a Piece, not one Syllable or Gape; But only shifts and juggles that he has said no more, And defended no other Authority in the Prince (meaning our King) than what both he and we, and every other Clergy-man of the Church of England, have solemn­ly declared our Assent to, and are obliged to our Power to maintain. Pref. to App. p. vj, vij. 39 Can. First Can. But this is nothing to the pur­pose; for the Question is not what our Kings peculiar Prerogative is, as King of England in Vertue of our Laws, but what is the general Right of all Christian Sove­reigns as such; and hereof we de­sire a proof, that we have Assented to all those Aphorisms, and are [Page 35]bound to defend them to our utmost; If this can be done, 'twill be a good Argument against us (though not with all the World that have made no such Subscriptions) not so much to assert Truth, as to muz­zle our Mouths: But even as to our own King, we desire that it may be proved accordingly to the second Aphorism, That all our Sy­nods are but of Counsel to the Prince, and entirely in his hands; and that, as in Aphor. 8. The Authority of their Acts is entirely and only his; and moreover that, That we have subscribed an Assent and Promise to defend it. This is not yet done, and so we yet are in no danger from this part of the Appeal. But when Men are in the vein of De­dications, their Strains are more Airy and Rapturous, and in such perhaps we may find something more apposite and daring. Now Dedic. to App. p. 3. he calls his a Cause, In which not only the Church [Page 36]of England, but the Church Catho­lick, ever since the Civil Powers, have become Christian, is concerned together with her. The Authority he plead for, in behalf of our Kings being no other than what the most famous Bishops and Councils of the Church, have given to their Empe­rors.

Now this will reduce the Dispute to a short Issue; Let there be pro­duction made of the most famous Bishops and Councils of the Ca­tholick Church, under Christian Princes, asserting these Nine Apho­risms of Ecclesiastical Authority, to all such Princes on the sole Right of their Magistracy, and we will de­liver up the Municipium to the Flames, and the Author to the most penitential Humiliations. It is not done in the former Book, 'tis not attempted in this Appeal; nay we have produced his own Contradictions in the most impor­tant [Page 37]Instances of such Supremacy, Munic: Eccl. p. 160, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 176 against these Infinite and Arbitrary Prerogatives, to many of which Remarks he has said nothing, and so own'd them just, and to such as he has excepted against, we shall shew his exceptions frivo­lous and causeless in due Place. And so as to all that was proper Mat­ter for Appeal in the Municipium, he has produced nothing to excuse, much less to justifie his Cause and Principles, and so we humbly crave and hope for a dismission in this Second Part of the Controversie also.

But these Informations of ours, in this Cause of Appeal, though so very clear and undeniable, will be apt to leave the World under an amazement, that a Man should Ap­peal in a Cause, and make such loud Clamours, and yet really not offer one pertinent Syllable for him­self; [Page 38]'tis so odd, so strange a pre­judice, that the World will hardly believe their own Eyes. What, hath he made no Answer to any one Charge or Imputation at all? This is an hard Saying, who can believe? Who can bear it? Now to satisfie the World, the truth is, he appealed not in the Cause on which he was charged, nor made any de­fence thereof, but in a Cause of our own Kings English and Pecu­liar Supremacy, for which the Mu­nicipium never touched him. As to the merits of the Cause there­fore there is none the least defence made; and the whole considered as a formal Appeal, is a perfect and entire Impertinence. But whereas the Municipium taxed him, not only for the dangerous falsity of his Prin­ciples, but with several personal In­advertencies, Absurdities, and Con­tradictions; some of these strokes he has endeavoured to evade, which though Excentrick to the Pretended [Page 39]or Real Matter in Appeal, shall have their due Examination, tho' we confess 'tis a very sickly and unprofitable Labour, that must be imployed in winnowing such Trifles.

1. And first of all the Munici­pium is blamed for four times Municip. Eccl. p. 6, 8.49, 55, Tax­ing his Definition of a Synod as unaccurate, whereas he never pre­tended it for a proper Definition, but plainly enough discovered his Sense of it to be otherwise, tho' yet it had been a fit Companion for our as unaccurate a Definition. Pref. to App. p. xx.

To which we Answer, That the Words appeared to us as a Defi­nition, on which an Argument was to be raised, concerning the Car­thage Conference, for a Regal Su­premacy over Synods, else how could it be deemed a Cavil, if it were no Synod, to alledge that it [Page 40]was none; and so to reject it as an Impertinence? To what pur­pose does he call it a Meeting of Ecclesiastical Persons on an Ecclesi­astical Affair, or such an Assembly under Imperial Authority, as may justi­fie the like Imperial Authority over any other of the like kind Auth. of Prin. p. 60. if real and proper Synods were of another kind? What then, are proper Synods Meetings of Ecclesiastical Persons on an Ecclesiastical Affair, or are they not? Or are they like or unlike to the Carthage Conference? It cannot be denied that Synods are such Meetings; and if Ministers had been set instead of Persons, it had been an accurate Definition enough. Then again if they are un­like to the Carthage Conference, and that in their Synodical Form, the Instance of that Conference was idle and frivolous; if like, as he says, then the Description thereof was intended for definitive. And [Page 41]'tis false that the Doctor in the same place disowned it to be a Sy­nod, but having laboured to evince it to be so, yet waves urging it too much upon his cavilling Adversa­ries, and pretends to alledge others which were unquestionably proper Synods. But the main sting in the Municipium p. 7, 8. the Doctor conceals, namely, that he had allowed those huddles of Christians running together in consult under Alien Powers, to be proper Synods without Authority, from which absurdity this Defini­tion of a Synod, tho' (as it seems) designed to comprehend all such Cabals, could not defend him.

And further yet, to shew his re­peated Inadvertency about the Car­thage Conference, let it be obser­ved, That he says that Synods con­sist of the same kind of Persons, as the Carthage Conference did, [Page 42]and about the like Affairs; Auth. of Prin. p. 60. Pref. to App. p. xx. How then can this be dis­owned a Synod? But the truth is, tho' they met on the like Affairs, yet they did not consist of the like Persons. For in Ganonical Synods all the Members are to be Catholick, but the King and his Arians that carried all by force were not so, and consequently were not Persons Ecclesiastical, nor qualified with any Authority Regal or Canonical to Act under pretence of Authority, and so 'twas an industrious Imper­tinence to alledge it in Plea for Authority. But whereas he recri­minates on the Unaccurateness of our Definition, (p. 49.) we challenge him (tho' it be but a small Pique) with all his skill to detect it, and we will readily own it, and thank him for the discovery.

[Page 43] 2. He complains of being false quoted in the 100 and 101 pages, and more injuriously, p. 109. of the Municipium. Pref. to App. p. xviij.

To which we Answer, as to the 100 and 101 pages, That 'tis a Ca­lumny, and refers to the said pages; and as to the 109 page, we have above accounted for it in the In­troduction again of the Doctors A­phorisms; and the most that can be made of it, is an harmless In­advertency; ( quod temen non fate­mur, &c.) and if our Judges please to censure it for such, we are con­tent with the Judgment, without any further Appeal.

3. That page 160, in the Mat­ter of the Council of Ariminum's self-dissolution, distinction is not made between his Historical Relation and his own Sense thereof, which does not condemn that Act of the Council. Pref to App. p. 19.

To which we Answer, that he is rightly represented, for he set a Rule Absolute against the Self-Dis­solution of Synods, without any re­serves or exceptions; which must then ipso facto condemn that Pro­cedure or Conclusion of the Coun­cil of Ariminum related immedi­ately upon the Rule; and he brings moreover the Emperors disgust at that Dissolution as an affront, a great Affront put upon him, and as a Corroboration to his Rule against that Act of the Council, as also his suggestion, That Theodosius and Valentinian took more care than to be so tricked or affronted, by the Council of Ephesus; p. 77. The same right he again asserts to Princes, against Self-Dissolution of Synods; p. 78. and then finally con­cludes, p. 79. It is there­fore the Duty of all Synods, as they are Convened by the Princes Authority, so to tarry till they have [Page 45]the same Authority for their Disso­lution. And if all this does not import a sense against the Dissolu­tion of the Council of Arminium, we know not what can, We are sure no man could think other­wise from the Precedents and Con­sequents in this Relation. But since he is now so candid as to suppose that these Fathers had good Rea­sons for their unlicensed Recess, and so will not pretend at this distance, and under so much ig­norance of their Motives, to con­demn them, we mightily applaud this forced Ingenuity; (if such a Vertue can be forced) but then withall we must engage him ei­ther totally to expunge, or else to qualify his Rule herein with Exceptions for extraordinary Rea­sons.

3. That p. 166. He is unjust­ly charged with Contradictions in [Page 46]Arguments from matter of Fact; See Pref. to App. p. xxj.

To which we answer negative­ly, the Distinction of Regularity of the more antient Age, and the Irregularity of the later Ages, set in the Preface to the Appeal, not appearing in the Ori­ginal Book. p. 295, 296. For he never used the Method of proving Imperial Acts Regular, by com­paring them with, or justifying them by any produced Rule or Principle; but he only produces their Acts to assert their Right. Now if such bare Facts argue or legally presume Right, without any other apparent Rule of Right, why should not such Facts publickly used in Synod by the Clergy, without Royal License, or Rebuke, or any Rule to the contrary then apparent, (as there is none alledg­ed in the pages above noted) be as good Arguments for the Right [Page 47]of the Liberty Synodically used without exception? Now since the Doctor set no Rules against that Liberty of Synods in the above noted Pages, then 'tis too late to hale them in now, so as to charge the Remark made upon him herein for injurious. And if a Man compares pag. 295. with pag. 112. he will conclude, that the Letter to a Convocation-Man argued fairly and strongly for that Right of Liberty, Letter to a Conv. M. p. 58. ex­cept we can suppose that the Kings then had no better esteem of their Sy­nods than as a pack of dangerous Villains, whom no Laws could re­strain, without Guards and Jay­lors over them; which every one knows was not the common ap­prehension against the Clergy in those times.

[Page 48] 4. That pag. 167. He is unjust­ly taxed for an absurd or contra­dictious Relation of Genstentines Words. Pref. to App. pag. xxj, xxij.

To which we answer. That here the Doctor notoriously for­ges words of Remark that are not in the Municipium, contrary to Sense as well as the Empe­rors Intention, for 'tis not remark­ed from those his Words, That Princes have nothing to do in Af­fairs of Synods, for the Munici­pium assorts the contrary of Con­stantine in Right and Fact.) But the Remark is, ‘That this Saying is directly against that universal Right and Authority in Synods Ecclesiastical (Capitulated by us into nine Aphorisms) given by the Doctor to all Princes, &c. and this Remark is immutably true, and uncapable of Impeachment.

[Page 49] 5. That pag. 168. the Remark of Contradiction upon the Saying of Socrates is injurious; Pref. to App. p. xxij.

To which we Answer, That as the Words are in the Municipium, the charge is evidently True and Just, and we desire our Judges to view the Columns; and to note first, That the Doctor leaves out the word [usually] to represent the Sense, that no lesser Councils were called by Emperours, which is no part of the Intention, but only that lesser Councils commonly were not, as appears also, Municip. p. 132. and this is proved by us, of four Synods out of the Doctor himself, in the place complained of, though the Doctor passes it over in silence to beguile his Reader.

[Page 50] 6. That pag. 169. he is inju­riously charged with Contradiction, in asserting the Right of Godly Princes in Convening Synods, and yet asserting the Churches Right herein under ill ones. Pref. to App. p. xxij. xxiij.

To which we Answer, That the Contradiction in the Columns, ap­pears undeniable, there being no distinction in his words between good and evil Princes, that pro­vide for, or neglect the Church, and for confirmation hereof, we refer also to the following Re­mark, in which lies the most convictive force and evidence of the Charge.

To conclude therefore all pos­sible pretensible matter of Appeal; as to his Principles against the Churches Divine Rights of Synods, and for his unlimited Domination [Page 51]of all Princes in Ecclesiasticals, he has not offered one word in An­swer to all or any one Argument or Saying in the Municipium; and of 15 Instances of Absurdity or Contradiction, he has excepted but at six, confessing thereby all the rest to be just upon his own Con­cession; and what sorry Defences he has made on these six poor Heads of Complaint, we suppose our Judges must have needs seen, had we offered them no Informa­tions; but now we suppose none is so blind, either through passion or ignorance, but must needs see the poor languishing Doctor utter­ly enervated, and destitute of all Pretences for his Appeal.

But be it so, the Doctor is re­solved however not to dye unre­venged; but if he had no Cause of Appeal, he will pretend one of Recrimination; that the Author of the Municipium has condemned our [Page 52]Ecclesiastical Constitution under the Kings Supremacy, and called it Oppressive, asserted Divine Rights against it, and reflected against K. Hen. VIII. his Convocation and Parliaments, declared the Church to be out of the Kings Protecti­on, that so he may pronounce him out of the Bosom of the Church, and advance a Croisade for an holy Rebellion against him; by which this Impious Author is Perjured against his Oath of Su­premacy, hath renounced the 37th Article, broken the first, second, twelveth, and other Canons of the Church, and so incurred deprivati­on by his Bishop, without present Revocation of his Errors, and is excommunicate ipso facto, not to be forgiven by an inferior Hand, but that of the Arch-Bishop, upon Repentance and publick Revocation of his Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors; And to aggravate his Crime, he has done this against the Sense [Page 53]of the greatest Bishops and Doc­tors of the Church, from whom the Doctor has brought many Citations.

This is indeed a Thunder as loud as brute, and we require a proof as exact as what is judicial and convictive, and we are sure he can never produce it. We can be Sure­ty before God and Man, that the Author of the Municipium be­lieves the 37th. Article, has vi­olated no Cannon, nor Oath against the Ecclesiastical Supremacy owned and to be owned by the Church, according to allowed Rules of In­terpretation; which do not require from us a Sanctification of all our Acts in Hen. VIII's Reign, upon which I have reflected no more than what undeniable History warrants; in which there are [...].

And for the Good he did, we owe him no thanks, for that he did it for self or evil Ends, he Persecuted at once both Papists and Protestants, and at last he and his Vicar General died Papists, and to that Church we leave them. We owe under God all true Gra­titude to the Memory of Q. Eliza­beth for our Reformation; and a­gainst her Injunctions, Orders, and Articles we have committed no of­fence.

We declaim against that Domi­nation which the Doctor arrogates to all Princes, whether claimed by Devolution or Occupation; for as to Contract none such can be pre­tended for all Princes, though there can with us for our Kings Prero­gatives; but on this we have ne­ver past any Censure, even where occasion presented it self, but sus­pended our Opinion, leaving the Judgement of our Original as well [Page 55]as subsequent Contracts herein to God the Judge of all; p. 136, 155, 176, nay, we make the Kings Ra­tification and Concurrence necessary to give a Civil Force to Acts Ec­clesiastical, p. 166, 175, and Sub­ject all Persons, Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal, to the Civil Sword for obstinate and evil Doing, without any Exemption on the ac­count of Priesthood; pag. 105, 120, 125. without any seditious Resistance of the Supreme Legislative Powers, or their Ministers under Legal Per­secutions, for that such Powers are unaccountable to any Domestick Tribunal, and uncontroulable by the Subject, pag. 5.100 101, 106, &c.

And as to our particular Loyal­ty to his present Majesty, beside our Honour assigned him in our Preface, we suppose the Dia­logue of Solomon and Abiathar, and the Debate on the Justice and Piety of the Present Constitution may signa­lize [Page 56]it as much at least, as any of the Doctors false Services, for which he has obtained a good part of his past aims, and thinks his present attain­ments as pledges of greater, while we have done our Duty to the King without intuition of reward, which we know we had once obstructed by our Duty toward God, and have now done so again in opposing this Doctor.

And therefore being not at all concerned at his sanguinary Rages, we do still renew to him the sin­cere Conclusions of our first Let­ter, and do not despair, after some Years Cooling and Meditation, but that he will also be of our Mind.

As to what he has alledged out of the Worthies of our Church, there are very few Passages that are contrary to our Sentiments; and most are founded upon Ecclesia­stical History, and therefore we [Page 57]shall prorogue their Examination to the second Part, as they shall pro­perly offer themselves at their Re­spective Instances; and then by Gods blessing, if not the Doctor, yet the disinterested part of the World, may receive satisfaction.

To conclude the whole; the Sum of our Sense herein is, That the Church alone and by her self, where the Christian Prince will not inter­pose, (as that he may lawfully refuse) has a Divine Right of Sy­nodical Authority in Canons and Sentences purely Ecclesiastical, and this the Doctor is forced to grant; but if the King and the Church Con­tract for Establishing Ecclesiastical or Canon-Laws of Civil as well as Spiritual Authority, there the Su­premacy, as to Civils, is in the King on the Right of his Soveraignty a­lone; but what particular Prero­gatives shall accrue to Kings here­in in restriction to the Churches [Page 58]Liberties which she had in dis­junction from the State, will de­pend on the Terms of the several Local Contracts and Coalitions; and therefore may be divers in diverse places. and mutable in all; and ought not to be asserted of univer­sal and unchangeable Right on the account of meer Soveraignty sim­ply as such; and if such Contracts and Conditions violate no Divine Fundamentals, they are innocent, and perhaps also may be expedient; but if the Divine Tenures be broken down by them, no Man can ab­solve them; and therefore when Laws of dubious or suspicious Ac­ceptation (as to Form of Words) are strained, or perverted from the first fair Prospects and Intentions of their Legislators to ill and oppres­sive Purposes, as we cannot but abominate such perversions, so we cannot magnifie the Laws, that under such deficiencies may be wrested from the opposing to the doing [Page 59]evil; in which case, tho' there is no reason to desire a total abolition, yet Religion will force a Man to wish for a temper and secure Cor­rection.

And thus you have the intimate Sense and Soul herein, of the meanest of Gods Ministers, in the Service of Gods Church; who (kind, but un­known, Sir) is also particularly

Your obliged Servant, S. Hill.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.