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, etc.  
SIR,  
TAking it for granted that you are the Author of Municipium Eeclesiasticum, and that you will think yourself obliged to remove those 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 lie 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 represent you as a Man of Incendiary Humours, a Prejudice very easy 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 Undertaking, and this with your Name set to take off the Reproach of a Libel fixed on it. The part that appertains to the intrinsic Merits and Substance of the Cause, appears in the Appeal itself, which you know best how to treat; and therefore I do not pretend to advertise you thereupon; but wishing you all Success, Reward, and Happiness for your many Pious, Hazardous, and— Labours for this poor Church, I subscribe,  
New Atlant, Feb. 24. 1697 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 satisfy 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 controversy, that after all possible inquisitiveness we have not been able so much as to guests at him, nor are we at all concerned 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 Hypocrisy 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 Jealousy with his people, we think his Opponents have no warrant from any rules of 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, than 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 Saviour's precepts against Censoriousness, as much as how to gratify 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 in Officious Treatises and fulsome 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 Catholic 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 Expense of our powers, and at the loss of all our worldly Interests, we can only recommend them to God's 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 show what just reasons there were to oppose the Counsels and Principles of this Doctor tending so openly and violently to the ruin of the Ecclesiastical Powers and Constitutions. It is too intimately known to all considering and religious Persons, how much the rampant Advances of Heresy 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 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 whereof 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 and Anti-Academical Lawyer of the same bran, 
† Author of the Letter to a Member of Parliament, etc.  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 waxed enough for some men's Impressions. Which saucy 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 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 horror in this kind to our Remembrance and Resentments. All which being considered, will easily justify 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 Interior Right in Ecclesiasticals than the Church its self, and therefore the illustrious Author of the Essay , has with the same hand destroyed all Civil as well as Ecclesiastical power in matters religious; which when the State shall be at 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 Churchmen 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 public scorn and scandal?  
But if we are not to solicit the cares or sentiments of the State, as to their own Matters; yet we think we may be permitted to resent and correct the Insolences of Clergymen, making all possible sail to preferment by a spiteful and contemptuous Carriage toward the supremest powers in the Church, who can traduce the use, wisdom, and gravity of all Ecclesiastical Synods in general, 
(1.) Author of Christ. Prine. p. 306.  by Reflections that will destroy as much the Authority of Parliaments, 
(2.) p 317.  not sparing any as far as appears of the great Constantine's Synods 
(3.) 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, 
(4.) p. 195, 197, 198.  as well as for asserting their immunities against the King upon the Authority and Injunctions of the Pope, 
(5.) 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 Domestic Power of the Church, on which however he passes no censure, 
(6.) 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 Satirical upon the Reputation of Convocations, even now in a state of Reformation, and vast Learning, and Experience, 
(7.) 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, 
(8.) Dedi. p 3, 4. Pref. p. seven. Book p. 5. p. 261, 262, 296, 304, 305, 339, 345, 346, 347. Pref. to Appeal. p. twenty-three. xxiv. compared with the whole malicious Book.  but even take occasion, where none offered itself, to render the present Clergy, or a great part of them, odious, as Men quarrelsome and barbarous 
(9) Author of Princ. Pref. p. seven. viij. Book p. 332, 333, 334.  hypocritically perjured for the sake of their Preferment, and yet Seditious against the Government 
(10) 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 Clergymen, who have sunk under false Notions and Principles of Allegiance, but had an appetite to exasperate the Public 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 Scotland. Hence is it that this Inhumanity of Design, as well as Corruption of Principles, has exposed itself 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, 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 itself, to consider both the Exterior Pretence, as well as the Interior Weight and Substance of it, that so the Readers may be able, by easy 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 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, etc.  
Fourthly, Against whom; and they are both Popish and Fanatic 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 Inferior Judge, which he, supposing himself to have sustained by the Municipium, appeals to all true Members of this Church, as more righteous and equal Judges. So that if he allege any such Gravamen or false Judgement, 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 suspense; 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 Doctor's 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 this Drs, Acumen has smelled 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 show us our very Judges, or be content to carry the Appeal to the Apostles and Fathers of the Church Catholic, and we will readily join 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, etc. 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 itself. 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 mere 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 So that the Dr. has appealed in a Cause in which we never prosecuted him. So that except it appear upon production of say 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, etc. 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 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 King's 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 Catholic Balance against Popery, and the Dissertation de Presbyteratu against frantics, to have been as unanswered, and perhaps as unanswerable by those Parties, as the Municipium is by himself, so the very Municipium itself 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 Man's Integrity or Reputation but his own. But to gratify the pretty Caprice for once, let us be Popish or Fanatic, or any other Exotic 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 Say of her Bishops and Doctors; It being an unequal thing that we should be concluded by prejudicated Parties, especially considering that all the fanatics, who deny the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, as much as 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 Supreme 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 Ancient Church Catholic, to which the Municipium yields and refers itself, and aught so to do; but has left the Arguments of the Municipium with no other answer but this, that they are contrary to the Principles established, and Notions received 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 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 mere 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 shows him, that by this Principle of his he unwittingly denies the Unity of the Catholic 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 Error, 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 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 inquire what he has done for his Nine Aphorisms, which we must here transcribe with a little Verbal Correction and Expunction of the word [Canon's] in the 7th, because he pretends himself wronged in it, tho' he that considers his 89th page, referred to in the Margin of the Municipium, will find that the word [Constitutions] imports the same with [Canon's] 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. chief consists in these Aphorisms;  


1. 
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. 
2 p. 84, 85, 136 to 139, 289, 38, 286.  For that all Synods are but of Counsel to the Prince, and entirely in his hands; and so  
3. Not any to be sent to the Synod, but such as he shall allow; nor  
4. 
4 p. 79 to 83, 106, 107, 110, 112, etc. 132.  When convened; to Sat, Debate, Propose, Deliberate, or Conclude, or Decree any Matter of Doctrine, or Discipline whatsoever;  
5. 
5 p. 44, 53, 54, 71.  Nor in any Form, Method or Manner whatsoever, save what the Prince admits; and that  
6. 
6 p. 81 to 86, 133.  The Prince may Ratify, Annihilate, or Altar all their Acts, and Procedures, or as many of them as he pleases; and  
7. 
7 p. 85 to [89] 125, 126.  Suspend the Execution of all or any of their [Constitutions and] Sentences;  
8. 
8 p. 288.  The Authority of their Acts being entirely and only. his; and lastly, that  
9 
9 p. 77 to 79  No Synod hath Right to dissolve itself without the King's Licence.    
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 justify 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 Clergyman of the Church of England, have solemnly declared our Assent to, and are obliged to our Power to maintain. 
† Pref. to App. p. uj, seven. 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 Virtue 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 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 of England, but the Church Catholic, 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 Catholic 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 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 owned them just, and to such as he has excepted against, we shall show 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 justify his Cause and Principles, and so we humbly crave and hope for a dismission in this Second Part of the Controversy 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; '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 satisfy 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 Eccentric to the Pretended or Real Matter in Appeal, shall have their due Examination, tho' we confess 'tis a very sickly and unprofitable Labour, that must be employed 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 allege that it 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 justify 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, than the Description thereof was intended for definitive. And '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 allege 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 show 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, 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 Catholic, 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 allege 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.  
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 Doctor's Aphorisms; and the most that can be made of it, is an harmless Inadvertency; (quod temen non fatemur, etc.) and if our Judges please to censure it for such, we are content with the Judgement, without any further Appeal.  
3. That page 160, in the Matter of the Council of Ariminums 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 Prince's Authority, so to tarry till they have 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 Virtue can be forced) but then withal 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 Arguments from matter of Fact; See Pref. to App. p. xxj.  
To which we answer negatively, the Distinction of Regularity of the more ancient 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 publicly used in Synod by the Clergy, without Royal Licence, or Rebuke, or any Rule to the contrary then apparent, (as there is none alleged in the pages above noted) be as good Arguments for the Right 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 Conu. M. p. 58.  except we can suppose that the Kings than had no better esteem of their Synods than as a pack of dangerous Villains, whom no Laws could restrain, without Guards and Jailers over them; which every one knows was not the common apprehension against the Clergy in those times.  
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 Emperor's 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, etc. and this Remark is immutably true, and uncapable of Impeachment.  
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 Emperors, 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.  
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. twenty-three.  
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 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 die unrevenged; but if he had no Cause of Appeal, he will pretend one of Recrimination; that the Author of the Municipium has condemned our Ecclesiastical Constitution under the King's 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 King's Protection, that so he may pronounce him out of the Bosom of the Church, and advance a Crusade 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 Archbishop, upon Repentance and public Revocation of his Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors; And to aggravate his Crime, he has done this against the Sense 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 Reign, upon which I have reflected no more than what undeniable History warrants; in which there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And for the Good he did, we own 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 own 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 King's Prerogatives; but on this we have never passed any Censure, even where occasion presented itself, but suspended our Opinion, leaving the Judgement of our Original as well as subsequent Contracts herein to God the Judge of all; p. 136, 155, 176, nay, we make the King's 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 Domestic Tribunal, and  by the Subject, pag. 5.100 101, 106, etc.  
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 signalise it as much at least, as any of the Doctor's 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 alleged 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 shall prorogue their Examination to the second Part, as they shall properly offer themselves at their Respective Instances; and then by God's 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 herself, 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 Sovereignty alone; but what particular Prerogatives shall accrue to Kings herein in restriction to the Church's 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 divers places. and mutable in all; and ought not to be asserted of universal and unchangeable Right on the account of mere Sovereignty 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 Tenors 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 magnify the Laws, that under such deficiencies may be wrested from the opposing to the doing 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 God's Ministers, in the Service of God's Church; who (kind, but unknown, Sir) is also particularly  
Kilmington, 
 March 5. 
 1697/ 8 Your obliged Servant, S. Hill.  
FINIS.