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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 or Real Matter in Appeal shall have their due Examination tho' we confess 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 't was 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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 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
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 't is an Appeal Secondly To whom 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 'T is 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 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 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 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 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