person or persons are the words of the Act and the title of the same which declares the substance and scope therof is All acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the consecrating inuesting c. of any Archbishop or Bishop shall be good The making of Bishops and giuing them spiritual iurisdiction only by the Kings letters patents was the primitiue doctrin and spirit of the english Reformation as appears by an Act of Parliament an 1. Eduard 6. entituled an Act for the election of Bishops and what scales and stiles they and other spiritual persons exercising iurisdiction Ecclesiastical shall vse In which Act saith D. Heylin the famous prelatik protestant writer it is ordain'd that Bishops should be made by the Kings letters patents and not by the election of the Dean and Chapters and that all their processes and writings should be made in the Kings name only with the Bishops Teste added to and seald with his seal c. it was plain and euident saith the aforesaid Doctor that the intent of the Contriuers was by degrees to weaken the authority of the Episcopal Order by forcing them from their strong hold of Diuine institution and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs as a man might say I belieue a man may say so still according to the Statuts 1. and 8 Eliz. what say you Mr. Walsh will you yet say that the Oath of Supremacy acknowledges no spiritual authority in the King I am sure it ownes none in the Bishops bur that which they receiue from his Majesty and themselues own it in their Act or Oath of homage that they receiue all their iurisdiction as well spiritual and ecclesiastical as temporal wholy and solely from the King Are not you a litle out of countenance Mr. Walsh to see your confident assertion so manifestly contradicted by the Oath it self by the Statuts by D. Heylin and the Bishops themselues A NIMADVERSION 2. Whether the general Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon as also the Prouincial of Afrik of 217. Bishops allowed as much to the Emperor and no more spiritual authority to the Pope than the Oath of Supremacy doth BUT in the name of God Mr. Walsh how com you to quote for the lawfullness of the Eglish Oath of Supremacy the general Councells of Ephesus and Chaltedon as also the Prouincial of Afrik with S. Augustin was not Nestorius and his heresy as also that of Pelagius condemn'd in that Councell of Ephesus by Pope Celestinus spiritual authority residing in his Legat Cyrillus of Alexandria Doth not S. Prosper say that all the Eastern Churches were purg'd of two plagues by Celestinus when the most glorious defender of the Catholik Faith Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria was helpt by the Apostolik sword Did the Emperor Theodosius the yonger pretend to any spiritual iurisdiction or authority in that Councel He sent indeed his Domestik Candidianus to it not to act therin as the Emperor himself writes to the Synod but with an express caution and condition that he should not haue any thing to do with matters of Faith because saith he it is not lawfull for one that is not a Bishop to intermedle in Ecclesiastical buisness or consultations Why then was Candidianus sent by Theodosius the Emperor Mark well Mr. Walsh the reason That he might remoue buisy Monks and others from Ephesus because it is not lawfull saith he for such people to hinder by any tumult the examination of holy Tenets c. I feare most men will be apt to iudge that you are more concern'd in these words and reason of Theodosius than you are aware of T' is a wicked world Mr. Walsh we can not bridle ill tongues men will talke idely let vs be neuer so circumspect I hope you do not buisy yourself in these matters of the Church without your Superiors approbation or commission from the Bishops to whom such matters apertain properly And yet I know not what muttering there is that if any you had it s recall'd long since because you acted quite contrary to it Yourself doth confess page 5. of your first Treatise that your commission was to procure for Ecclesiastiks the benefit of the peace of 48. wherof the principal article or end was freedom of conscience and that a Vt saltem procuret nobis eas conditiones fauores gratias quae in articulis Pacis Reconciliationis An. 1648. compositae ratae confirmatae inter Excellâ—ntissimum Dominum Marchionem Ormoniae Confederatos Catholicos pactae promissae nobis fuerunt These are words of the Commission giuen to Friar Walsh by those few that employd him as you may see pag. 5. of his r. part 1. Treatise The same Friar sets down pag. 49. of his Appendix in the 8. article of the peace 1648. this enfuing Oath as the only to be exacted of Catholiks I. A. B. do truly acknowledge profess testify and declare in my conscience before God and the world That our Soueraign Lord King Charles is lawfull and rightfull King of this Realm and of other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and I will bear Faith and true Alleigance to his Majesty his Heirs and successors and him and them will defend to the vttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoeuer which shall be made against his or their Crown and Dignity and do my best endeauor to disclose and make known to his Majesty his 〈◊〉 and successors or to the Lord Deputy or other his Majesties Chief Gouernor or Goâ—ernors for the time being all Treasons or Trayterous Conpiâ—acies which I shall know or heare to be intended against his Majesty or any of them and I do make this Recognition and a knowledgment heartily willingly and truly vpon the true Faâ—â—h of a Christian So help me God c. the Roman Catholiks should not be required to take any oathes but one specified in the 8. article of the same peace How came you then to act as their Procurator quite contrary to this and to your commission Realy Mr. Walsh if this be true you are wors than the buisy Monks of Ephesus At least you are very vnfortunat in your allegations of Councells they alwayes seem to make against yourself You bring against the Popes spiritual supremacy the example of the Emperor Martianus in the case of Anatolius and make the 28. Canon of the Councel of Calcedon the ground of your obiection wheras you know in your conscience if you know or read any thing that there are admitted but 27. Canons of the Councell of Calcedon and Theodoret who was present at it testifieth there were no more the clandestin Decree which Anatolius and som Greeks made and foisted into the Canons is reiected as ridiculous and forged as you may see at large in learned Cardinal Perons answer to King Iames lib. 1. cap. 34.2 That though the 28. were admitted as a genuine Canon yet what is that to your purpose against the
and vnity to expect if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification the iudgment of God alone and not proceed to the Censure of one an other especialy in the occasion then present of the grand Controuersy with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith itself and in itself abstracting so much from all personal failings in life and conuersation of either Bishop Priest or Laik Nor doth it matter it at present how or in what sense we must vnderstand this saying of Cyprian or euery or any particular branch of it further than that of Constantin and in his right meaning which I haue before giuen is paralell to it ANIMADVERSION 11. Friar Walsh his Idea of the doctrin and disciplin of the Catholik Church and of the equality of its Bishops THIS Explication and Comment of yours Mr. Walsh vpon Saint Cyprian and Constantins words concerning the Iudicature and Priuileges of the Clergy doth declare very wel that entertaining and pleasing Idea you tell the Catholiks of the three Kingdoms a Pag. 5. Dedicat. you haue had these many years wherin they are so much concern'd It can not be denyed but that its a very pleasant thing especialy for the Bishops to be so absolute so at peace and enioy such liberty amongst themselues that none but our Sauiour Iesus Christ can question them for the gouernment of their flocks or for any scandal of their own liues and conuersation This is your Idea and you say it was the sentiment of Saint Cyprian if you be not much mistaken and that Constantin the great had it from his writings and aduised the Bishops of the Nicen Councel according to this Idea to fall vpon the Arians and neuer trouble themselues with reprehending or correcting their own faults and frailties because all such things must be remitted to the day of Iudgment in the mean time euery Bishop hath his own proper abitrement pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae according to the pleasure of his own liberty and his own power I confess this is a great priuilege and more than euer the Roman Catholik Clergy euen the Pope himself prerended to for the Pope may be vnpoped at least for heresy But the Bishops of your Idea or Church Mr. Walsh are all Popes and yet can not be declared by any other Bishops or Cardinals to be deposed by Christ for any heresy or fault committed in gouerning their flocks Now though you declare yourself to be no Roman Catholik by this your parity of all Bishops and saying that by the immediat law of God the Pope hath no spiritual superiority or authority ouer other Bishops yet I hope you will giue temporal Soueraigns a superintendence or som power to keep those independent Bishops in order and Church disciplin at least you pretended so hitherto But now you say no. For Constantin and Saint Cyprians rule is that no Emperor no King none but Jesus Christ alone may order or iudge Bishops Vnus solus Iesus Christus habet potestatem proeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro iudicandi How com you then to fool vs hitherto and make the world belieue from the first page of your great volume vnto this 345 that temporal Soueraigns haue power and authority from God to correct not only the lay crimes but the Ecclesiastical faults of Bishops and to force them to keep the Canons Customs and disciplin of the Church Js this your zeal for the right of temporal Soueraigns Js this the scope and sense of your loyal Remonstrance Certainly it will be suspected you are a Cheat. Jf you be such a man Mr. Walsh you either were too scrupulous or did ouer act the Hypocrite when you refused the Bishoprick you say was ofterd to you by the Protestants I suppose in Ireland What could you desire more than to be equal with the Pope a Mr. Walsh his opinion of the validity of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Episcopacy and not accountable to any spiritual or temporal Superior vpon earth for the gouernment of your flock or yourself Especialy you hauing declared pag 42. n. 13. of your Preface that you hold yourself oblig'd in conscience for any thing you know yet to concurr with them who doubt not the ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Protestant Church of England to be at least valid And yea you haue read all whateuer hath bin to the contrary obiected by the Roman Catholik writers whether against the matter or form or want of power in the Consecraters by reason of their Schism or heresy or of their being deposed formerly from their sees By the way Mr. Walsh let me tell you that the Roman Catholik Church doth not ground its practise of ordaining absolutely and without any condition at all protestant Ministers who are conuerted and desire to be Priests amongst vs vpon their want of true and valid ordination proceeding from any Schism heresy or deposition of their Ordainers and first protestant Bishops for we all grant that neither Schism nor heresy of the Consecraters or their deposition makes an Ordination inualid as you see by what we hold of heretical Bishops but we ground the nullity of the protestant Episcopacy and ordination both vpon the inualidity of the protestant form of Episcopacy priestood and vpon their first Consecrater Parker vpon whose consecration all theirs doth depend neuer hauing bin consecrated a Bishop himself for besides many other proofs Iewel and Horn pretending to make out his and their own Episcopal consecration could neuer in their bookes printed to that purpose and in answer to Harding and Stapletons printed bookes and questions name then when it concern'd them most the Bishop that consecrated Parker nor produce as much as one witness of so publik and solemn a Consecration as his was pretended to be 50 years after This together with the 25. article of the Church of England declaring that Ordination is not properly a Sacrament because it requires no visible sign or ceremony and by consequence no imposition of Episcopal hands together with the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. is one of the chief grounds we haue to belieue the Protestant Bishops are not validly consecrated nor the Catholiks guilty of sacriledge in reordaining them when they are made Priests amongst vs. An other ground is the inualidity of the protestant Form for ordaining Priests and Bishops the Form I mean that had bin vsed since King Eduard 6. reign vntill the hapy restauration of King Charles 2 For after his restauration the Bishops themselues found our exceptions against the validity of King Eduards Form were reasonable and therupon were pleased to alter it adding therunto the words Bishop and Prust as we directed which or the equiualent are necessary to express the caracter receiued by the form and which were wanting in the old form a Sanders in Schism F. Hâ—livood or Sacrobosco in hodeâ—nuestig vera Christs Ecclesia c.
applauded works which som of them haue printed to assert the truth of Faith Perhaps they do not think him worth their confuting Though I am not particularly concern'd yet seing his book hath so much barbarous railing and heretical nonsense that it is a nuisance to ciuility as well as to Christianity I will shake his fundamental principles to the end the world may not be further abused by them nor by the stories of a virulent pen that vents nothing but heresies against the Church rebellion against Soueraigns enuy against his superiors malice against his equals calumnies against his aduersaries and commendations of himself THE FRIAR DISCIPLIN'D OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON FRIAR PETER WALSH HIS NEW REMONSTRANT RELIGION MR. WALSH I DECLARE to you and all the world that my exceptions against your Religion and Romonstrance are not against the supreme temporal power of Soueraign Princes which I do belieue and shall assert as much as any Catholik Diuine My exceptions are against not only a Spiritual supremacy you attribute to Kings and deny to the Bishop of Rome but also against many new vnheard of errors and in first place against that rash and heretical Tenet of yours viz. * Friar Walsh in his Dedicatory to the Catholiks of the three Kingdoms pag. 13. That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world are either Traytors to their Kings or periur'd to the Pope because they take before their consecration an Oath which hath bin taken in the Church many hundred years by all Bishops Item That for the space of these 600. years past the Popes and writers of the Roman Catholik Church for the most part a Idem Ibid. haue maintain'd enormous principles and practises which haue bin cryed down continually by most zealous and godly Prelats and Doctors as not only false wicked impious lxretical vnchristian but as absolutely tyrannical and destructiue of all Gouernment lawes property peace c. 2. That since the owning of such intollerable maxims and wicked actions or the not disowning them are not amongst the marks of a Roman Catholik in general but only b Idem pag. 14. of a certain sect or faction whom som calls Papalins others Puritan Papists and others Popish Recusants the Protestants could not but obserue how since the Oath of supremacy though fram'd only by Roman Catholik Bishops Abots and Doctors of the english nation and defended by the principal of the same occasioned the first separation or schism amongst the subiects of England and Ireland the far greater part of such as continued in the Communion of the Roman Church did seem also to adhere to the foresaid dangerous doctrins and practises i. e. to all the pretences and actings of the Roman Court for as much as they generaly refus'd to disown them either by that Oath of supremacy or by other That it is vnreasonable to think and incredible to belieue c Pag. 14. n. 10. that so many iudicious Princes Parliaments and conuocations who had themselues gon so far and ventured so much as they did only because they would not suffer themselues or the Protestant people gouern'd by them to be imposed on against their own reason in matters of Diuine belief Rites c. should at the same time be so concern'd to impose on others in the like as to enact laws of so many grieuous punishments yea of death itself in som cases c. That we haue no cause to wonder at the Protestants a Pap. 16. n. 10. iealousy of us when they see all the three seueral Tests hitherto made use of for trying the iudgment or affection of Roman Catholiks in these Kingdoms in relation to the Papal pretences of one side and the royal rights of the other I mean the Oath of supremacy first the Oath of Allegiance next and last of all that which I call the Loyal Formulary or the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661. euen all three one after another to haue bin with so much rashness and willfullness and so much vehemency and obstinacy declined opposed traduced and reiected amongst them albeit no other authority or power not euen by the Oath of supremacy itself be attributed to the King saue only ciuil or that of the sword nor any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power be denied therin to the Pope saue only that which the general Councel of Ephesus vnder Theodosius the yonger in the case of the Cyprian Biâ—hops and the next Oecumenical Synod of Calcedon vnder the good Emperor Martianus in the case of Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the 217. Bishops of Afrik whereof Saint Augustin was one both in their Canons and letters too in the case of Apiarius denyed vnto the Roman Bishops of their time See the same Friar pag. 24. 25. 1. part of the first Treatise saying that the sense wher in the sons of the Church of England take the Oath of supremacy is very Catholikâ— and that they allow a politik not spiritual headship to the King and that only in temporal causes or matters not in spiritual not euen in those which are by extrinsecal denomination only called Ecclesiastical or spiritual If this be so Bishop Fisher Sir Thomas Moor and all the learned english men who sufferd for refusing the Oath were great fools and were ignorant both in the english language and in Diuinity But if this be so Mr. Walsh why is it not declared by publik authority can you be so stupid and barbarous as to think that the King and Parliament of England would be so vnmercifull as to permit so much noble and honest blood to be spilt upon a mistake so easily rectified if they or the Church of England vnderstand the Oath of supremacy as you say they do Jn the 19 page of your Dedicatory you set down the Oath which all Bishops and Archbishops take before their Consecration or Pallium and though it be very ancient and accepted of by all not only Prelats but Princes yet you say pag. 20. they who take it Must be periur'd to the Pope if they proue faithfull to the King Whether so or no to God Iudge you I am sure if they were not Traytors in taking the foresaid Oath to his Holiness they were at least Renouncers of their Allegiance to his Majesty and of their obedience also to the Catholik Church And because you could not but foresee that Catholiks and rational men would not bee their own Guides in a matter of so great importance as the determining the rights of Popes and Princes nor so rash as to iudge the whole Catholik Church or all the Bishops therof were Traytors Tyrants Cheats Vsurpers and Heretiks you endeauor to diuert the Catholik Layty from their duty of consulting the sea Apostolik in this main point of Religion by endeauoring to raise in the same Layty a diffidence of all who aduise so pious and prudent an address you telling the Catholiks of the three Kingdoms pag. 22. n. 18. of your Dedicatory That in the
last place hauing your eyes thus prepared all these things being considered you may cleerly see thorough that other sly artifice of those self same interested man wherby they would persuade at least to so much filial renerence to the great Father of Christendom as to acquaint him first wich your present condition send him a Copy of the publik instrument you intend to fix vpon with the reasons also inducing you therunto pray his approbation therof in order to your signing it and then expect a while his paternal aduice and benediction before you make any further progress You may at the very first hearing of this proposal plainly discouer say you their design to be no other than by such indiscreet means of cunning delayes vnder pretence of filial reuerence forsooth to hinder you for euer from professing at least to any purpose * Ibid. pag. 22. i. e. in a sufficient manner or by any sufficient Formulary that loyal obedience you owe to his Maiesty and to the lawes of your Countrey in all affairs of meer temporal concern This you can not but iudge to be their drift vnless per aduenture you think them to be realy so frantik as to persuade themselues that from Iulius Cesar or his successor Octauian after the one or the other had by arms and slaughter tyrannicaly seized the Commonwealth any one could expect a free and voluntary restitution of the people to their ancient liberty or which is it I mean and is the more unlikely of the two That from Clement the tenth now sitting in the Chair at Rome or from his next or from any other successor now after six hundred years of continual vsurpation in matters of highest nature and now also after the liues of about fourscore Popes one succeeding an other since Hildebrand or Gregory 7. his papacy and since the deposition of the Emperor Henry 4. by him in the year of Christ 1077. any one should expect by a paper petition or paper Adress to obtain the restoring or manumitting of the Christian world Kingdoms states and Churches to their natiue Rights and freedom or that indeed it could be other than ridiculous folly and madness to expect this J haue quoted your own words Mr. Walsh to the end all indifferent persons may see I do not insure you in the account I giue of your religion and doctrin which I intend to confute reducing is to your twelue fundamental Tenets Jn this first Animaduersion I will treate of two See Friar Walsh his twelue Tenets or articles in the 6. Animaduersion 1. That the Oath of Supremacy hath bin rashly and obstinatly declined opposed and traduced by Roman Catholiks because it attributes to the King only ciuil authority and power and denies to the Pope no spiritual or Ecclesiastical saue only that which the two general Councells of Ephesus and Calcedon as also that of Afrik of 217 Bishops whereof S. Augustin was one denied to the Bishops of Rome 2. That the Popes and Bishops of the Roman Catholik Church for these last 600. years haue taught and practised enormous principles which godly men haue continualy cried down as wicked impious heretical and tyrannical and that the vsual Oath which all Catholik Bishops haue taken at their consecration for many hundred years is not consistent with the loyalty all Christians owe to their temporal Soueraigns ANIMADVERSION I. Whether the Oath of supremacy attributes only ciuil authority to the King and denies no spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority to the Pope THE best way to decide this controuersy is to set down the words of the Oath which are I. A. B. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the King's Majesty is the only supream Gouernor of this Realm and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Countries as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no forain Prince Person Prelate state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm and therfore I do utterly renounce and forsake all forain iurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities c. so help me God and the contents of this Book Mr. Walsh giue me leaue to ask you whether you euer read this Oath and if you did whether you are sure you vnderstand English or whether better than English-men do for the common opinion is that euery nation vnderstands its own language better than strangers Mr. Walsh all Englishmen vnderstand by the word spiritual a quite different thing from temporal as you may see in Thomas Thomasius his Dictionary If this be so I feare you will hardly persuade Englishmen that they do not vnderstand english at least as well as you or any other Irish man Now to the point Doth not the Oath in cleer terms auerre that the King is the only supreme Gouernor of England and of all other his Dominions as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal Is temporal and spiritual the same or do these words signify the same Jf not how can you proue or pretend that no spiritual authority or power is giuen the King or denyed the Pope by this Oath of Supremacy I pray obserue if the King be the only supream Gouernor of his Dominions in all spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes or things hath he not all the spiritual power and authority in his own Dominions And if the Pope be a sorrain Prince Person or Prelate and no forrain Prince Person or Prelate hath or ought to haue any Ecclesiastical or spiritual iurisdiction power Superiority preheminence or authority within his Majesties Kingdomes how can the Pope haue any spiritual power or authority in the same J doubt very much whether your marginal note directing to I know not what admonition after the Iniunctions of * Pag. 16. of his Dedicatory to the Catholiks Q. Elizabeth and vpon the 37. article of the Church of England will bring you or the oath off so cleerly as you fancy By that Admonition after the iniunctions of Q. Elizabeth is pretended the Church of England did not attribute to the Queen power to exercise any spiritual function as that of consecrating Priests and Bishops or ministring the Sacraments Suppose this interpretation which came I must tell you som what too late were not known to be a pittifull shift to stop the mouthes of those who laught at the weakness of the Bishops in allowing and at the vanity of the Queen in assuming the spiritual supremacy of the Church suppose I say the Queen could not ordain Priests and Bishops because herself was neither Priest nor Bishop doth that hinder from hauing in herself and giuing to others spiritual iurifdiction to ordain and minister the Sacraments what think you of lay Princes and persons that are Bishops elect Haue they not spiritual iurisdiction and can they not giue it to others Though Q. Elizabeth was incapable of such spiritual iurisdiction because
one an other so well that you combin'd to cheat the Kings Subiects of money and to establish the Remonstrant Church by virtue of the same imposture and forged Commission wherby your visitators and Collectors raised good summs for the Commissary Apostolyks occasions and expence This common persuasion seems to be well grounded 1. You could not be ignorant the Commissary was an Impostor because he had no other Commission to shew for his authority ouer all the Clergy of Ireland both secular and regular but a copy of the pretended Original and that so litle authentik that to gain it credit you got the vnwary Biâ—hop of Ardagh to confirm it as a true one 2. the Commissary had no instructions a thing vnusual and vnheard of in any person authorised with such an employment But this defect you supplyed by drawing instructions for his visitators which are extant of your own hands writing all which tended to the establishment of your Remonstrant Church And these instructions written with your own hand Mr. Walst shall be produced whensoeuer you please So that if you did not forge the Commission you drew for the Commissarys Instructions 3. You knew very well it was not a likely thing that the Court of Rome would giue so ample a power to an ordinary Friar ouer Bishops and all regular Superiors 4. When the It suits made difficulty to submit to your Impostor Commissary standing vpon the Priuileges of their Order you reprehended them seuerely and gaue God thanks that your-self was so deuoted to the Pope as not to dispute his Commissaries authority when they who by a peculiar vow are tyed to obey his Holiness were refractory and vpon this you and by your example the rest kneeld down crauing the Impostor Commissaries benediction and owning his authority 5. He was wholy directed by you still in your company he was your old acquaintance and of your own Order How is it then possible so remarkable an imposture as this could be conceald from a man so curious and corcern'd as you were in this intrigue Be not so filly Mr. Walsh as to fancy you can impose vpon the world that you went not halfs in a cheate your-self maâ—ag'd from first to last You haue no reason to say that during this time the poor Remonstrants had nothing to ballance all their sufferings but the bare sati sactten of conscience to be slighted by their friends and persecuted by their Fnnemies for prosesâ—ing and persoâ—ming their duty to the King according to the law of God Mr. Walsh call you suffering to haue a Commissary cum plenitudine potestatis at your command To see your deerest Remonstrants made his Visitators and Collectors taxing and raising moneys and that with Censures and Excommunications against such as refused or delayd punctual payment Call you suffering to see these your spiritual Children return home to you with money in their purses and treat you and your Commissary very splendidly at the sign of the Harp and Croun in Dublin almost euery night with good Cheer dancing and Danes or Irish Cronans especialy that famous Macquillemone which was stiled in a letter to Rome Cantio barbara aggrestu and call'd by the Soldiors of the Guards in Dublin hearing it euery night at midnight Friar Walsh and Friar N. singing of Psalmes Call you suffering to see your graue Remonstrants dance Giggs and Countrey dances to recreat your-self and the Commissary who was as ready and nimble at it as any of his Collectors but indeed it s said you danc't with a better grace than any of the Company Call you suffering that your Remonstrants in their visitations and exactions of money were so well horst as to run races and that your Saint N. should excommunicat and pursue the honest Priest Philip Draycot and cry â—â—â—d the N. because he would not submit to his authority and tax Call you suffering that the rest of your Collectors should do the like and make you and the Commissary merry with telling stories of the frights they put the simple people into and of the summs they extorted from them None durst complain of these exactions the Collectors pretending your power and fauor with the gouernment was so great as to wink at these your most illegal proceedings These were your sufferings and persecutions Mr. Walsh But you know persecution if not suffered for iustice is not meritorious You say your Remonstrant Church suffered this great persecution for professing and performing their duty to the King according to the law of God I pray is it a duty to the King according to the law of God to impose vpon and leuy from his Subiects money by the Popes authority either counterfeit or real We Anti-Remonstrants maintain the Pope hath no such power nor authority Your Remonstrants maintain he hath as appears by your Excommunications and suspensions yet extant Js this your duty to the King Is this according to the law of God Is this a bare satisfaction of conscience for professing and performing your duty Complain not then Mr. Walsh that you and your Remonstrant Church was slighted by the King by the Council by the Parliaments and Lords Lieutenants They clearly perceiued ye were but a company of Cheats that pretended loyalty and practised treason to be for the King and ruin'd his Subjects by the Popes pretended authority Besides Mr. Walsh you cheated my Lord Duke of Ormond as well in the beginning as in the whole progress of your Remonstrance You made his grace belieue that you were commissioned and had power to present that Formulary to his Majesty and to him in the name of the Clergy of Ireland both secular and regular and yet the power you had was but from very few and that power was in order to obtain for the Clergy the benefit of the peace 1648. as appeareth by their instrument pag. 5. of your History wherof one atticle is there should not be tendred any other oath or Formulary of Allegiance to them but one which is set down in the same articles to which your Remonstrance is manifestly opposit Moreouer you confess pag. 6. that you were soundly check't by his Grace as you expected for daring to reteine such an instrument from such men that is men as to the generality and chief of them formerly and lately too so caractered as they were for being in their indignations and carriage very much disaffected to his Majesties interests and very obnoxious to the Laws You see Mr. Walsh what thankes such buisy Friars as you get for intermedling in aflairs whether Ministers of state and the people concern'd will or no. On the other side you cheated the Irish Clergy and Gentry making the Clergy belieue they should haue liberty to exercise their functions and the Gentry that they should be restored to their estates if they sign'd your Remonstrance I pray Mr. Wash how many of the 95. noblemen and Gentlemen that subscribed are restored to their Estates by your Remonstrance name at
least one who hath bin the better for his subscription A man would think that my Lord of Iueaghs extraction innocency and merit his breaking General Oneales Army his raising and loosing two or three Regiments in the Kings seruice his venturing himself and his neerest relations in the towns besieged by Cromuâ—ll his constant following his Majesties person and fortune in exile needed no further remonstrance of his loyalty but howeuer that nothing might be obiected against him he sign'd yours and yet is nothing the neerer his Estate I know you pressed my Lord Duke of Ormond very much in Sir Robert Talbots behalf saying it would be a great scandal if the only gentleman in Ireland who neuer would reiect the peace of 46. and sufferd so much vpon that account were not restored to his Estate and yet you see he was and his son is in the same condition with the rest of your subscribers But the most damnable cheat of all Mr. Walsh is that you made the subscribers belieue your Remonstrance was only a recognition of his Majesties supreme temporal authority and right to his Kingdoms but now you declare that it asserts all which the oath of Supremacy doth and that Roman Catholiks are rash and obstinat and by consequence commit a sin in denying to take the oath of supremacy wherof as was well known to such as refus'd to subscribe this your Remonstrance contains the substance which is that temporal Soueraigns may by their own sole authority gouern the Church and make lawes in Ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith To proue this and the lawfullness of your Remonstrance renouncing all those papalin or popish recusants doctrins against which the oath of supremacy was made and is tender'd is the subiect and scope of this great Tome of yours This is your own ingenious confession these your endeauors since the year 61. You should haue told this in the beginning to the Layty and to such of the Clergy as vnderstood not your design and doctrin Now that they all know both you must not admire if euen the subscribers detest you as a betrayer of their souls as well as of the Kings interest not only by your former actions but now also by your bookes and writings inculcating to all Bishops and other Churchmen that they commit a sin if as Churchmen they concurr and contribute with their reuenues or any other corporal means to preserue their King or to restore him if God should for our sins permit an other reuolution and that his right were possess'd by a rebel or Tyrant Is this Christian or Catholik doctrin Hath the spiritual calling or caracter of a Bishop or of a Clergy man such antipathy with the duty of a subiect and of spiritual Father that a Bishop or Priest must sin if either of them apply his temporal goods to the support of his lawfull Prince You may as well maintain that the caracter of Baptism or Christianity must make it a sin in lay subiects to defend or restore their lawfull Soueraign for Christianity is as solemn and spiritual a profession of following Christs doctrin as Episcopacy a Friar Walsh is half a Blakloist and Priestod is I see Mr. Walsh you are half a Blakloist Blaklow and you agree in saying that Subiects can not in conscience concurr to restore a dispossess'd lawfull soueraign but you say it only of the Clergy he of all You ground your error vpon the spirituality and supernaturality of the Clergyes caracter Blaklow vpon the nature of man which as that heretical Traytor pretends in his book of Obedience and Gouernment inclines him rationaly and obliges him to preferr his quiet and share of the human conueniencies of an vsurpt gouernment before the Diuine right which hereditary Soueraigns haue to be temporal Gouernors vnder God of their Subjects and the obligation Subiects haue to venter their liues and fortunes to assert that right and restore their lawfull Soueraigns in case they should be disposest therof It s no more a meruail to me that the b See Doctor Ceorge Leyburns Apology pretended Dean and Chapter of England which commended Blaklows doctrin as eminent after he had writ this destructiue Tenet did also commend your Remonstrance But I admire you should boast so much pag. 55. of their approbation as to print their Dean's letter to the Bishop of Dromore for an euidence therof Consider what credit can such mens approbation as cry vp Blaklows condemned doctrin and bookes for eminent be to yours I am sure such principles as these are not to be tolerated either in the Church or commonwealth Cease then to complain and to wonder Mr. Walsh that our King our Parliaments our priuy Councellors and the Lords Lieutenants of Ireland slight a Remonstrance and doctrin which doth inculcat or inferr so vnchristian Tenets as yours so destructiue to Monarchy and morality so incontinent with the safety of Soueraigns and the duty of Subiects What think you Mr. Walsh of the Clergy of France Do they sin when euery fifth or third year in their Assemblies they voluntarily tax themselues and giue so considerable summs to their King for his occasious They do not giue this help as temporal Peers or Barons of the Realm but as Bishops Abbots Priors Curats c. Do they sin I say in doing this Doth the Spanish Clergy sin in giuing their Milliones voluntarily and as a Clergy to their King Doth the Pope sin for concurring as Pope with them by Bull or licence for these donations If your Remonstrant Church had com to that perfection you flatter'd yourself with sure your Clergy would haue bin very rich for they must not haue giuen voluntarily as Bishops one penny of their Reuenues to the King to defend himself or the Kingdom against Rebells or foreign Inuaders But if an Impostor Commissary comes he way by a forged commission and the Popes authority impose a taxe vpon the Kings Subiects and leuy it by Excommunications and Censures Js your loyal Formulary and Reformation of the Roman Catholik Church of these last 600. years com to this Mr. Walsh Who is the Traytor who is the heretik You for your Remonstrance or all the Bishops in the world for taking the vsual oath at their Consecrations For shame Mr. Walsh repent retract and retire to your Conuent and neuer write more of matters you vnderstand not But before you retire I will solue a very curious and material question put by yourself in the page 579. of the second part of your first Treatise But if any demand saith Friar Walsh sect 2. pag. 579 how it came to pâ—ss that in the year 1648. there was so great and numerous a party of the Roman Catholik Clergimen of Ireland who together with Father Peter Walsh appeared so realy zealously constantly and successfully too for the King against the Nunâ—ios Censures of Excommunication and Interdict that they quite worsted the other side and preuaild euen for and to the actual reduction of
bring to my purpose saith this honest Friar pag. 345. 1 part is that very same first and greatest of all Christian Emperors Constantin himself A Prince who as by the Confession of all sides and all writers was most pious and of all Princes deserted best of the Christian Catholik Churches so no man I think will haue the confidente to accuse him of hauing vsurped any kind of authority ouer Churchmen or practised any at all ouer them but what was allowed him by the lawes of God and nature a The Accusations of the Bishops offerd to Constantin but reiected by him as being an incompetent Iudge and approued also by the state ciuil and Ecclesiastical And yet this very great and pious Coustantin is he who in the General Councell of Nice or when it sate himself being present with them at Nice and often in the very session hall amidst the Council which was in his own Pallace there commanded the libels or petitions of accusitions and criminations offerd to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops and as a Iudge of them all of both sides and in such criminal matters commanded the same libels to be brought before him and receiued them albeit immediatly therupon hauing first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wisdom and piety and rebuking seuerely both the Accusers and accused for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire Indeed Sozamen tells vs that Constantin said in this occasion It was not lawfull for him as being a man to take vpon or vnto himself the cognizance of such causes when the Accusers and the accused were Priests But if Constantin said so at all without any kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of somexcess of reuerence and piety to their Order c. Mr. Walsh you tell vs heer a long story but let me tell you 't is not euery one can tell a story well or to purpose You must neuer bring a story for a proof of what you say if it makes against yourself and proues the quite contrary of what you quote it for you bring this passage of Constantin the great to proue that Secular Princes neuer exempted the Clergy from their own suprem Iudicature and yet S. Gregory b Greg. 4. Epist 75. Nicol. Ep. ad Mich. Imp. the great and Pope Nicholas quote the very same passage in their letters to the Emperors Mauritius and Michaël to shew those Princes how much they degenerated from the piety and proceedings of the great Constantin who acknowledg'd it was not lawfull for him to iudge or punish the Clergy You say Constantin receiued those libels as Iudge of the Bishops and Priests but Constantin himself said it was not lawfull for him to take vpon himself the cognizance of such causes But say you if Constantin said so at all without any Kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excesse of reuerence For if Constantin had said so indeed and withall mean'd to be vnderstood of euen meer lay crimes or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull in order to such crimes of Priests or euen also to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion c. He had neuer receiued the petitions either of the accusers or accused but remitted them on both sides to their own proper Iudges and Iudicatories the Tribunals of Bishops Nay the Bishops themselues at least such of them as were not particularly concerned in such criminations had likely admonished him not to giue eare or audience to the accusers of Bishops or at all receiued their libels as not being their competent Iudges And yet for any thing out of History none of them euer admonish'd much less reprehended him in this matter You doubt or at least would fain make others doubt whether Constantin said it was not lawfull for him to take cognizance of Ecclesiastical complaints or causes If Constantin said so at all You perceiue at length this story is not much for your purpose Why then did you mention it But why do you doubt of this part of the story and not of the rest You haue the same authority for this which you haue for the whole and when you take any thing vpon authority you must take all or nothing Jt had bin more for your purpose to haue resolutely denyed the whole story as most men do who defend such an ill cause as yours when the story makes so pat against you But if Constantin said so at all he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excess of reuerence and piety to their Order for if he mean'd to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull or to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge he had neuer receiued the petitions but remitted them to their own proper Iudges What do you mean Mr. Walsh Must Constantin be supposed to haue spoken one thing and meant the quite contrary Had he no other buisness ac Nice but to compliment the Bishops and tell them lyes so preiudicial to his own right and authority Is it the style of Soueraigns to declare that their Subiects ought not be iudged by the Supreme Secular Judicature Why must men suppose these absurdities Mr. Walsh Because forsooth if Constantin meant to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word lawfull when he said he was no lawfull or competent Iudge of the Clergy he had neuer receiued the petitions but remitted them to their own proper Iudges I beg your pardon Sir Princes can not diuine what men put in their petitions they can not well reiect them before they are informed of the contents Jndeed you are in the right when you lay that Constantin ought to haue remitted the Clergy to their own proper Iudges if he did not think himself one And the same Authors a Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè iudicamur vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari propter quod Dei Solius inter vos expectate iudicium vestra iurgia quaecunque sunt ad â—â—ud Diuinorum reseruentur examen Soz lib. 1. cap. 16. who tells you the story tells you he did so his words are God hath constituted you Priests and gaue you power to iudge also of vs therfore we are rightly iudged by you but you can not be iudged by men wherfore expect the iudgment of God alone and reserue your differences whateuer they be to that diuine examination What cause then had the Catholik Bishops to admonish or reprehend so pious an Emperor who remitted them to God and his Diuine Tribunal What wonder is it you find no mention of any Bishops complaint admonition
or reprehension in his History against Constantin You will needs haue it that Constantin by his own sole authority banish'd and restored Bishops and Priests amongst others you instance both S. Athanasius a The case of Athanasius and Arius and the heretik Arius You impart to vs pag. 347. this general obseruation You shall neuer find that any Councel especialy this of Nice forc'd or gaue sentence of forcing corporaly a Bishop from his see and Citty and haling him into banishment but only a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gaue him formerly And on the other side you shall euer see So the the print must be corrected putting Neuer for Euer it was the Prince alone that by his own royal power onely sont Bishops to exile Nay and this too not seldom without any preuious sentence of deposition by other Bishops as also that not seldom also the sole exile of a Bishop from his see by the only sentence of the Secular Prince was by the Church held for a sufficient deposition of such a Bishop and that the Clergy proceeded to election and consecration of an other when the Prince desir'd it as holding the see absolutely vacant Mr. Wash General rules and obseruations ought to be well considered before they be prescrib'd because there are few which admit not of som exceptions But yours is so totaly false that you can not name as much as one partioular to giue the least colour of probability b Mr. Walsh his general rule failing in euery particular to your vniuersal proposition I challenge you to name any one Catholik Emperor or Soueraign that banished or deposed any Catholik Bishop or Priest by his own sole authority or before they had bin deposed by the Pope or other Bishops Your instance of S. Athanasius and Arius are ridiculous Was S. Athanasius banished by Constantin before the Tyrian Synod such as it was had deposed him and banisht him also from Alexandria Were not the Arian Bishops deposed and banisht also by sentence of the Nicen Councel as well as Arius himself Jts true the sentence was not put in execution because they submitted and subscribed to the Councells Creed But yet you see how Socrates and others tell you that though Arius submitted yet the Councel reserued vpon him that part of his sentence which banisht him from his home Alexandria Was this no coerciue corporal punishment inflicted by a spiritual power or by Bishops as Bishops How ignorantly or disingeniously then do you reprehend Baronius in this particular pag. 347. That great Annalist as you call him knew very well how to distinguish twixt a meer ecclesiastical or meerly spiritual sentence of deposition and a ciuil imperial sentence of exile Constantins sentence of exile against Arius was long after this of the Councel and was but a continuation or confirmation of it as Baronius tells you Neither did Constantin recall Arius from his banishment vntill he thought he was canonicaly pardon'd or cleer'd and restored by the Synod of Hierusalem But why name you not at least the Bishop whose exile by the sole temporal authority was iudged by the Church for a sufficient deposition of such a Bishop Now Mr. Walsh I will giue you a general rule or obseruation against which you can not find any exception and it is that the general practise of the Church is eo ipso that a Clergyman is declared an heretik and therfore deposed or degraded in that declaration or sentence is inuolued and vnderstood exile imprisonment or whatsoeuer corporal punishment the lawes prescribe This appears by the ancient Canons of Councells and true practise of the Church and yourself grant it by what you quote pag. 348. out of the Councel of Calcedon Act. 4. Si autem permanserit turbas faciens seditiones Ecclesiae per extraneam potestatem tanquam seditionem debere corripi If a Churchman will continue to make tumults and seditions in the Church he ought to be punisht as a seditious man by the secular power Reflect Mr. Walsh vpon yourself and consider whether according to this generall rule of the Church you ought not be punished by the secular power as a seditious man You continue still your seditious doctrin You would fain set the Church and state by the eares and incense temporal Soueraigns against their spiriâ—ual Fathers and Pastors God gaue the temporal sword to Princes that they may protect his Church and that is the principal end of their power and hitherto most of the Christian Soueraigns haue employd their power and sword that way therfore it s neither necessary nor decent that Churchmen should take the sword out of their hands or manage it against heretiks and Preachers of sedition That 's don to their hand But indeed rather then such an heretik and seditious fellow as you should pass without correction the lay Brothers of your Order if they had you in any of S. Francis his Conuents would imprison and whip you soundly and that I dare say without offending any one of those temporal Soueraigns you flatter and would fain persnade that if such a seditious Friar as you be corporaly punished by your spiritual Superiors they are in danger of loosing their Kingdoms And as we grant that the temporal sword is more properly in the hands of temporal Soueraigns than of the Clergy so we deny not but that it hath bin a constant custom in the Church to let Treason and murther be tryed and iudged by the Princes themselues to take away the occasion of ialousies Treason being against the Princes person and murther so horrid a crime that the Church thinks not fit any way to excuse or exempt Clerks who commit them from the cognizance and sentence of Secular Courts This is the reason why S. Athanasius when he was fasly accused both of treason and murther to Constantin was content to leaue the cognizance of those crimes to his Officer Dalmatius as were also the Catholik Egyptian Bishops whose words you quote pag. 348. But you thought it not for your purpose to quote Constantins own words after that Athanasius had presented himself before him The pious Emperor writ to the Bishops of the Prouince of Alexandria as Athanasius a Athan. Apol. 2. Theod. lib. 1. c. 17. himself and Theodoret testify these words Vestri autem est non mei iudicij de ea re cognoscere It belongs to your iudgment not to mine to take cognizance of that matter But the matter was treasonable for Athanasius was accused to haue sent a quantity of gold to abett the rebellion of Philemenus against the Emperor Mr. Walsh you are accused both of treason and murther Why do you not imitat S. Athanasius and cleer yourself of both Why do you not present yourself before the King b All applied to Mr. Walsh himself or his Lieutenant in Ireland and say Sir I am charged with a barbarous murther of
Emperors admiring Exclamation imports and signifies the Appellants ignorance or peruersness in appealing to himself a lay person in ecclesiastical affairs For you confess if he did remit them to Episcopal Iudges that is a sufficient proof of his reprouing their appealing to himself But howeuer this be say you it s enough that Constantin admitted the Appeal How did he admit of it Doth not Saint Augustin tell you how he admitted of it yielding to their mad animosities to put an end to them insanissinus animositatibus suis How did he admit of it with a resolution to ask pardon of the Pope and those Bishops who ioynd with him in the sentence giuen by them against the Donatists in Rome Eis ipse cessit vt de illa causa post Episcopos iudicaret à Sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus He knew very well that himself could not iudge of Ecclesiastical matters he knew also very well that after the Bishop of Romes sentence giuen in the same there was no need of any other euen of Bishops in a Councel Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudicium aliorum scilicet Episcoporum non quia iam necesse erat Why then did the Emperor Constantin admit and remit the Donatists appeal after the Pope had condemned them to the Councel of Arles The Saint tells you in the very next following words Non quia iam necesse erat sed eorum peruersitatibus cedens omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Are not you then as peruerse and as impudent as the Donatists when you quote S. Augustin for your imposture when you deny that Constantin was drawn against his will to admit an Appeal from the iudgment or sentence of the great Pontiff I am sure say you S. Augustin neuer reprehends it What needed S. Augustin the Pope or any Bishop reprehend a pious Emperor that acknowledg'd his own fault and resolued to ask pardon for it veniam petiturus though he was forc't to commit it by the impudency and peruersness of a powerfull faction of the Donatists threatning to disturb the whole Empire Are not you wors than the Donatists Mr. Walsh when you say pag. 349. S. Augustin insinuates that the sole iudgment of Melchiades Pope had he vndertaken any such himself alone in this controuersy as it was then had bin vsurpt or had bin so if he had without the Emperors special delegation presumed to determin it but together with those other his French Collegues For Augustin treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their proceedings c. obiects to himself in behalf of the Donatists Ep. 162. thus An fortè non debuis Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarints â—pipopts illud sibi vsurpare iudicium quod ab Afris septuaginta vbi Primas Tigisitanus prasedit fuerat terminatum To this what doth Augustin answer Certainly he doth not deny that such iudgment of Melchiades might be iustly thought in tâ—e case to be vsurped but excuses the iudgment of Melchiades which realy de facto was not that which only â—ight be falsely supposed or bruited to haue bin and defends it that so was truly by saying again thus Quid auod necâ—â—ipse vsurpauit Rogatiâ—s quippe Imperator Iudites misit Episâ—opes qui cum eo viderent de tota illa causa quodinsium videretur Hoc probamus Donatistarum precibus verbis ipsius Imperatoris So Augustin a S. Augustin abused by Mr. Walsh Js it possible Mr. Walsh you will haue the Pope be an vsurper of the Imperial authority in case he should without the Emperors delegation or leaue decide a Controuersy between Bishops which caused so great a schim in the Church as that of the Donatists Js it possible you will quote for this mad error S. Augustin Do you belieue Melchiades receiued his authority for iudging the Controuerly of the Donatists and Caecilianus from Constantin Js it because Constantin commanded three french Bishops to ioyn with the Pope in that matter therfore they must be of equal authority with the Pope in deciding it or any other Controuersy of Religion Was this S. Augustins opinion Read ouer again that 162. Epistle of Saint Augustin You will find you mistake or abuse him and your Readers all along Allmost in the beginning of that Epistle he tells the Donatists that Caecilianus needed not feare or value the conspiring multitude of his Aduersaries who were 70. Bishops with their Numidian Primat And why Because he was in Communion with the Roman Church wherin alwayes the principality of the Apostolik Chaire was of force in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus and where he was ready to haue his cause tryed vbi paratus esset causam suam dicere Not a word heer of vsurpation of authority to iudge of this or any other cause in case the Pope should do it without the Emperors delegation or desire The principality of the Apostolik Chair is the Popes warrant to iudge of all Ecclesiastical controuersies according to Saint Austin not the Emperors Commission or delegation But how coms the Emperor Constantin to make the Pope his delegat in this matter How coms Saint Augustin to say the Pope did not vsurp his iudging it because the Roman Emperor being desired sent Bishops Iudges who might sit with the Pope and iudge of the whole cause what might seem iust First I do not see that Constantin delegated or gaue the Pope any power to iudge but only sent other Bishops to sit and iudge with him The vsurping therfore which S. Augustin speakes of heer is not any vsurpation of authority as if the Pope had not any to iudge such matters without the Emperors delegation or approbation but the Emperor hauing bin chosen by the Donatists as Arbiter and not hauing bin excepted against by Caecilianus or hauing bin desired to name Ecclesiastical Iudges in this cause it might seem to the Donatists that Melchiades had thrust himself into a matter which was with the consent or permission of both parties to be determined by the Emperors arbitration or by Iudges which he was desired to appoint Rogatus quippe Imperator Iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent But the Emperor sending these Iudges he had appointed to Pope Melchiades and bidding them ioyn in iudgment with him is not to giue authority of iudging to the Pope but rather to confirm by the Papal authority the Bishops iudgment And therfore S. Augustin had reason to tell the Donatists the Pope did neither vsurp any authority or intermedle in their controuersy officiously without hauing bin appeald to or without being desired by the Emperor to whom they had remitted both the matter and the manner of deciding it But what shall we say of your ingenuity Mr. Walsh if it appears out of the very places or Epistles you ouâ—te of Saint Augustin for maintaining temporal Soâ—â—raigns iudicature in ecclesiastical matters and his insinuating that the Pope would vsurp the Emperors authority
do supplicat your Majesty you be pleased to command by a most pious order that Peter Walsh a disturber of the peace in lieu of Peter the Inuader of the Church Alexandria be transported to foreign parts Would any man of sense iudge by this humble request that our King or any other to whom it were made had that spiritual authority in Ecclesiastical matters which you would fain flatter Soueraigns with Nay suppose his Majesty or the Parliament were pleased for the peace of the three Nations and to punish you for teaching and printing that Bishops as Bishops can not lawfully help or succor their King to pull down an vsurper or oppose any rebellion to send you to row in the Galleys of Tangiers or to the Baâ—bados to labor with the slaues in the Sugar Mills as you say pag. 357. one Chronopius a Bishop was sent to digg in the Syluer Mines by the Emperor Valentinian for appealing to him after he had bin condemned by an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70. Bishops would any one think that this Mission of yours to Tangiers or Barbados after you had bin condemned by the Church as an heretik for this doctrin could proue that the King or Parliament had power to gouern the Church or to make lawes in spiritual matters T is therfore to no purpose for me to confute these and other wild arguments of yours seing themselues sufficiently lay open your gross mistake and demonsttat your litle wit and iudgment But I will beg my Readers leaue and patience to relate your Achilles a The case of S. Iohn Chrysosiom in the controuersy of S. John Chrysostom Arcadius an Emperor also very Orthodo◠〈◊〉 Friar Walsh pag. 360. receiued the accusations against Iohn Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and thervpon hauing first ordered a iudicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop at last condemn'd and sent him with a guard of Soldiers farr off to exile Socrates lib 6. c. 16. Falad in Dial. And certainly Pope Innocent the first of that name who then gouerned the see of Rome where he inueighs bitterly against Arcadius and against Endoxia his Empress as against most grieuous Persecutors of so great and so holy a man doth not at all obiect that Arcadius being a meer lay man vsurped a iâ—dâ—â—iary power in Ecclesiastical matters or so against his own Bishop nor that he proceeded so against him out of or by a tyrannical power and not by any legal authority ouer him in the case but only reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded iustly against Chrysostom or in that he had not made right vse of the power which he had in the case and in a word in that he expell'd Chrysostom from his Episcopal throne before his cause had bin legaly and throughly sifted or iudged as it ought and consequently without obseruing the due formaliues or euen substantial or essential procedure in such case required by the law 〈◊〉 sayes he è throno suo re non iudicata magnum totius orbâ—s Doctorem Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Nor doth Chrysostom himself any where complain of the Emperor as hauing vsurped a power of iudging condemning or banishing him And yet we know he writ to seueral especialy to Pope Innocent many letters fâ—aught with complaints of the Emperors vniust iudgment and proceedings against him acknowledging Arcadius or at least supposing him still a legal Iudge though vniust as to the sentence in the case You haue the misfortune Mr. Walsh to contradict yourself in euery story you tell and by consequence you haue a special gift of discrediting your own writings and making your relation and comments vpon it incredible and ridiculous You say in the beginning of this story that Arcadius receiued the accusations against Saint Iohn Chrysostom and therupon hauing first ordered a iudicial procedure against that holy Bishop at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Soldiers farr off to exise A iudicial procedure Mr. Walsh is to proceed secundum allegata probata if Arcadius did so and was Chrysostoms lawfull Iudge Pope Innocent could not reprchend Arcadius as proceeding vniustly against him or say that he condemned him re non iudicata Js to condemn one according to a iudicial procedure and by a lawfull authority to condemn him re non iudicata When therfore the Pope reprehended Arcadius for banishing Chrysostom re non iudicata before his cause was sentene't he meant as is vnderstood by euery man of sense that Arcadius was not his lawfull Iudge and that he ought to haue expected the sentence of the Apostolik sea or a Catholik Councel of Bishops to which the Saint had appeald You see Mr. Walsh how you contradict yourself and how difficult a thing it is to contradict truth and to corrupt such Authors as tell it without being caught in a lye Heare then the true story of S. Iohn Chtysostoms controuersy with the Emperor Arcadius as it is related by S. Iohn himself Palladius and the same Authors which you quote Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and others ill affected to S. Iohn Chrysostom were employ'd by Eudoxia the Empress to depose that holy Prelat from his see his chief Accusers were som of his own Priests who could not endure his iust reprehensions for their faults Amongst other things himself sayes he was accused of too much familiarity with a certain woman and that he permitted people to receiue the communion after eating This accusation was heard by Theophilus and 36. Bishops of his and the Empress faction met at Calcedon and exhibited by two Priests of Constantinople which Chrysostom had excommunicated for notorious crimes The Saint had with him in Constantinople forty Bishops assembled to heare a charge of 70. articles giuen in against Theophilus but Thophilus who should haue stood at the bair in Constantinople sate as a Iudge in Calcedon and without any lawfull authority summon'd Chrysostom to appeare before him at Calcedon to answer the charge put in against him by the two excommunicated Priests But though the S. said he would appeare when soeuer the Iudges were lawfull and not parties yet the 40. Bishops who stuck to him signified to Theophilus that he should rather com to Constantiuople to cleer himself than call others to iudgment at Chalcedon Vpon this Chrysostom had sentence of deposition past vpon him at Chalcedon for contumacy forsooth And though he appeald to a Councell of Catholik and indisterent Bishops yet those of Chalcedon had so much interest with the Empress and shee with the Emperor as to haue Chrysostom halled out of his Church by Soldiers wherupon he retired to Bernetum of Bithinia But a sedition being feared in Constantinople for this iniustice the Emperor and the Empress also sent to desire him to return withall diligence which he did but as soon as he return'd he desired the Emperor as may be seen in his Epistle to Pope Innocent that his cause might be tryed in a lawfull Synod of Bishops so
THE FRIAR DISCIPLIND OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON FRIAR PETER WALSH HIS NEW REMONSTRANT RELIGION The articles whereof are to be seen in the following page TAKEN OUT OF HIS HISTORY AND VINDICATION OF THE LOYAL FORMULARY Verber auerunt me sed non dolui traxerunt me Ego non sensi Proverb 23.35 THE AVTHOR ROBERT WILSON PRINTED AT GANT 1674. Permissu Superiorum The 12. Articles of Friar PETER WALSH his new Remonstrant Religion 1. THAT Bishops and Clergymen a Hist 1. part Sect. 33. pag. 79. as such can not in conscience contribute by money or any corporal means to help or restore their lawfull Soueraigns against the attempts or vsurpation of Rebells 2. b 1. part of the first Treatise pag. 417. fin That supreme temporal Princes could not can not in conscience grant to the Clergy their subiects the immunities and exemptions which the Church hath receiued from them 3. c Ibid. That no spiritual power as such can inflict any corporal punishment 4. d Pag. 429. That God may work miracles to testify the Sanctity and glory of one who dyes for maintaining a falshood in a controuerted point of Religion 5. e Ibid. That therfore S. Thomas of Canterbury may be inuok't as a Saint though he sufferd for maintaining a falshood 6. f In the Pref. pag 40. Pref. pag. 49. That temporal soueraigns may lawfully make lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith by their own sole authority 7. g pag. 16. of the Dedic That the Roman Catholiks sin in not taking the english oath of supremacy 8. h Dedic pag. 20 Hence followes that all the General Councels of the Catholik Church for many hundred years were compos'd of Traitors or periur'd persons That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world for as many hundred years as they haue taken the vsual oath at their Consecration haue bin and are now either Traytors to their temporal Soueraigns or periur'd to the Pope 9. i Pag. 75. That learned Roman Catholik Authors hold General Councells confirm'd by the Pope are not infallible in defining matters of Faith or doctrin 10. k Pag. 79. That neither Pope nor Bishop nor the General of an Order can in conscience inflict any corporal punishment vpon an irregular Friar for misdemeanors or heresies 11. l Pag. 354. 355. That all Bishops are of equal authority by the â—mmediat law of God and that only JESVS CHRIST can take cognisance of their faults 12. m Decic p. 13. That the Roman Catholik Church hath followed enormous errors euer since Pope Gregory the 7. THE CONCLUSION That honest men for discouering Friar walsh his cheats and opposing these his erroneous Tenets are Traitors to the King and Ennemys to my Lord Duke of Ormond TO HIS GRACE IAMES DVKE OF ORMOND c. YOVR grace will be surprised to see Fâ—â—ar PETER WALSH the great Remonstrator and Reformer of our Irish Loyalty charged with treasonable principles copied out of the tedious History he printed of his own speeches and contests But if this charge be made out against him doubtless your grace will neither protect nor pitty a Friar though seuerely disciplin'd for imposing vpon Christians vnder the notion of Allegiance Tenents inconsistent with loyalty or Monarchical gouernment That your Grace forgaue him his former faults in particular that great one of printing and preaching against the peace of 46. and the royal authority wherwith you were then inuested is an argument of your Christianity and a performance of one article of that peace That you afterwards made vse of him for reasons of state notwithstanding the experience you had of his treasons sheweth your wisdom but is no proof of his honesty As it would be great presumption in me to examin why a minister of state did employ such a Friar so I hope it is no want of respect to your Grace to let you and the world see that his late principles are as treasonable as his practises and seing its very ordinary in statesmen to punish the crimes of malefactors when they are no more vsefull I may rationaly conclude your Grace will not commend or reward Peter Walsh for publishing a book stufft with errors no less dangerous to the state then damnable to the soul My Lord Peter Walsh his conduct and errors haue rendred him so ridiculous and odious that he can not be any more vsefull to your Grace or to the gouernment And though he still endeauors by nonsensical Pamphlets to make himself be thought a fit instrument to promote the Protestant Reformation inculcating among other absurdities that the Roman Catholik Church of these last 600. yeares hath erred notoriously in the doctrin of loyalty due to temporal Soueraigns and that all the Bishops therof haue bin either Traytors to their Soueraigns or periur'd to the Pope by taking the vsual oath hitherto neuer excepted against at their Consecration yet your Grace will be conuinc't if you please to read this short Treatise that this Friar 's rash assertion is not only groundless but iniurious euen to Protestants and in particular to your Grace whose Illustrious family hath giuen to the Catholik Church loyal and holy Prelats as well as great Commanders of Armies and Gouernors of Kingdoms to the english Monarchy And though Ireland had the misfortune of a meeting of Bishops at Iamestown from whom the distraction of the times drew a Declaration and Excommunication not approueâ—d of by the Supreme Pastor or any other Catholik Bishops and as good as condemn'd euen by themselues in the subsequent Assembly of Loghreagh 7. Dec. 1650. Yet certain it is and partly known to your Grace that Doctor Enos his libel against your Grace and the peace of 46. together with Peter Walsh his printed approbation of the said libel and the Nuncius his Excommunication writ and fix'd with Peter walsh his own hand vpon the gates of your Castle of Kilkenny did greater mischief and obstructed more your noble design of preseruing by a seasonable peace in the yeare 46. the late King and his Kingdom of Ireland from ruin then the Bishops Declaration and Excommunication dated at Iamestown could do this being issued an 1650. after the King had bin murthered Ireland lost and past hopes of recouery though Peter Walsh to remoue the blame from himself layes it altogether on those Prelats and writes an absurd History of his own vain endeauors to reuiue a murderd King to keep vnited a diuided Nation and to preserue a destroyd Kingdom This book my Lord is dedicated to your Grace in hopes you will be pleased to peruse it and therby see the most blameable of the Irish Roman Catholike Clergy was not so guylty of rebellion and the ruine of their country as Peter Walsh nor his principles so sound as at first sight they seemd to be I am with all reality and respect Your Graces most humble obedient Seruant N.N. THE PREFACE I PRESENT to thy view Christian Reader a
she was a woman yet her successors can not be excepted against vpon that score But speak seriously Mr. Walsh do you think it was in the power of those who explain'd the Oath of supremacy if any did explain it to alter the common known signification of words and giue them a quite contrary in matters of religion Sacraments and Oaths If it were there would be no religion in the world no Faith either human or Diuine How could you therfore imagin the Conuocation or euen the Parliament of England did or can alter the signification of words in an Oath wherin a man professeth his Religion or an important point therof Can any power vpon earth declare this form of baptism valid I Baptise thee in the name of the mother and sister and Brother by pretending forsooth that by an Admonition of the Conuocation or any earthly authority the word Mother signifies Father sister son Brother Holy Ghost Do you fancy Mr. Walsh that any iudicious protestant or any Parliament man in England will belieue you if you should tell him that his child is well-baptis'd by such a form and explanation Jf you wil read the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. 8. Eliz 1. You will find that the Kings of Englands supremacy is so spiritual and sublime that there needs no changing the signification of the word spiritual into temporal and that a King of England if he should think fit may according to the principles of the Protestaâ—e religion establih'd by the lawes of the land giue power by letters patents to any of his lay subiects to consecrate Bishops and Priests which is more than the Pope can do for he must a point a Bishop to ordain Priests and Bishops That the Kings of England may giue by their letters patents power to any of their lay subiects to consecrat Bishops and Priests is very cleer in the aforesaid statuts For by two of them there is giuen to the Queen's Highness her Heirs and Successors c. full power and authority by letters patents vnder the great seal of England from time to time to assigne name and authorise such person or persons at she and they shall think meet and conuenient to exercise vse enjoy and execute vnder her Highness all manner of iurisdictions priuileges preheminences and authorities in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or iurisdiction within this Realm or any other her Majesties Dominions or Countreyes Now Priestood being nothing but a spiritual power to consecrat Christ's body and bloud and forgiue sins and Episcopacy including besides the same a spiritual power to consecrat and ordain Priests and Bishops who can doubt but that by vertue of these words and Statuts the Queen might and her successors may by their letters patents and great seal giue power to any of their lay subiects to make a protestant Bishop or Priest seing by those letters patents any person that is a subiect receiueth full power to exercise vse execute enioy c. all manner of iurisdictions preheminences and authorities in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power c. This is no vain speculation Mr. Walsh but a known practise grounded vpon the 25. article of 39. of the english Protestant Religion it being declared therby that no visible sign or ceremony and by consequence no imposition of Episcopal hands hath bin ordain'd of God for any of these fiue commonly call'd Sacraments wherof holy Orders or Episcopal consecration is one And therfore it s no meruail the Parliament declared 8. Eliz. 1. that the first protestant Bishops were should be true Bishops though it could not be proued that any Bishops euer laid hands vpon them The Story is known In the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reign it was questioned whether the Protestant Bishops were true or real Bishops the Catholik Bishops who refused to consecrat any of them maintain'd they were not because they had not any protestant who was a true Bishop to consecrat them hauing nothing to shew for the Episcopal caracter but the Queens letters parents and therfore the Catholik writers prouokt them in print to name the Bishop who ordain'd or consecrated them as themselues pretended but fiue or six years before This appears in * D Stapleton in his Counter blast against Horn fol. 79. 301. and in his return of vntruths gaianst Iewel fol. 130. D. Stapleton Dr. Harding and other bookes against Iewel edit 1565. 1563. fol. 57. 59. All the world perceiuing at that time how none of the two protestant writers who vndertook to answer Iewel and Horn could name any that consecrated Parker of whose consecration depended that of all the rest nor produce any Registers therof as Harding in express terms demanded it was thought necessary for supplying this shamefull silence and repressing the insolency of the popish Aduersaries to declare the ground wherupon the protestants claim'd to be true Bishops and to be both legaly and validly consecrated Then was made the Statut 8. Elizab. 1. which begins Forasmuch as diuers questions by ouermuch boldness of speech and talk hath lately grown vpon the making and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm c. And though D. Bramhall late Protestant Archbishop of Armagh and others in their bookes do endeauor to diuert the protestant layty from reflecting vpon the consequences which euidently follow from this Act of Parliament as fauoring more the Kings supremacy and spiritual iurisdiction than true Episcopacy and pretend that this Statut doth not giue his Majesty power to make Priests and Bishops hy letters patents and that euen Harding and Stapleion excepted not against the validity but against the legality of the first protestant Bishops consecration and caracter yet the words of this Statut as also of those Catholik Authors admit of no such interpretation The Statuts words are very cleer so are those of the Catholik writers whose design was not to proue that Parker Iewel Horn c. were not protestant Bishops but that they were not true Bishops or Bishops at all They knew very well that they were legal protestant Bishops because they knew they had the Queens letters patents issued forth to the person or persons whether Bishops or not that matters nothing as cleerly appears in the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. And therfore D. Harding tells Iewel he doubts not but that he may shew him the Queens letters patents for his Episcopacy and by consequence that he was a protestant Bishop adding withall that he was no true Bishop because sayes he the Queen may giue the lands but not the caracter of a Bishop To proue then that they were both legaly and vasidly protestant Bishops the Parliament insisting vpon the purest protestant principles thought it sufficient to declare and make out that they were consecrated by virtue of the Queens letters patents and by som of hâ—r Majesties subjects whether lay or Ecclesiastiks was not thought material by any
Bishop of Rome his spiritual supremacy That 28. Canon pretends only precedency of Constantinople before Alexandria not before Rome But it s much to my purpose and I hope it will be for your profit to mind you how the Emperor Martianus after that the Catholik Faith had bin confirm'd by the Bishops subscriptions did propose somthings in fauor therof to the Fathers thinking it decent saith he to haue them rather form'd or regularly framed by their Decree than by his own Imperial law And the first point of the intended Reformation was that to hinder heresies and the disorders of irregular Monks which of late had so disturbed and infected the Church of God it might be decreed that they should be subiect to the Bishops and not medle with Ecclesiastical or ciuil affairs but serue God and keep within their Monasteries Well Mr. Walsh I see let your friends do all they can to excuse or extenuate your faults you are resolued to lay yourself and them open to your Aduersaries Did not I but iust now aduise you as your best friend not to medle with ecclesiastical affairs which are aboue your capacity and learning especialy these general Councells You see what this of Calcedon and the Emperor Martianus think of irregular religious men and how the generality of people take you to be one of that kind a disturber of the peace of the Church and a broacher of heresies Lord God! could not you be quiet what made you name at all this Councell of Calcedon Did you not know how seuere it is against such men as you are reputed to be I wish with all my heart you had neuer com out of your Conuent and that you were retired in your cell For God's sake quote no more general Councells they are very opposit to your wayes and doctrin This of Calcedon consisting of 630. Bishops at least own'd S. Leo Pope for Head of the vniuersal Church and in his name and by his authority Dioscorus was condemn'd and deposed See Leo his epistle 47. to the Councel sent by his Legats to reside therin saying In these Brethren a Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Boniface and Basil Priests directed to you by the Apostolical see your Fraternities may belieue that I preside in your Synod And the Synod answers Truly you did preside as Head to the Members And the Legats sentence against Dioscorus was Sanctissimus ac Beatissimus Papa a The most holy and blessed Pope Leo Head of the uniuersal Church by vs his Legats with consent of the holy Synod being endow'd with Peter the Apostles dignity who is the foundation and rock of the faith and call'd Porter of the heauenly Kingdom hath depriued Dioscorus of Episcopal dignity and of all priestly functions Caput vninersalis Ecclesiae Leo per nos Legatos suos S. Synodo consentiente Petri Apostoli praeditus dignitate qui Ecclesiae fundamentum petra Fidei coelestis regni Ianitor nuncupatur Episcopali dignitate Dioscorum nudauit ab omni Sacerdotali opere fecit extorrem Mr. Walsh doth the Oath of Supremacy allow the Pope to be Head of the vniuersal Church or allow him so much spiritual iurisdiction as this Councel of Calcedon If not why do you quote it to that purpose Perhaps you may haue better luck with Prouincial Councells Let us see You alleadge S. Augustin and 217. Bishops of Afrik against Appeals to Rome in the case of Apiarius and you apply the same to the Oath of Supremacy Mr. Walsh if I be not mistaken Belarmin hath cleerly answer'd that obiection which you borrowed from Caluin as you do most others in your tedious volume from heretiks and Baronius in the very yeare and place quoted by you though you conceal it proues that S. Augustin and the Bishops of Afrik owned the Popes Supremacy and spiritual authority ouer them instancing the case of Antony Bishop Fussalensis of Numidia deposed from his Episcopal administration and reuenue by the Bishops of that Prouince He obtaining a letter of his pretended innocency from his Primat to Pope Boniface appeald to his Holiness Boniface dying his successor Celestinus fauored Antony yet with this caution and Prouiso in his letters if the matter of fact was true and Antony his narration not subreptitious Antony boasted much of this sauor and writ to his friends that the Pope not only gaue sentence for him but also would command the same to be executed by his Executors with military power Wherupon S. Augustin writ a letter to the Pope informing him of the truth and desired him to giue sentence for the people of Antony's Diocess which was the other party because the right was on their side and not to think vpon that violent way wherwith Antony threatned the poor people Permit not saith the Saint these things to be don I beseech thee per Christi sanguinem by the bloud of Christ by the memory of Peter the Apostle who admonisht the Prelats of Christian people not to domineer violently amongst the brethren Heer you see Mr. Wash S. Augustin and the African Bishops admitting of Appeals to Rome nay admitting in the Bishop of Rome right to a coerciue power for executing his sentence in Afrik though indeed they aduise him not to make vse of it in that case so did Ireneus aduise S. Victor the Pope not to excommunicat the Asian Churches albeit he doubted not of his power to excommunicat them Doth the oath of Supremacy allow the Pope such a Supremacy or such a latitude or extent of spiritual jurisdiction out of his temporal estate Let me once more intreat you Mr. Walsh per Christi Sanguinem not to betray your ignorance so manifestly not to expose your-self to the Censure and laughter of all who read Councells or Fathers Had it not bin much better for you not to haue intermedled with these matters wherof you vnderstand so litle than to be look't vpon as a vain ignorant heretik we your friends can not but be concern'd though we can say but litle for you ANIMAD 3. Whether it be rashness obstinacy and a sin in Roman Catholiks to refuse the Oath of Supremacy and Friar Walsh his Remonstrance MR Walsh I couple these two instruments the oath of Supremacy and your Remonstrance together because yourself makes no distinction between them as to the lawfullness of their being taken by Catholiks For though each of them seem to renounce the Popes spiritual authority a Pag. 24. 1. part yet you tell vs there is no such matter because Spiritual authority in those oathes Formularies signifies not Spiritual but temporal authority Seing therfore you are of opinion that the oath of supremacy may be taken with a good conscience by Roman Catholiks and that the whole Roman Catholik Church belieues and tells vs the contrary you haue no reason to be angry with Catholiks if they do not rely vpon your word in any point that concerns their conscience or religion and though your Remonstrance
And that the Churches hoâ—ouring and innoking him as a true Martyr for maintaining its immunities is no argument that he defended therin iustice or truth because forsooth neither himself nor any other did inuoke God to work the Miracles to euidence the truth or iustice of those immunities S. Thomas maintain'd against the 16. or 12. lawes or customs of Henry 2. which were all in order to take away or diminish the Popes external spiritual iurisdiction and supremacy and to assert in the King a coerciue power ouer the Clergy I pray Mr. Walsh where do you find it declared necessary that the Mysteries of Christian faith be made credible or confirm'd by a formal or express inuocation of God to work miracles for euery one of them in particular Christ himself taught that Miracles confirm any general doctrin preacht by him who works them neither doth he put that condition or caution of a particular and formal inuocation of God without which you pretend the doctrin taught or sufferd for may be false But let that pass What more express inuocation or declaration of God can you desire for the truth and iustice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's doctrin than that so notorious and so long depending a controuersy between the Church and state should suspend all Christendom there being on the one side a powerfull Monarch who stood for the pretended right of Kings on the other but a poor banish't subiect though a Bishop to maintain that of the Church and that this poor man hauing bin murther'd by flattering Courtiers for maintaining the Church immunities God should work so many and so vndeniable Miracles at his dead body and Tomb that you are not only fore't to confess they are true ones but that King Henry 2. himself acknowledged S. Thomas had the truth and iustice on his side And therfore to satisfy God and the world rather for his vniust contest against the Church than for the Saints murther which the King neither intended nor desired that great Monarch did vndergo those corporal punishments which the Pope as his spiritual Pastor commanded him to do though you say he hath as spiritual Pastor no power to inflict vpon your self as much as a Disiplin like that which the Monks of Canterbury gaue King Henry 2. We haue related the principles of your religion and Remonstrance out of your own Alcoran your great volum is no better than Mahomet's Alcoran now let vs see what practises did flow from such principles ANIMADVERSION 7. Of the practises of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church IF the Roman Catholik Church of these last 600. years hath fall'n from the ancient Christian principles of loyalty due to temporal Princes as Friar Walsh pretends and all the Roman Catholik Bishops are Trayâ—ors to their Soueraigns by the oath they take at their consecration we may rather wonder God did not send sooner a holy man to reform these enormous errours than that after so long a time he should at length send Saint Peter Walsh to do it who by his good example as well as by his learned writings doth teach Catholik Subiects that allegiance from which they haue bin withdrawn for these six last Centuries Blessed be God who albeit for our sins he deferreth his mercies yet neuer fails to impart them sooner than we deserue Nor indeed could this age so infamous for murthers and rebellions against lawfull Soueraigns expect so Apostolik a Reformer as Peter Walsh hath proued himself to be You complain Mr. Walsh page 43 of your Preface to the Reader as also page 50 seqq that F. Peter TAlbot the titular Arâ—hâ—ishop of Dublin and Ring leader of the â—iâ—h Anti Remonstrants hath perseented the said Remonstrants to death as far as in him lay and that his answers to the petition you presented against him contain'd manifest vntruths you suggest also that he is thought to be Author of the Dublin Libel written against your Remonstrants directly but withall indirectly or euen principaly aiming at the most illustrous personof his Grace the Duke of Ormond Though I haue not the honor to be acquainted with that Prelat yet his being one and his writing against your accusations in his own defence mad me curious and concern'd and hauing inquir'd after the Papers which past between you I obtain'd a sight of them as also of that which you call the Dublin libel which is term'd by the Author therof a Vinâ—ication against Friar Walsh his Calumnies written by a Pastor of the Diocess of Dublin If all be true Mr. Walsh that is ther in alledged against you with particular circumstances you are the greatest Traitor and Rebel that breathes You are charg'd likewise not by Peter Talbot nor in the answer to your petition nor in the Vindication or Dublin libel but in another paper a part of murthering fiue poor English Soldiers of the garison of Raroffy in the County of Kildare at the bridge of Iohnston in the very beginning of the Irish commotion and that with such barbarous breach of faith or at least of the law of armes and incredible cruelty that it s to be admired how any who values the name or bloud of an englishman can see you much less profess to be your friend before you cleer your-self of that accusation 2. You are charged in the Vindication of being a most seditious Preacher or seducer of the people against their allegiance to the King and the royal authority residing in the Marques of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland vpon the proclamation of the peace of 1646. you seconded one Doctor Enos by approuing his infamous libel against the person and authority of his Excellency The drift and matter of the libel was to dissuade the people from admitting or adhearing to that good peace and from any agreement with the said Matques of Ormond because forsooth he design'd the Kings ruin as well as theirs This calumny Enos pretended to proue and you approued of all by commending the libel and the Author in print in the first leaf therof because his Excellency would not conclude before the yeare 46. any peace with the Irish though he had positiue and pressing commands from the King to do it but for three or four years delayd it by vnprofitable and suspitious cessations in which time the King was subdued and imprison'd and therfore his sayd Lieutenant might pretend and plead that seruice or at least a neutrality to the Parliament when they came to be Masters of all And besides his Excellency obseruing that the Erle of Glamorgan had giuen the Irish full satisfaction in the article of Religion most insisted vpon by them the Lord Lieutenant would not condescend therunto but rather declared against it imprison'd the Erle in the Castle of Dublin and therby disperst 10000. men ready to be shipt at water ford for his Maiesty's relief in England and ruin'd him by hindering that succor This was the Subiect of Enos and your libel Mr. Walsh the common sort of the Irish
the Consederates to an absolute submission to the King and his Lieutenant in that Kingdom and yet now since his Majeslyes happy restauration sixty nine only of a great body of 200. Clergymen at home in Ireland should be found to appear professing so their Allegiance to his Majesty And yet also these very few so professing to be therfore and only therfore by their Aduersaries without any feare or shame opposed yea to their power persecuted This is Mr. Walsh a rational doubt if rightly proposed You mistake the question it ought to be this How coms it to pass that of the great and numerous body of the loyal Irish Catholik Clergy that approued themselues so in the occasion of tryal an 1648. there should be found so many as 69. an 1662. that subscribed to Peter Walsh his Remonstrance so destructiue to the Kings safety right and authority as he hath bin demonstrated Now I will solue this question Yow know Mr. Walsh when ambitious and irregular Friars who aspire to Bishopriks and hate the pouerty and disciplin of their institute want friends and money they inuent twenty deuices to compass both Now Redmund Caron and you were resolued to be Bishops the one of Armagh the other of Dublin You despar'd of obtaining Miters by your merit and the ordinary wayes therfore you resolued to fright the Court of Rome into it by setting vp this your Remonstrance and including yourselues into ecclesiastical and state affairs you importun'd two great Ministers of state to countenance the pressing of your Formulary vpon the Irish Clergy and Gentry which had so faithfully serued and followed the King in the worst of times by shedding their bloud and spending their Estates in his quarrel that they needed not any paper instrument to manifest or confirm their loyalty And though the Ministers knew this very well and vnderstood as well that it was not any good zeal but your ambition and couetousness which moued Caron and you to buisy yourselues in a matter very improper for your calling and much aboue your capacities yet for reasons best knowen to themselues and common to all statesmen they were content to let two such fellows as you preach and press a Formulary which they foresaw would diuide the Catholiks amongst themselues discredit their Religion and giue the gouernment the color and aduantage of excluding from their Estates many meriting gentlemen for not professing that allegiance which learned Friars of their own persuasion maintain'd to be absolutely necessary in a faithfull Subiect So that your Remonstrance serued to exclude many honest men from their right but neuer restored any to his inheritance though many foold by you and Caron put their hands to it in hopes of receiuing therby the benefit of the peace 48. As for your 69. Clergymen that subscribed the Remonstrance yourself doth confess pag. 578. part 2.1 Treat Som fell off immediatly after their signing in the yeare 1662. Others were content only to haue sign'd it like so many Nicodemus de nocte not acknowledging amongst the Opposers what they had don Som who albeit they had sufficient iudgment to guide themselues or their own personal duty in order to themselues alone yet had not those abilities either to persuade or satisfy others Finaly there was not wanting amonst them a false and treacherous troublesom and impudent Brother c. who discouered all might do them prejudice and betray them too wherin soeuer he might I see Mr. Walsh that of your 69. Ecclesiastical subscribers som fell off immediatly others durst not own their subscription others knew not how to iustify it and one false Brother betrayd your Councells or cheats The matter is wors than I thought I pray how many able constant subscribers are there left in your Remonstrant Church When you petitioned the King and Councell in its behalf against the titular Archbishop of Dublin you could name but seuen and four of the seuen fell off then and I belieue the other two haue don the same since What A Church and none but one Friar Walsh to profess its Faith Is AntiChrist com Euen in his time the Professors of Christianity will be more then one One makes no Congregation and by consequence no Church But you say pag. 577. the deceased Bishop of Dromore Oliner Darcy was one What then Doth his authority weigh more than that of all the Bishops who condemn your Remonstrance I abstain as much as I can from censuring the dead but I can not well in this occasion you relying so much vpon this deceased Bishops authority who was the only that subscrib'd to your Remonstrance This obliges me to diminish a litle his credit Father Iohn Talbot of whom you said when he dyed as if it were a rarity or kind of miracle There lyes one honest Iesuit assured me that after his Brother Sir Robert Talbot had with the rest of the Commissioners at length concluded with my Lord of Ormond the peace of 1646. Sir Robert went in great hast from Dublin to Conaght where General Presion then was with his Army and persuaded that General to haue the peace proclaim'd in the head of the same A litle after the Nuntius began to treat with you and Friar Oliner Darcy before he was Bishop of Dromore who was General Preston's Ghostly Father and vpon that score could do much with him Sir Robert Talbot hauing bin made Prisoner for his zeal to the Kings seruice and to that peace charged his Brother Iohn Talbot to keep still neer General Preston to the end he might keep him constant to the peace for that he feard Friar Oliuer Darcy vpon the hopes which were giuen him of a Bishoprik would make the General alter his resolution F. Iohn Talbot did so and hauing certain intelligence that Friar Darcy had vndertaken to the Nuncius to gain Preston to his party he ask't the General at Lucan whether he was still constant to the resolution he had taken of reassuming and adhering to the peace of 46. as he had lately promised to my Lord of Ormond He sayd he was and the rather because Friar Oliuer Darcy told him he ought to be so Father Iohn replyed my Lord will you giue me your word and hand to continue so though Father Darcy should aduise you to the contrary The General laught at the improbability of such a thing But the weak though honest General fell from his resolution by the Friars importunity who had bin gain'd by the Nuncius and vpon this Friar Oliuer Darcy was made Bishop of Dramore Now I will tell you Mr. Walsh how he came to be the chief subscriber of your Remonstrance Be not startled do not think I am a witch there are hundreds can tell you as well as I though you make it a secret This poor Bishop had the misfortune to hinder his Brother Sir Iâ—mes Darcy from doing his duty of following the King into Flanders with the Duke of yorks Regiment which he commanded when he receiued Orders to
Bishops by secular lawes whereas themselues made the Secular Soueraigns Iudges of Caecilianus and Felix Catholik and innocent Bishops This being the whole drift of S. Augustin in that epistle you quote som words of it which euen as you order them make against you For euen in them the Saint taxes the ancient Donatists with presumption for accusing Caetilianus though he were criminal before a Secular Iudge and you pretend Saint Augustin only reprehended their enuy and malitious intention in accusing him but not the accusation itself If you had don your Reader the fauor and Saint Augustin the iustice to quote his words but foure lines after those you would haue cleer'd the whole matter and not haue forc't me to call you a shameless Impostor What think you of these words of S. Augustins Mr. Walsk Ibid. Illos autem magis hine arguimus qui apud Imperatorem vltrò Caecilianum accusauerunt quem prius apud Collegas trransmarinos conuincere debuerunt ipso autem Imperatore longè ordinatius agente vt Episcoporum causam ad se delatam ad Episcopos mitteret ne victi pacem cum fratribus habere noluerunt sed rursus ad eundem Imperatorem venerunt rursus non Caecilianum tantum verum etiam datos sibi Episcopos Iudices apud terrenum Regem accusauerunt But we reprehend them the Donatists the more that they accused of their own accord before the Emperor Caecilian whom first they ought to haue conuinc'd before the Collegues beyond the seas he means Bishops the Emperor himself hauing proceeded much more orderly sending the cause of Bishops which was brought to him to Bishops and yet they the Donatists Bishops being cast would not haue peace with their brethren but came again to the same Emperor and again accused before the earthly King not only Caecilian but also those Bishops which had bin appointed their Iudges a Friar Walsh his arguments apply'd to himself You haue not hitherto Mr. Walsh produced any argument against the doctrin and practise of the Catholik Church which hath not bin retorted against and applyed to yourself This also is of the same nature You censure and condemn your titular Archbishop of Dublin as the Donatists did Caecilian for defending himself against that petition and accusation of yours which you presented to his temporal Soueraign And because vpon that occasion som Inquiry was made into your own and your Remonstrant brethrens actions and som therof appeare to be Treasonable you complain of the said Archbishop as if he had sought to take away Churchmens liues by a secular power wheras if the truth were knowen he hindered the witnesses to giue in euidence against you because they were Priests and could not lawfull concurr to the death you deseru'd But if by your own prosecuting him your crimes vere casualy discouered and published by others he was no more oblig'd to saue you from the gallows than Bishop Felix was to saue the Donatist from the rack Notwithstanding this danger you were and are still in of hanging you are still as obstinat in persecuting that Prelat and in importuning the King and Parliament with false and forged accusations against him as the Donatists were against Archbishop Caecilian You criminat him in print after that your petition and accusations had bin cast out of the Conncel of Ireland as false and he dismist as innocent But you print not a word to cleer yourself of the Murthers and Treasons layd to your own charge not by him but by many others who say they will make them out whensoeuer commanded The vindication of yourself from these aspersions you remit to your Latina Hibernica or latin Irish volum consisting for the most part of ridiculous impertinent speaches of your own as if it were not to purpose or there were no room to insert a confutation of calumnies which endanger your life and haue ruin'd your reputation or as if english men could not be conuinc't of your innocency as well in english as in latin or Irish for your Latina Hibernica must be writ in one of these languages a Pag. 354 355. Peter Walsh his parity of Bishops and independent Episcopal Church Well now you haue don say you with Constantin only this you will add in relation to that his famous saying wherin he desir'd the Bishops to referr all their accusations to the great Iudge of all Christ our Sauior himself on the final day and to vse no other means of punishing constraining or forcing one the other by their own authority and at least in such things as properly concern'd the execution of their Episcopal office towards their respectiue flocks in relation I say to this part of that saying or the meaning of Constantin I will add say you that Constantin might haue heard of others or perhaps of himself learnd and read in Saint Cyprian's works for Cyprian was before his dayes what euen this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself said to this purpofe openly in a great Councell of his African Bishops of all whom as being himself the Archbishop of Carthage he was Primat Neque enim sayes he in Conc. Afric de Haeret. baptis quisquam nostrum Episâ—opumse esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adegit quando habeat ommâ— Episcopus prolicentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tanquam iudicartab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterum indicare sed expectemus vniuersi indi ium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui vnus solus habet potestatem praeponendi nos in Ecclisiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro indicandi So this blessed Cyprian intending and signifiing if I be not very much deceiued the parity of Bishops amongst themselues or independence from the iudicial authority or authoritatiue iudgment of one an other if we regard only the immediat law of God and therfore exhorting them all not to iudge one an other by any such pretended authority but to leaue all their differences and dissuasions whatsoeuer about seueral or distinct wayes of discipline or of the gouernment or spiritual direction of their respecâ— ture flocks to the iudgment of our Lord JESVS Christ who sayes he is the onely and sole he that hath power both to prepone vs in the gouernment of the Church and to iudgâ— of our act Which final and peaceable aduice of Saint Cyprian to the Bishops of that aboue mention'd African Synod Constantin the great may be thought to haue alluded vnto in his aduice also being it is so like giuen to those other Bishops of the Nicen Councell But whether certainly it be so or not it matters not much heer or any more at all than to shew vpon what ground Constautin might haue aduised the Bishops to peace amongst themselues and for pure ecclesiastical differences in point of meer disciplin or reformation of manners or of the liues or conuersation of the Bishops themselues in peace
4. Fitz Simons in Britonomachia D. Champney D Harding D. Scapleton Treatise of Catholik Faith and Heresy Polit. Cathechism Nullity of the Clergy of England in answer to D Bramhalls vind Religion and Gouernment Erassus Sentor Iumor This and much more you might haue seen in the Catholik writers obiections Answers and replyes to Mason Btamhall Heylin and other Protestant writers And if you haue seen them you ought to be ashamed of being more obstinat than the Protestant Bishops themselues who by the amendment of their old Form confess it was defectiue and that a new Form was necessary otherwise they would neuer haue alter'd the old in so material a point after an hundred years dispute But seing you are satisfied with the protestant Episcopacy and belieue the oath of Supremacy to be so lawfull as to vpraid Roman Catholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking it I see not how you could scruple accepting of a protestant Bishoprick in your own Countrey and therfore I can hardly beliue any such thing was euer offerd you But if euer it will be offerd you it s twenty to one you will be desired first to cleer yourself and wash off that stain of innocent English bloud wherwith you are asperst and reputed irregular But to return to Constantin and Cyprian I can assure you that you are very much deceiued or at least you design to deceiue others in the interpretation you giue of their words It s generaly belieued that S. Augustin vnderstood Saint Cyprians works and words better than you do Mr. Walsh Now Saint Augustin after setting down lib. 3. de Baptisino cap. 3. those words of Saint Cyprian which you quote for the equality of Bishops as if none of them ought to be iudged by an other but only by God c. Sayes that S. Cyprian meant this of Controuersies wherin the Church hath not declared or defined the truth as yet in debate Opinor saith he in his quaestionibus quae nondum eliquatissima perspectione discussae sunt c. Jn such questions t' is very certain that not only Bishops in Prouincial and Gene-Councils but that euery priuat Doctor in the Schools may speake freely and not be forc't to any side or sentence and this is all that S. Cyprian meant if S. Augustin be not very much deceiued S. Cyprian was also in the right in telling his African Bishops that neither himself nor any of them was Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops That is a title giuen only to the Bishop of Rome and hath bin giuen by a Primat of Afrik and Saint Cyprians successor Stephen in his letter to Pope Damasus in a letter I say writ to him in the name of three African Councils Beatissimo Domino Apostolico culmine sublimato S. Patri Patrum Damaso Papae c. Father of Fathers and Bishop of Bishops a Tertullian in lib. de Pudicrtia calls the Bishop of Rome iscopus Episcoporâ—m Bishop of Bishops signify the same thing in those Circumstances and himself declares it saying in the same Epistle summo omnium Praesulum Praesuli That the Bishop of Rome had authority and iurisdiction ouer other Bishops independently of any general Councils or their Canons and consequently had this authority from God immediatly is confess'd by S. Cyprian who liued before any of the four first general Councils and yet desired Stephen Pope lib. 3. Ep. 13. to depose the Bishop of Arles and put an other in his see Now to end with your Idea of the Church It is obserued in the liues of such Saints as are Fundators or Reformers of Regular Orders that God did reueale to them or giue them an Idea of their Congregations Was it God or the Deuil gaue you the Idea of your reformation yourself is much pleased with it but the Catholiks to whom you communicate and dedicate it haue no reason to be pleased with it For it is a wild wicked fancy of independency an vnreasonable liberty without subordination or discipline A company of dissolute fellows without feare of correction A commonwealth of Libertins without any coerciue power to keep them in awe or in order How can you imagin Mr. Walsh that Christ being infinit wisdom would institute a Commonwealth of frail men or a Church and not inuest the Gouernors therof who are the Clergy with any coerciue power to punish and correct such frailties of their sheep or subiects as he foresaw would be committed and corrupt others This is a pretty Idea of your Church but not of Christs An Idea your Remonstrants did practise whilst you were in power and gouernd them but too scandalous to continue ANIMADVERSION 12. Of the Emperors succeeding Constantin the Great TO proceed therfore from Constantin to more instances of matter of Fact in other Emperors and Kings who succeeded him saith Friar Walsh pag. 345. seq Constantius Constantins son offers himself first For this Constantius would haue and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriatch or Bishop of Antioch as being accused de vi publica lege Cornelia de Sicarijs of murther to be tryed in a secular Indicatory and before himself in the Pallace and not by any means in the Church c. Neither is it material to obiect heer that Constantius was an Arrian for the Arian Bishops stood as much for the immunities of the Church and Church men and so did the Arrian Princes aduised by them as any Catholiks when the crime obiected was not diuersity in Religion To proue that Catholik Emperors iudged the causes and persons of Catholik Bishops in their lay Courts you quote the case of Stephen the Arrian Bishop of Antioch punish'd by Constantius the Arrian Emperor And yet Theodoret whom you cite for the murther as you say committed by Stephen though Saint Athanasius speaks not of murther tells you according to your own translation of his words that Stephen pleaded against the Emperor Clerks ought not be whipt or wounded At cum Stephanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret affirmaretque plagas non esse infligendas Clericis I will tell you the story as S. Athanasius a Ep. ad Solit. recounts it and you may apply it to yourself and other heretiks whose custom it is and has alwayes bin to discredit and defame their Catholik Confuters when they can not answer their arguments This Stephen you speake of hauing bin with other Arrian Bishops condemn'd and deposed as an heretik b Stephen the Arian Bishop in the Catholik Council of Sardica persecuted most barbarously those who had condemn'd him and the rest he layd spies and Catchpols for them in all sea ports and inland Towns when they returned from that Synod iust as you did in Dublin and other Towns for the poor old Archbishop Burk of Tuam Father Farcell Tully Moor add all who were against your Remonstrance Amongst others he persecuted the two Bishops Vincent and Euphrates who had bin sent by the holy Synod