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
take his pass as the other Colonells did Hereby the Bishop incurr'd his Kings displeasure and ruin'd the fortune of his Brother a very loyal worthy gentleman and a good Commander After the Kings happy restauration this vndutifull carriage of the Bishop was not forgot at whitehall and he not knowing how to liue in France hauing also a desire to return to his own Countrey writ to you Mr. Walsh that he would do any thing you would haue him do so he might be permitted to return and liue at home A large offer and an argument of a large conscience in circumstances wherin he knew you wanted and sought at this very time a Bishop to head your vpstart Church You took him at his word and he set his hand to to your Remonstrance Whether he repented or no at his death I know not but I am sure Friar Redmund Caron whom you canonize for a Saint pag. 759. ought to haue retracted the doctrin of his Remonstrantia Hibernorum which was stuff't with so notorious and palpable falsifications that he can not be presumed to haue bin ignorant of them But his last aduice and Adieu to you is sad and remarkable for he declared as you say pag. 760. That you were bound in conscience to prosecute still euen after his death that matter of the Remonstrance and continue the defence or aduancement of that doctrin which in his life time you had for so many years and notwithstanding so much contradiction maintain'd You do a great iniury Mr. Walsh to the memory and merit of that Illustrious and Catholik Prelat Thomas Dease quondam Bishop of Meath in ioyning him in the same page with Caron as approuing at his death of your Remonstrance and doctrin What if he did approue of the book of Queries Was there any thought or knowledge then of your Remonstrance Is there any thing in that book of Queries asserting a spiritual supremacy in Princes or denying it to the Pope Doth it say that Secular Princes by their own sole authority may gouern the Church and make Ecclesiastical lawes euen in matter of Faith Doth it maintain that Catholiks both rashly and obstinatly deny to take the oath of Supremacy and by consequence commit a sin for not taking it Doth it say the General Councells of Ephesus and Calcedon gaue as much to temporal Princes and as litle to the Pope of spiritual authority as the oath of Supremacy doth Doth it say that som Catholiks hold Generall Councells are fallible Where will you find in the book of Queries that the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd enormously in its principles and practises these last 600. years and that all the Bishops thereof are either Traytors to their Princes or periur'd to the Pope in taking the vsual oath at their consecration Doth the book of Queries teach that if Bishops as Bishops help their Soueraigns with money or armes against Rebells or Vsurpers they offend God As also that temporal Soueraings offend God in exempting the Clergy from their Secular Supreme Courts Doth the book of Queries teach that God may work Miracles to confirm a falshood or at least the Sanctity of a man who has a good intention and zeale in maintaining it or dying for it thinking it to be a truth Or that a man who dyes so for maintaining an error is properly though not strictly a Martyr Or that the whole Church when it celebrats the feast of a Saint as properly and strictly a Martvr may be mistaken in declaring and belieuing him such a Martyr though not in belieuing him a Saint in Heauen All this you maintain in Saint Thomas of Canterberies case as necessary consequences flowing from the doctrin of your Remonstrance Did Bishop Thomas Dease nay did Caron himself defend these heresies The book of Queries only asserted the lawfullness of making peace and Confederacies with Protestants and that the Popes Nuncius could not validly excommunicat the Irish Catholiks for doing so and that it was lawfull to appeal to the Pope in those circumstances and that the said Appeal did suspend the Nuncius Censures No learned Catholik denyes this doctrin But not one Catholik in the world doth or can maintain your doctrines now mention'd and therfore you are not only heretik but an Impostor pretending that they who opposed the Nuntius his Censures and practises in Ireland were your Remonstrants ANIMADVERSION 9. Whether temporal Soueraigns can exempt from their Supreme coerciue power the Clergy of their Dominions THAT they haue don so de facto is euident by the lawes and practise of all Christian Emperors and Kings especialy in England euer since Christianity florished But what 's that to the purpose if Friar Walsh say they could not de iure or in conscience Pardon me 't is somthing For though Friar Walsh his authority be very great Especialy when he hath Barclay the Poet or Romantik writer to back him yet I hope the persuasion and practise of the whole Catholik Church the belief of all Christian Princes and Prelats for so many hundred years will weigh more than the opinion of a Romantik Poet or a Remonstrant Friar Excuse then I pray Mr. Walsh poor Cardinal Belarmin whose ignorance you so much pitty for being mightily startled at this position of yours and Barklay's The temporal a Friar Walsh 1. part of his first Treatise pag. 267 Seq Princes themselues how otherwise Supreme soeuer could not can not by any law right authority or power giuen them by God or man exempt from themselues that is from their own Supreme Ciuil and euen coerciue power the Clergy men of their Dominions Sure you must needs haue a very cleer demonstration for this Tenet that forces you to hold it being so contrary to the doctrin and practise of the Church You say you haue Out with it then Mr. Walsh and let not the Faithfull be any longer foold Good Reader be attentiue 't is a profound acute argument you will find it pag. 271. cit in these words Whosoeuer haue and continue any office which essentially inuolues a power Supreme both directiue and coerciue of all Clerks within their Dominions may not deuest themselues of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks vnless they do withal deuest themselues of that office as towards the self same Clerks Because they can not deuest themselues of the essence of that which they hold still this arguing a plain contradiction But the Office of Kings inuolues a power supream both directiue and coerciue of all Clerks within their Dominions Ergo. The Minor you must proue Mr. Walsh I haue already don that saith he and at large by very natural reason I find none but that desinition of a King for which you quote your great claslik Author Almainus de sup potest c. cap. 5. thus Aliquem esie Regem nihil aliud est quam habere Superioritatem erga subditos in subditis esse obligationem pariendi Regi c. This is all you set
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
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
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
other than to put the lawfull Proprietor in possession Mr Walsh see how heretical and destructiue your doctrin is Suppose a thing which hath happened and may happen very often Suppose I say an vsurper or Rebell will not go to confession or if he doth will not restore the vsurp't Kingdom or Prouince to his lawfull Soueraign according to his Confessarius his command Hervpon the Bishops of that Kingdom or Prouince according to their duty excommunicat the Tyrant or Rebell for his publik sin and contumacy in keeping out of his Kingdom the lawfull King He contemns their Censures Let me ask you this question Do the Bishops sin in raising of their own accord and as Bishops an Army against the Tyrant or Rebell only to put their lawfull King in possession Answer M. Walsh Do they sin I say in doing this duty would the Pope sin if as Pope he had don the same would Innocenâ— 10. haue sin'd if he helpt to raise an Army in defence of the late King or for the restauration of the present against that vsurper Cromuell would other Popeâ— haue sinn'd in doing the same in prosecution of theiâ— Spiritual Censures in case these had not seru'd theiâ— turn against the Barons when they excommunicated them for their rebellion against King Iohn or King Henry the third Is the whole Catholik Church guiltâ— of heresy and impiety for maintaining this doctrinâ— Speake out Mr. Walsh or at least retract for shamâ— this wicked destructiue principle and accuse not thâ— Church of God as asserting in itself a power preiudiâ—cial to Soueraigns that power I say which hath biâ— so often applied and of its own nature is so appliâ—abâ— to their safety and seruice Do not follow Blacklows he retical principles whom you page 43. 1. p. termâ— learned Priest of the Roman Communion though much for most of his bookes censur'd at Rome They are censured all and censured as Arch heretical And one of them obedience and Gouernment is censur'd for this very doctrin of yours viz. That Subiects sin if they endeauor to restore their disposest and exiled lawfull Soueraign And this Blaklow after all this you and the Blakloistes call a learned Catholik Priest Do you imagin that any Catholik or protestant Soueraign will permit you or a Chapter and Clergy that hold such an Author to be a Catholik and of eminent learning to liue in their Dominions and instruct their Subiects Retire retire to your Conuent good Father Walsh obey your Superiors retract your heretical doctrin so inconsistent with the safety of lawfull Soueraigns submit to the corporal punishment your General will inflict vpon you when you are absolued from so many spiritual Censures you haue incurr'd buisy your-self no longer with Church or state affairs seing you are not sit for either and are so ignorant that pretending to fauor the Soueraignty of Princes you make it vnlawfull for Bishops to ferue them and accuse the Church of heresy for claiming a power to correct with corporal punishments you and such Friars as you are ANIMAD 5. Whether the Roman Catholik Church hath fallen into heresy or hatherr'd enormously these last 600. years for contradicting Friar Peter Walsh his doctrin of a spiritual supremary in temporal Soueraigns and whether all the Roman Catholik Bishops of all the world haue bin for the same 600. years or as least are in this last Century either Traytors to their Soueraigns or periur'd to the Pope for taking the ancient and vsual eath before Episcopal Consecration IT S euident Mr. Walsh by your own words quoted in the first and second Animaduersion that one of the enormous errors wherwith you charge the Church of God for these last 600. years is that the 80. Popes the innumerable writers and all the Bishops therof deny'd to temporal Soueraigns that Supremacy which is attributed in the English oath of Supremacy and a Legislatiue power of making lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith We haue also quoted these your words of the page 40. n. 3. in your Preface to the Reader If the truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest following him were willing to make vse of any malicious vngrounded fictions whatsoeuer against Instinian the Emperor c. by reason his Lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen those of Faith are a perpetual eysore to them because these Lawes are a precedent to all other good Princes to gouern their own respectine Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Coenae or of so many other vain allegations of those men that would make the world belieue it vnlawfull for Secular Princes to make ecclesiastical lawes by their own sole authority for the gouernment of the Church c. To reform therfore this so long erroneus Church and to restore to Secular Princes that spiritual iurisdiction which is giuen them in the oath of Supremacy or a legislatiue power of making ecclesiastical lawes euen in matters of Faith by their own sole authority you Friar Walsh haue found out a Remonstrance wherin all this power and right is asserted and as you say ought to be taken by all loyall Subiects especialy the Bishops who renounce their allegiance by this ensuing oath to the Pope before their consecration which you set down in latin and I translate into inglish The Oath wherby according to Friar Walsh all Bishops are made Traytors pag. 19 Dedic IN. Elect of the Church N. from this hour forward will be faithfull and obedient to S. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church and to our Lord Pope N. as also to his Successors I will not be in counsel consent or fact that they may loose life or limb or be imprisoned or violent hands laid vpon them in any manner or any iniury don to them vpon any color whatsoeuer The Counsell wherwith they will trust me by themselues their Nuncios or letters I will not reueal to their preiudice The Roman Papacy and royalties of Saint Peter I shall help to retain and defend Saluo meo Ordine against all men I will treat honourably the Legat of the see Apostolik as he passeth by and returns and shall help him in his necessities I shall endeauor to conserue defend increase and promote the rights honors priuileges and authority of the holy Roman Church of our Lord the Pope and of his Successors I will not be in counsell fact or treaty wherin are plotted any sinister or preiudicial things against the Lord Pope or the Roman Church And if I know of any such plots against them I will endeauor to hinder them to the best of my power as also discouer them as soon as I can to the Pope himself or to som other that may giue him notice therof I shall obserue and cause to be obserued to the vttermost of my power the rules of the holy Fathers the Decrees Ordinations or dispositions reseruations prouisions and Apostolik Mandats I shall impugn and prosecute to my power Heretiks
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
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
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
yourself Would you haue him exhort the Emperor to remoue from his mind the Popes thoughts or a papal condemnation What would you be at The Pope desires the Emperor to be charitable and to be recoucil'd to the Church Is this to acknowledge in him a full proper legal and supreme power of coercion of Clerks write sense Mr. Walsh and beg pardon of the prinrer and Reader for your book is a manifest nuysance to common sense a The case of Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen in Charles 5. time I will presume a little further vpon my Readers patience to let him see how wittily you confute Belarmins answer to Barclay obiecting against the Ecclesiastical immunity the case of Hermanus Archbishop of Cullen whom the Emperor Charles 5. summon'd to iudment Belarmin sayes he did it as Hermanus was a Prince of the Empire and not as he was a Bishop To this you say pag. 264. That Belarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that Ieer wherwith a certain Boor pleasantly check'd a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a Countrey clown hauing first admired and said this pomp was very vnlyke that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and som of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreouer he was a Duke and a Prince too the Clown replyed but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will becom of the Bishop Euen so doth Belarmin write as that seauant spoke that this Hermanus whom Charles 5. summon'd to appeare was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And euen so do I say and reply with the Countrey swain when the Emperor iudg'd the Prince of the Empire did he not I pray iudge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he iudg'd the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so for neither do I intend or mean or at least vrge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subiect to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Cittizens and politik parts of the body politik which Kind of authority as Belarmin confesses Charles 5. both acknowledged and vindicated to the Emperor Mr. Walsh if BèlarmÃn doth confess as indeed he doth that Clerks as men and Cittizens are subiect to the coerciue power and secular iudicature of temporal Soueraigns doth it follow that the Soueraigns can not exempt them as they are Clergymen from that very coerciue power and secular iudicature Heer you grant they are exempted as Clerks from it though in other places of your book you say its impossible they should be exempted vnless their Soueraigns cease to be Soueraigns I wish you did exempt and free yourself from these contradictions Indeed your story of the Countrey swain doth sufficiently conuince us of your great erudition but me thinks the application doth not so cleerly shew your incomparable acuteness You take the material man somwhat toogrossely You who are a Scotist should be better at your formal distinctions and consider in a man the form or quality of a Clerk or Churchman as raising him a degree aboue the natural or material manhood and common sort of mankind Saint Peter was more subtile he call'd the Priestood Regale Sacerdotium Not that the spiritual caracter of Priesthood or Episcopacy changes mans nature but his quality it places the person in a higher ranck than naturally he could arriue vnto Euen in human Creatures as such you may see this metaphysical distinction explain'd A Peer of the Realm is a man and as a man ought to be tryed by a common iury but his Peerage exempts him from that ordinary way of trial and yet he is still a man and can not euen as a man be tryed by twelue Commoners but by his Peers Jf the example of Subiects will not satisfy you consider that of Soueraigns Our ancient Kings of England did homage to the ancient Kings of France as Dukes of of Normandy Aquitain c. You will not deny they were men both as Kings and Dukes and did homage as men Doth it follow that because they were men and did homage as men they must needs do homage as Kings Or doth it follow that the King of France could not out of his respect to their Kingship exempt them euen as Dukes of Normandy and men from the supreme coerciue power of his Courts Would this vnking the French Kings I haue proued this to be consistent with Soueraignty and subiection in the 9. Animaduersion to which I remit you if you vnderstand not as yet how the same man may be priuiledged and punish'd vpon different scores What the Clown said is very true if God condemns the Bishop as he is a Prince to hell fire he must go thither also as he is a Bishop yet there is this comfort left to Bishops who are Princes God will neuer send them thither for maintaining the iust priuileges either of a Prince or Bishop but for som mortal sin vnrepented for which there is no priuilege or exemption I haue heard your story of the Bishop and Prince told otherwise viz that the Bishop lying a dying the Deuil appear'd to him as som think he doth to all men in that passage and tempting him to despair said he had don such and such things which were not sutable to his Episcopal function The Bishop answer'd he did not do those things as a Bishop but as a temporal Prince To this the Deuil reply'd I am a dull Deuil and can not vnderstand well those subtile distinctions as a Prince and as a Bishop therfote I will carry you to hell as you are such a man and as I find you without questioning whether you go as a Prince or as a Bishop I feare Mr. Walsh this will be your fate You will meet with som dull Deuil one as dull as yourself a Deuil that knowes not how to distinguish between Peter Walsh the Procurator and Peter Walsh the Friar He must be a very acute Deuil that can find out any formality or distinction to excuse your actings either as Procurator or Friar As Procurator you betrayd your trust and acted quite contrary to your commission and as a Friar you ought not to haue taken any without your Superiors leaue Therfore you being neither Prince Bishop nor lawfull Procurator but a poor simple Franciscan Friar suppose the Deuil had met you when you set out from Dublin well mounted and much finer I belieue in cloathes and ribands than the Bishop your Countrey swain was so much scandalized at and attended to search after those poor soules that hid themselues from your persecution suppose I say the Deuil should meet you and endeauor to hurry you with him to hell how could you find out any pretext to excuse your persecution