vacant But where are your Bishops and parish Priests Must your Clergy be compos'd only of Cardinals Nay where are your sheep your flocks Mr. Walsh you name but 97. Laiks which number can not afford two Parishioners to each Pastor This is indeed a very litle flock pusillus grex but great I hope in virtue and merit Well! we will not say any thing against their persons but we will set down the fundamental principles wherby you distinguish this blessed flock from that of the Roman Catholik Church which you call Papalin puritan papist popish recusant c. Your 1. principle is that the english oath of supremacy may br a Page 16. of the Dedicatory lawfully taken by all Roman Catholiks nay that they commit a sin of rashness and obstinacy in refusing it You know Mr. Walsh all rashness and obstinacy is a sin 2. a In the Prof. pag. 40. Pref. pag. 49 That temporal Soueraigns may lawfully make lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith by their own sole authority 3. That for these 600. b Dedic page 13. last years the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd enormously for gainsaying these principles of yours 4. c Pet. Walsh sayes pag. 75. And yet I must tell my Aduersaries that such Catholik Diuines as hold the absolute fallibility of general Councels euen I mean in points of faith think they can say enough for themselâ—es c. That Roman Catholik Authors hold and maintain general Councells are not infallible in defining matters of Faith or doctrin Do you hold such Authors to be Roman Catholik Mr. Walsh If you do your are not one your-self 5. d Pag. 20. Dedic That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world for as many hundred years as they haue taken the vsual oath before their consecration haue bin and are now either Traitors or periur'd persons for taking it So that for all this time all general Councels were compos'd wholy of Traitors or periur'd persons 6. That Popes as Popes and Bishops as Bishops e Hâ—â—ory 1. p. sect 33. page 79 can not in conscience contribute or concurr by raising Troops or any other temporal wayes to defend the liues or rights of their lawfull soueraigns against Rebells or endeauor to restore them to their Kingdoms and Dominions if possess'd by vsurpers and Tyrants 7. That the supreme secular Princes can not grant to Clergy f 1. part of the 1. Treatise pag 417. sin men their subiects an exemption from the supreme secular judicature or from their supreme coerciue power Whence must follow that all Christian Princes haue sin'd in doing so and the whole Catholik Church err'd in commanding their piety for granting those immunities 8. That a Page 79 cit no spiritual power as such can inflict vpon any score a corporal punishment for any misdemeanors whatsoeuer particularly for heresy So that the Kings of England by virtue of their spiritual supremacy can not punish heresies And as supreme heads in temporal affairs they can as litle Whence follows that neither as spiritual nor as temporal Heads they can punish heretiks This is good newes for you and the Blakloists Mr. Walsh 9. That neither the Pope nor the b Friar Walsh in his pag 430. 1. part of the first Treatise saith I do my self as I confess I am bound most Religiously allow the â—anonization vencration and inuocation of Saint Thomas of Canterbury and all three of him as of a glerious Martyr too and not with standing I allow also all the mercies raported of him Generals of Regular Orders can inflict any corporal punishment vpon their inferior Priests or Friars for the greatest misdemeanors or for writing such follies as these of yours are Mr. Walsh This also may comfort you 10. That notwithstanding supreme temporal Princes can not in conscience or reason c Pag 429. exempt Clerks from their supreme coerciue power or Courts of secular iudicature according to your 7. principle yet God may and hath wrought great Miracles in the case of S. Thomas of Canterbury to confirm they may so exempt them and by consequence God according to your principles may encourage men to sin by miracles 11. That God may in all like cases work Miracles to assure the Church c Pag 429. that a man who dyes for defending the Church immunities is a Saint and enjoyes his Diuine sight notwithstanding those immunities could not be lawfully granted by Princes to the Church and the man who dyed for maintaining them dyed maintaining an error 12. a Fâ—iar Walsh his words ibid page 4â—9 One may be inuok't as a Martyr in the Church largely or not so strictly yet properly still if he dyes for witnessing or bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more iust and generaly seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an euangelical trnth and though perhaps too he may be deceiued in the obiectiue truth of what he dyes for This is your Creed Mr. Walsh the twelue articles of your Remonstrant Religion By this last all Iewes Turks and heretiks that are pious in their own way and dye for their erroneous Tenets are properly Martyrs though not so strictly and God may work Miracles to confirm the belief of their bliss piety and good conscience and by consequence all our Christian Miracles signify nothing as to the proof of the obiectiue truth of what we belieue they only proue that we mean well in belieuing the Mysteries of Faith though falie in themselues only such Christian and Catholik Martyrs whose Miracles as were wrought say you at the inuocation of God by the Saint himself or by any other that God might be pleased by working such Miracles b Page 429. to euidence the iustice of such a cause do confirm the truth of the doctrin profess'd by such a Martyr or Maintainer of it For if they had bin â—rought so the case would be cleer enough as to such who saw those Miracles or to whose knowledge authentik proofs of them di sufficiently com that enen the obedience truth and iustice of things in such a controuersy had bin on such a Saint or Martyr's side But otherwise wrought they can be no more but Diuine testimonies of his hauing wonderfully or extraordinarily serâ—ed God either â—n his life or death or both whether he was deceiued or no in som things And besides they can be no more or at least on any rational ground can not be said to be any more than Diuine testimonies of his being now with God in glory Do you say all this Mr Walsh to make the world belieue that Turks and Iewes are now with God or Saints in Gods glory Or only to proue that the Miracles wrought by God for S Thomas of Canterbury may stand very well with hauing no truth or iustice on his side in his known controuersy with King Henry 2.
disciplin'd though I feare incorrigible Friar Thou hast seen him perhaps in a finer but neuer in a more proper dress Nothing becomes so well an Apostat Friar as strip't stuff I mean sound Lashes seasonably and charitably layd on Friar Walsh his decaying fauor and age make it credible to som that these my Animaduersions may work his conuersion I wish they do I am sure they are publisht with no other intention I beseech thee not to iudge of my education or temper by the roughness of my language in answer to a foulmoâ—th'd Author that makes the two late greatest writers of the Church Cardinal Baronâ—us and Bellarmin whose holy liues haue put them in the list of those who are to be first canonised shameless Impostors and all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world for many ages Traitors and periur'd persons I am forc't to answer this Fool according to his folly as the scripture bids me and in his own language Therfore I am warranted to scold and scourge him into his habit and Conuent Yet I do it as gently as his insolency permits and as charitably as is consistent with my vindicating the innocence of those he traduceth I medle not with his personal frailties I only take notice of his publik treasons which he fathers vpon honest men and in my conscience all the harm I wish him is that he becom one It is natural enough to desire to know how a religious man came to be so madly extrauagant when excess of ambition litle wit and a mediocrity of reading meet in one subiect we may expect to find in his writings abundance of nonsense many nouelties but no true notions Peter Walâ—h his ambition of a Miter was so excessiue 30. years ago that to obtain it be turn'd the greatest Rebel and Nuntionist of the Irish nation and had a greater hand in the reiection of the peace of 46. and by consequence in the destruction of the late King and his people than any man liuing or all the Clergy which he accuseth for it The repulse he then met with after his eminent seruices to the Nuntio and Treasons against the King depriued him of that litle wit he had and euer since he hath bin scribling and printing of libels and troubling the world with an od kind of raw indigested heresies stoln from the worst of Authors but so vnconnected and absurdly applyed by his dull pen that though you may see he hath read som bookes yet you will easily perceiue he vnderstood very few and such as he vnderstood he wrested to a wrong sense No meruail therfore if his notions be false his discourses consuse his arguments weake and his contradictions so frequent that to confute him you need go no further than his own writings He is so transported with passion against the Church of Rome and those two great pillars therof Belarmin and Baronius that he treats and terms them no better than men hired by the Roman Court to Sacrifice all the world to the Popes ambition The rage he is in for not finding out arguments to make this and his other calumnies credible is so extraordinary that he forgets what he said in the foregoing page or line and through his whole work neuer remembers to speake consequently in any one particular But to the end you may be conuinc't I do not iniure him I will instance euen in this Preface one or two of his contradictions in the very main point he pretends to proue and cleer most exactly as being that wherupon he grounds his new religion One of his chief errors is * Peter Walsh in his History and Vind. pag. 417 in fine That supreme secular Princes neither could nor can grant any exemption from their own supreme ciuil coerciue power to the Clergy or Clerks their subiects liuing within their Dominions and remaining subiects to them because this forsooth implies a plain contradiction Vpon this paradox he raises a new Church or Reformation and despairs not to draw Princes from their own and their Ancestors piety by inculcating to them it is an essential part of their temporal soueraignty and Prerogatiue to haue a Spiritual supremacy but so absurdly limited that he thinks it their greatest security to haue their hands tyed by the law of nature and Gods word from honouring the Diuine Majesty and his Church with an exemption to its Ministers from supreme secular Courts He is opposed in this foolish Tenet both by Protestants and Catholiks for we all agree in this that God can not at least did not command temporal Soueraigns not to oblige and honor for his sake the spiritual Ministery by exempting them from the supreme coerciue power of the secular magistrat seing that for the peace of the commonwealth the safety of Princes and punishment of Malefactors it is abundantly sufficient that delinquent Clergymen be proceeded against by ecclesiastical Iudges Let vs now see how palpably he contradicts himself and wearies his Reader in this absurd and fundamental Thesis of his vast volum and new Religion Euery Catholik as well as himself obiects against it the Martyrdom and Miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury it being euident out of all Histories both sacred and profane that S. Thomas sufferd was canonised and declared a Martyr for defending the immunities of the Church and particularly that of Churchmen from the coerciue supreme power of secular Courts The Friar grants S. Thomas his Sanctity Miracles and Martyrdom but sayes he sufferd and God wrought all those Miracles not because he did or could in conscience pretend that Church men were exempted from the supreme coerciue power of the Secular Magistrat but because he maintaind the temporal and municipal lawes of England then in force by which Clerks or Churchmen were so exempted from the secular supreme Courts Heer is one contradiction If there were municipal lawes in force then in England which warranted S. Thomas his proceedings for the immunity of the Church and Clergymen from the Kings supreme secular coerciue power or Courts and Churchmen had a true right to those exemptions as Friar Walsh confesseth from page 414. to page 418. of his History quoting the lawes themselues how can he without contradiction say that Princes and Parliaments did not nay could not make such lawes or grant such exemptions to Clergy-men How can he pretend such immunities or exemptions are contrary to the law of nature and the word of God He solues this difficulty with an other contradiction For after granting there were such lawes exempting Churchmen made by the Kings and Parliaments he sayes pag. 422. that S. Thomas at the instance and with the concurrence of all the other Bishops condescended to the Repeal of those temporal lawes which fauored the Clergy's exemption But then how was he a Saint or Martyr for defending the lawes that had bin repeald The answer to this is at hand saith Walsh very facil and cleer S. Thomas saith he in the same page 422. though he swore
to consent to the repeal of the lawes exempting the Clergy from the supreme coerciue power yet Swearing alone was not enough without further signing and sealing as it seems the custom then was of the Bishops and Peers in making of lawes nor all three together without a free consent in those or of those who swore so or sign'd and seal'd so and that there was no free consent but a forc't one by threats of imprisonment banishment death appears c. This answer may pass if it be true but immediatly he confesseth its not credible that the substance and validity of a law should depend vpon such formalities and indiuidual circumstances of euery particular man seing the maior vote in Parliament made the law For after that he had maintain'd positiuely in twelue pages the aforesaid answer he sudenly falls off from it in the 434. of his tedious volum and sayes Jt is not so cleer in all respects that those 16 heads of customs which S. Thomas opposed as being against the immunities of the Church passed not legaly and before the Saints death into a just municipal law of the land or of England For it may be said first and said also vpon very probable grounds out of the seueral Historians who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters that they all Bishops freely consented And secondly it may be said that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament hauing the consent Roial whether one Bishop or more or euen all the Bishops dissent And thirdly yet it may be said that all lawes most commonly or at least too often may be call'd in question vpon that ground of feare of the Prince Notwithstanding this third or fourth contradiction and recantation of his answer building Saint Thomas of Canterbury's Sanctity vpon his suffering for maintaining the temporal lawes of the land in fauor of the Clergy's immunities notwithstanding I say he confesses there were no such temporal lawes then in England because they had bin repeal'd by Acts of Parliament with concurrence of Saint Thomas himself and the other Bishops yet he aduises his Readers pag 435. to fix rather vpon this answer both contradicted and adhered to by himself than on the others no less absurd which he giues By this you may guess how solidly grounded his religion is But then he supplyes the fifth contradiction and weakeness of all his Answers by a notable and acute general rule which he sets down in the beginning of the page 435. in these words Sixt and last reason That we must rather giue any Answer that inuolues not heresy or manifest error in the Catholik saith or natural reason obuious to euery man than allow or iustify the particular actions or contests or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope how great or holy soeuer otherwise or euen of many such or of all their Partakers in such against both holy scripture plain enough in the case c. This sure if well applyed I confess may iustify this very absurd answer but me thinks answers which inuolue contradictions ought not to be comprehended in that vniuersal any answer which may be giuen to such pressing arguments against the Friars new Religion as this of S. Thomas his Martyrdom sanctity and Miracles For though an answer did not inuolue heresy or manifest error in the Catholik faith yet if it inuolues nonsense or a plain contradiction it inuolues an error against natural reason obuious to euery man except Peter Walsh and therfore it ought not be taken for a good answer it s much better in my opinion to allow or iustify the particular actions or contests or doctrin of one holy and learned Bishop or Pope and of all their partakers which in our case is the whole Roman Catholik Church euer since S. Thomas his Martyrdom then the fancies of a dull ignorant Friar that contradicts his own answers so frequently a Friar that ran mad for not obtaining a Bishoprik for which he sacrificed in the yeare 1646. the loyalty due to his King the respect due to his Lieutenant and the loue due to his Countrey which he inuolued in Bloud by printing and preaching against the gouernment against a very aduantagious peace against the publik faith and the obligation of maintaining it As for his maintaining the miracles and sanctity of S. Thomas of Canterbury it proceeds not either from deuotion to the Saint or any reuerence he hath for the doctrin or practise of the Catholik Church of these last 600. years seing he sayes it hath maintain'd and practised since Gregory 7. those enormous errors which he now would fain reform and by consequence its honouring S. Thomas for a Saint may be also an error in his opinion How then coms the Friar to be so deuout to S. Thomas as to say he was no Traitor You must know great part of his design in writing this vast volum was to make his Court to my Lord Duke of Ormond whose family owes and ownes its great Estate in Jreland to the scruple King Henry 2. had for persecuting the Saint and his relations wherof one of the neerest was my Lord Duke of Ormonds Ancestor to whom King Henry 2. gaue great priuileges and Lands in Jreland to expiat what fault he had in the murther of so innocent and holy a Prelat But if Peter Walsh had knowen my Lord Duke of Ormond as well as his neerest Relations do he would neuer contradict himself so manifestly and frequently for making Thomas Becket a Saint out of a complement to my Lord Duke whose iustice and integrity is so eminent that his fauor is not to be gain'd by courting him in his relations as diuers noblemen and gentlemen can witness who in hopes of being restored to their Estates by marrying his Neeces got nothing by the bargain but the honor of being allyed to so illustrious a family So that You see Friar Walsh is as much mistaken in his Courtship as in his doctrin Many perhaps will iudge these my Animaduersions superfluous 1. because Friar Walsh his book sufficiently declares its own absurdities 2. It s bulk is so great the stile so vnpolish't the parenthesis of his own praises so long so false and so impertinent that few will trouble themselues with reading a History so litle importing the publik so iniurious to particular persons and so false ridiculous and tedious in itself But because Peter Walsh is a likely man to fancy that others take as much pleasure in reading his book as himself doth I shall endeauor to disabuse him and do the publik that seruice as to put this vain Friar out of conceit with himself and his work If this may be effected which I confess is very difficult it will be a great ease to the publik and to the Press which he threatens with a second Tome of the same dull dirty stuff Jadmire more the patience of many worthy and witty men which this pittifull Friar hath endeuored to disgrace with lyes than I do the
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
Ormond But what is most falsely asserted by Peter Walsh is that in my answer I did giue a touch of the murther he is charged with I toucht not any such thing I am sure I did not intend to be his Accuser in any cause of bloud and I hindred others from accusing him as my Brother Iohn Talbot had also don nay I had him aduertised of his danger by a friend of his own as soon as Father Cauenagh and Father Bremingham attested the murther at Castleton in presence of my Lord Dongan Mr. Chasles White of Leixslip my self and others For though his barbarous inhuman cruelty if what is said of him be true deserues ten thousand deaths yet I would not for all the world concurr to it The thankes he gaue me for letting him know his danger to the end he might retire to his Conuent and do pennance for his sins was to misinforme the honorable House of commons and the committee of Religion by one of the two Mr. Warnhams commonly known by the name of Flahertys Varnham that I did most impudently exercise papal iurisdiction in Ireland by excommunicating and censuring his Majesties most loyal Subiects for subscribing to the Remonstrance And though this was known in Ireland to be a fable yet Mr. Varnham and som others of Friar Walsh his friends auerring it to be very true I haue sufferd much vpon that account and that infamous Friar though a known Traytor to God and the King laught in his sleeue after abusing the Parliament with notoriously false informations and insults for hauing bin so succesfull in exasperating the Caualeer party against one who endeauored to serue many of them in their exile abroad as som of them since were pleased to teftify though too late for my relief and redress of the iniury don to me My buisness is not to exaggerat this mans misdemeanors but rather to warn him once more of his danger and aduise him not to be so publik in London frequenting great Prelats and Noblemens houses vpon whom he must needs draw inconueniencies if he doth not cleer himself of treasons and murthers better then by saying in his great english Tome of Irish Rapsody that all these accusations are lyes or libels of the titular Archbishop of Dublin or of his friends and then tell his Readers he will vindicat himself in his latin Irish work Me thinks he might haue reserued som of his vnnecessary vncouth speeches and tedious repetitions for that work and in lieu therof cleer himself of those foul aspersions at least in a parentesis som of his being long enough to weary any patient Reader and to iustify any honest man This I hope is enough to vindicat me from Peter Walsh his calumnies which do not much trouble me it being the greatest honor of an honest man to be raild at by an heretik I am Your most obliged Seruant PETER TALBOT Mr. Walsh I haue bin assured by credible persons that what this Prelat sayes heer of you and himself is very true and that a man would be laught at in Ireland where these things happen'd if he question'd so notorious matters of fact wherof there are yet liuing many legal witnesses This supposed I must needs blame you for printing such lyes to discredit a Bishop or at least for not prouing what you say of him by more credible arguments than the bare assertion of your-self in your own cause If you being but a priuat person and a petty Friar say pag. 51. of your Preface that the Author of the Dublin libel for writing against you som pretended vntruths ought by the ciuil lawes to be put to death and by the Canon of Pope Adrian be stript naked and whipt with scourges if he can not proue the truth of the particulars of his libel what will the world say of you for writing manifest vntruths of an Archbishop Especialy when you can not proue that he is the Author or that you are iniur'd by that Dublin libel as you call it and for want of an answer to the particulars therin alleged against you remit your english Reader to a latin Irish work not yet composed not euer like to be printed I am troubled Mr. Walsh at this malitious folly of yours But patience I will now consider how your Remonstrant Church came to fail and fall ANIMADVERSION 8. How the Protestants who had formerly a good opinion of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church came at length to alter it and be fully conuinc't that both he and his Remonsttant Church-men are Cheats MR Walsh you complain very much pag. 577. seq of the second part of your first long Treatise that the Anti Remonstrants notwithstanding their opposition against you lost nothing either of liberty or other benefits or fanors at home from the Ciuil Magistrate from the Lord Lieutenant or Kings Majesty or his Court Council or Parliament being equal in all such for any material thing to the Remonstrants and on the other side were sure of all euen extraordinary fauors c. from their own Church and from the Conrt of Rome abroad while the Remonstrants were sure of nothing from either but slight from the one and extreme persecution from the other And these fate last years from 1667. to the end of the present year 1672 haue giuen sufficient arguments of both the one and the other During which time those poor Remonsirants had nothing to ballâ—nce all their sufferings but the bare satisfaction of conscience to be slighted so by their friends and persecuted so by their Ennemies for professing and performing their duty to the King atterding to the law of God This is a very sad story Mr. Walsh but the Dublin libel as you call it tells you an other quite contrary and you know it to be true nay you giue a hint of it in the pag 3. of your Preface to the Catholiks which needed an other Preface itself being a large book There you say that the Anti-Remonstrants persecuted your holy Church in a most surious manner with all the vilest arts of malicious Cabals Conspiraties Plots libels and an Impostor Commissary and a forged Commission What 's that Mr. Walsh An Impostor Commissary A forged Commission I pray explain yourself Did the Anti Remonstrants persecute your Remonstrance and Church by an Impostor Commissary and a forged Commission did the court of Rome send such a person and giue him such a commission If so he was no Impostor Well I see those Romans are strange men Is it possible they could be so ill natur'd as to persuade a poor Friar to play the Impostor or that he would be persuade to play the fool and knaue so egregiously meerly to vndermine your Remonstrant Church Good God in what a great mistake hath the world bin these 9. or ten years Truly Mr. Walsh 't is the persuasion of all England Ireland France and Italy that you and the Impostor Commissary agreed to persecute the Roman Catholik Clergy and vnderstood
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.