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
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
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
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