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
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
4. Fitz Simons in Britonomachia D. Champney D Harding D. Scapleton Treatise of Catholik Faith and Heresy Polit. Cathechism Nullity of the Clergy of England in answer to D Bramhalls vind Religion and Gouernment Erassus Sentor Iumor This and much more you might haue seen in the Catholik writers obiections Answers and replyes to Mason Btamhall Heylin and other Protestant writers And if you haue seen them you ought to be ashamed of being more obstinat than the Protestant Bishops themselues who by the amendment of their old Form confess it was defectiue and that a new Form was necessary otherwise they would neuer haue alter'd the old in so material a point after an hundred years dispute But seing you are satisfied with the protestant Episcopacy and belieue the oath of Supremacy to be so lawfull as to vpraid Roman Catholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking it I see not how you could scruple accepting of a protestant Bishoprick in your own Countrey and therfore I can hardly beliue any such thing was euer offerd you But if euer it will be offerd you it s twenty to one you will be desired first to cleer yourself and wash off that stain of innocent English bloud wherwith you are asperst and reputed irregular But to return to Constantin and Cyprian I can assure you that you are very much deceiued or at least you design to deceiue others in the interpretation you giue of their words It s generaly belieued that S. Augustin vnderstood Saint Cyprians works and words better than you do Mr. Walsh Now Saint Augustin after setting down lib. 3. de Baptisino cap. 3. those words of Saint Cyprian which you quote for the equality of Bishops as if none of them ought to be iudged by an other but only by God c. Sayes that S. Cyprian meant this of Controuersies wherin the Church hath not declared or defined the truth as yet in debate Opinor saith he in his quaestionibus quae nondum eliquatissima perspectione discussae sunt c. Jn such questions t' is very certain that not only Bishops in Prouincial and Gene-Councils but that euery priuat Doctor in the Schools may speake freely and not be forc't to any side or sentence and this is all that S. Cyprian meant if S. Augustin be not very much deceiued S. Cyprian was also in the right in telling his African Bishops that neither himself nor any of them was Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops That is a title giuen only to the Bishop of Rome and hath bin giuen by a Primat of Afrik and Saint Cyprians successor Stephen in his letter to Pope Damasus in a letter I say writ to him in the name of three African Councils Beatissimo Domino Apostolico culmine sublimato S. Patri Patrum Damaso Papae c. Father of Fathers and Bishop of Bishops a Tertullian in lib. de Pudicrtia calls the Bishop of Rome iscopus Episcoporâ—m Bishop of Bishops signify the same thing in those Circumstances and himself declares it saying in the same Epistle summo omnium Praesulum Praesuli That the Bishop of Rome had authority and iurisdiction ouer other Bishops independently of any general Councils or their Canons and consequently had this authority from God immediatly is confess'd by S. Cyprian who liued before any of the four first general Councils and yet desired Stephen Pope lib. 3. Ep. 13. to depose the Bishop of Arles and put an other in his see Now to end with your Idea of the Church It is obserued in the liues of such Saints as are Fundators or Reformers of Regular Orders that God did reueale to them or giue them an Idea of their Congregations Was it God or the Deuil gaue you the Idea of your reformation yourself is much pleased with it but the Catholiks to whom you communicate and dedicate it haue no reason to be pleased with it For it is a wild wicked fancy of independency an vnreasonable liberty without subordination or discipline A company of dissolute fellows without feare of correction A commonwealth of Libertins without any coerciue power to keep them in awe or in order How can you imagin Mr. Walsh that Christ being infinit wisdom would institute a Commonwealth of frail men or a Church and not inuest the Gouernors therof who are the Clergy with any coerciue power to punish and correct such frailties of their sheep or subiects as he foresaw would be committed and corrupt others This is a pretty Idea of your Church but not of Christs An Idea your Remonstrants did practise whilst you were in power and gouernd them but too scandalous to continue ANIMADVERSION 12. Of the Emperors succeeding Constantin the Great TO proceed therfore from Constantin to more instances of matter of Fact in other Emperors and Kings who succeeded him saith Friar Walsh pag. 345. seq Constantius Constantins son offers himself first For this Constantius would haue and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriatch or Bishop of Antioch as being accused de vi publica lege Cornelia de Sicarijs of murther to be tryed in a secular Indicatory and before himself in the Pallace and not by any means in the Church c. Neither is it material to obiect heer that Constantius was an Arrian for the Arian Bishops stood as much for the immunities of the Church and Church men and so did the Arrian Princes aduised by them as any Catholiks when the crime obiected was not diuersity in Religion To proue that Catholik Emperors iudged the causes and persons of Catholik Bishops in their lay Courts you quote the case of Stephen the Arrian Bishop of Antioch punish'd by Constantius the Arrian Emperor And yet Theodoret whom you cite for the murther as you say committed by Stephen though Saint Athanasius speaks not of murther tells you according to your own translation of his words that Stephen pleaded against the Emperor Clerks ought not be whipt or wounded At cum Stephanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret affirmaretque plagas non esse infligendas Clericis I will tell you the story as S. Athanasius a Ep. ad Solit. recounts it and you may apply it to yourself and other heretiks whose custom it is and has alwayes bin to discredit and defame their Catholik Confuters when they can not answer their arguments This Stephen you speake of hauing bin with other Arrian Bishops condemn'd and deposed as an heretik b Stephen the Arian Bishop in the Catholik Council of Sardica persecuted most barbarously those who had condemn'd him and the rest he layd spies and Catchpols for them in all sea ports and inland Towns when they returned from that Synod iust as you did in Dublin and other Towns for the poor old Archbishop Burk of Tuam Father Farcell Tully Moor add all who were against your Remonstrance Amongst others he persecuted the two Bishops Vincent and Euphrates who had bin sent by the holy Synod