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
had no other fault but that it is placed by you in the same line and predicament as to the lawfulness of taking it with the oath of Suprecacy Catholiks are bound to refuse it neither can a Franciscan Friar who reproaches Roman Catholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking the oath of Supremacy expect to be their Spiritual Director but rather to be concluded by them an Apostat and must not take ill if his writings should be reiected and burnt as heretical Seing therfore Mr. Walsh your arguments pretending to proue that the two general Councells of Ephesus and Calcedon as well as the Prouincial of Afrik taught the doctrin which Roman Catholiks except against in the oath of Supremacy are found to be mistakes what other arguments do you produce to conuince Catholiks of rashness and obstinancy for not taking that oath None but your own authority nothing but your saying that the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd rashly and obstinatly for these 600. last years because it admitted not a Spiritual Supremacy in temporal Soueueraigns Realy Mr. Walsh I do not belieue your sole authority is a sufficient argument to proue the Church hath erred To proue so rash an assertion you would fain make us mistrust the testimonies of holy and learned Authors of the Church History as Baronius Bellarmin and others They are Impostors you say hired by the Court of Rome to diuest Emperors and Kings of their right of gouerning spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs and to place it in the Pope Your words page 40. to the Reader are If the truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest fallowing him were willing to make vse of any malitious vngrounded fictions whatsoeuer against lustinian the Emperor This Justinian was in the later end of his dayes an heretik and took vpon him to make lawes in matters of Faith but he dyed sudenly before he could publish them Yet before he was an heretik he made good Edicts in fauor of the true Faith and for this he is commended by Popes and Councells as a Catholik as also because it s sayd he was reconcil'd at his death Now you Mr. Walsh say that the ancient and modern writers knew well enough he was neuer an heretik but that they diffame him as an heretik because his laws in Ecclesiastical matters euen those of Faith are a perpetual eysore to them because these laws are a precedent to all other good Princes to gouern their own respectiue Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Caenae or of so many other vain allegations of those men that would make the world belieue it vnlawfull for secular Princes to make ecclesiastical lawes by their own sole authority Truly Mr. Walsh I haue endeuored to know the truth of those two Cardinals Bellarmin and Baronius and do find they were both holy humble men so farr from being hir'd by the Court of Rome that neither of them could be persuaded by it to accept of more for their maintenance than what was absolutely necessary for their dignity They liued and dyed in the list of the poor Cardinals both were named Cardinalls against their will both industriously sought to make themselues vncapable of the Popedom Twenty dayes did Baronius resist in the Conclaue the offers and importunities of the Cardinals his friends who were able and resolued to make him Pope vntill at length he persuaded them to choose Leo 11. Both these Cardinals virtues are so conspicuous that many press for their Canonization and it s belieued it will be obtain'd God working Miracles to testify that they deserue it This is the truth Mr. Walsh and the world blames you very much for calling such men Hirelings Impostors c. What shall your friends say to excuse you when they heare you call'd an ignorant spitefull heretik for calumniating such holy men as these Som who obserue your actions say you are hired to write these calumnies and that you haue chosen rather so base and mercenary a way to damn your self and others than to liue quiet and serue God in your Cell according to your rule and profession Good God Mr. Walsh is this possible Can you sell your own soul and the reputation of Saints for such paltrey stuff and at so low a rate as 200. per an If this be true you are vnhappy but Gods mercy expects your repentance for which we your friends can but pray Others think you despair not by your litle bookes and this great Volume to gain the fauor of temporal Soueraings I can not belieue they will by your persuasion degenerat from the example of their renown'd Predecessors and particularly from that of Constantin the great who was so far from making laws for ecclesiastical matters or persons or medling with matters of Faith that his saying and maxim was a Rufinus lib. 10. hist cap. 2. S. Gregor lib. 4. epist 45. speaking to the Bishops Ves Dij estis a summo Deo constituti aequum non est vt homo iudicet Deos I do not think I say Mr. Walsh that Christian Princes will degenerat from this example applauded by all the world when Christianity was in its primitiue purity to follow that of the Emperor Iustinian when he fell from the Faith of Christ Would it not be rashness both in Soueraigns and Subiects to preferr your bare testimony who are to my griefe reported to be the greatest lyar and Impostor in the world before the joint testimony of all orthodox writers and the practise of the whole Roman Catholik Church euer since it began to florish vnder Constantin the great Many except against your stile as well as against the matter You excuse page 43. of your Preface the meanness or rather sadness of your stile all along your book you took no care you say of the language though you took enough of the matter In my opinion you are more faulty in the choice of your matter than in your expression of it But you thought perhaps the matter was so good and necessary for the Saluation of souls that you b Ibidem pag. 43. enlarged often and repeated the same things not seldom where you needed not were your design to write only for the learned or those of quick apprehension But seing those you intended chiefly to speak vnto were the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland wherof very few are great Clerks you chose that manner of writing for their sake that the meanest of them might vnderstand whateuer you would be at I am sory to heare this Mr. Walsh will you disgrace your own nation One of them spoke thus to me of you How comes none of the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland to haue as quick an apprehension and as much learning as Peter Walsh their Countreyman and one who spent his time more idely than most of them Is it because his forwardness in promoting protestancy against his conscience and his importuning great men to be made an instrument
yourself Would you haue him exhort the Emperor to remoue from his mind the Popes thoughts or a papal condemnation What would you be at The Pope desires the Emperor to be charitable and to be recoucil'd to the Church Is this to acknowledge in him a full proper legal and supreme power of coercion of Clerks write sense Mr. Walsh and beg pardon of the prinrer and Reader for your book is a manifest nuysance to common sense a The case of Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen in Charles 5. time I will presume a little further vpon my Readers patience to let him see how wittily you confute Belarmins answer to Barclay obiecting against the Ecclesiastical immunity the case of Hermanus Archbishop of Cullen whom the Emperor Charles 5. summon'd to iudment Belarmin sayes he did it as Hermanus was a Prince of the Empire and not as he was a Bishop To this you say pag. 264. That Belarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that Ieer wherwith a certain Boor pleasantly check'd a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a Countrey clown hauing first admired and said this pomp was very vnlyke that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and som of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreouer he was a Duke and a Prince too the Clown replyed but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will becom of the Bishop Euen so doth Belarmin write as that seauant spoke that this Hermanus whom Charles 5. summon'd to appeare was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And euen so do I say and reply with the Countrey swain when the Emperor iudg'd the Prince of the Empire did he not I pray iudge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he iudg'd the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so for neither do I intend or mean or at least vrge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subiect to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Cittizens and politik parts of the body politik which Kind of authority as Belarmin confesses Charles 5. both acknowledged and vindicated to the Emperor Mr. Walsh if BèlarmÃn doth confess as indeed he doth that Clerks as men and Cittizens are subiect to the coerciue power and secular iudicature of temporal Soueraigns doth it follow that the Soueraigns can not exempt them as they are Clergymen from that very coerciue power and secular iudicature Heer you grant they are exempted as Clerks from it though in other places of your book you say its impossible they should be exempted vnless their Soueraigns cease to be Soueraigns I wish you did exempt and free yourself from these contradictions Indeed your story of the Countrey swain doth sufficiently conuince us of your great erudition but me thinks the application doth not so cleerly shew your incomparable acuteness You take the material man somwhat toogrossely You who are a Scotist should be better at your formal distinctions and consider in a man the form or quality of a Clerk or Churchman as raising him a degree aboue the natural or material manhood and common sort of mankind Saint Peter was more subtile he call'd the Priestood Regale Sacerdotium Not that the spiritual caracter of Priesthood or Episcopacy changes mans nature but his quality it places the person in a higher ranck than naturally he could arriue vnto Euen in human Creatures as such you may see this metaphysical distinction explain'd A Peer of the Realm is a man and as a man ought to be tryed by a common iury but his Peerage exempts him from that ordinary way of trial and yet he is still a man and can not euen as a man be tryed by twelue Commoners but by his Peers Jf the example of Subiects will not satisfy you consider that of Soueraigns Our ancient Kings of England did homage to the ancient Kings of France as Dukes of of Normandy Aquitain c. You will not deny they were men both as Kings and Dukes and did homage as men Doth it follow that because they were men and did homage as men they must needs do homage as Kings Or doth it follow that the King of France could not out of his respect to their Kingship exempt them euen as Dukes of Normandy and men from the supreme coerciue power of his Courts Would this vnking the French Kings I haue proued this to be consistent with Soueraignty and subiection in the 9. Animaduersion to which I remit you if you vnderstand not as yet how the same man may be priuiledged and punish'd vpon different scores What the Clown said is very true if God condemns the Bishop as he is a Prince to hell fire he must go thither also as he is a Bishop yet there is this comfort left to Bishops who are Princes God will neuer send them thither for maintaining the iust priuileges either of a Prince or Bishop but for som mortal sin vnrepented for which there is no priuilege or exemption I haue heard your story of the Bishop and Prince told otherwise viz that the Bishop lying a dying the Deuil appear'd to him as som think he doth to all men in that passage and tempting him to despair said he had don such and such things which were not sutable to his Episcopal function The Bishop answer'd he did not do those things as a Bishop but as a temporal Prince To this the Deuil reply'd I am a dull Deuil and can not vnderstand well those subtile distinctions as a Prince and as a Bishop therfote I will carry you to hell as you are such a man and as I find you without questioning whether you go as a Prince or as a Bishop I feare Mr. Walsh this will be your fate You will meet with som dull Deuil one as dull as yourself a Deuil that knowes not how to distinguish between Peter Walsh the Procurator and Peter Walsh the Friar He must be a very acute Deuil that can find out any formality or distinction to excuse your actings either as Procurator or Friar As Procurator you betrayd your trust and acted quite contrary to your commission and as a Friar you ought not to haue taken any without your Superiors leaue Therfore you being neither Prince Bishop nor lawfull Procurator but a poor simple Franciscan Friar suppose the Deuil had met you when you set out from Dublin well mounted and much finer I belieue in cloathes and ribands than the Bishop your Countrey swain was so much scandalized at and attended to search after those poor soules that hid themselues from your persecution suppose I say the Deuil should meet you and endeauor to hurry you with him to hell how could you find out any pretext to excuse your persecution