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
bring to my purpose saith this honest Friar pag. 345. 1 part is that very same first and greatest of all Christian Emperors Constantin himself A Prince who as by the Confession of all sides and all writers was most pious and of all Princes deserted best of the Christian Catholik Churches so no man I think will haue the confidente to accuse him of hauing vsurped any kind of authority ouer Churchmen or practised any at all ouer them but what was allowed him by the lawes of God and nature a The Accusations of the Bishops offerd to Constantin but reiected by him as being an incompetent Iudge and approued also by the state ciuil and Ecclesiastical And yet this very great and pious Coustantin is he who in the General Councell of Nice or when it sate himself being present with them at Nice and often in the very session hall amidst the Council which was in his own Pallace there commanded the libels or petitions of accusitions and criminations offerd to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops and as a Iudge of them all of both sides and in such criminal matters commanded the same libels to be brought before him and receiued them albeit immediatly therupon hauing first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wisdom and piety and rebuking seuerely both the Accusers and accused for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire Indeed Sozamen tells vs that Constantin said in this occasion It was not lawfull for him as being a man to take vpon or vnto himself the cognizance of such causes when the Accusers and the accused were Priests But if Constantin said so at all without any kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of somexcess of reuerence and piety to their Order c. Mr. Walsh you tell vs heer a long story but let me tell you 't is not euery one can tell a story well or to purpose You must neuer bring a story for a proof of what you say if it makes against yourself and proues the quite contrary of what you quote it for you bring this passage of Constantin the great to proue that Secular Princes neuer exempted the Clergy from their own suprem Iudicature and yet S. Gregory b Greg. 4. Epist 75. Nicol. Ep. ad Mich. Imp. the great and Pope Nicholas quote the very same passage in their letters to the Emperors Mauritius and Michaël to shew those Princes how much they degenerated from the piety and proceedings of the great Constantin who acknowledg'd it was not lawfull for him to iudge or punish the Clergy You say Constantin receiued those libels as Iudge of the Bishops and Priests but Constantin himself said it was not lawfull for him to take vpon himself the cognizance of such causes But say you if Constantin said so at all without any Kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excesse of reuerence For if Constantin had said so indeed and withall mean'd to be vnderstood of euen meer lay crimes or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull in order to such crimes of Priests or euen also to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion c. He had neuer receiued the petitions either of the accusers or accused but remitted them on both sides to their own proper Iudges and Iudicatories the Tribunals of Bishops Nay the Bishops themselues at least such of them as were not particularly concerned in such criminations had likely admonished him not to giue eare or audience to the accusers of Bishops or at all receiued their libels as not being their competent Iudges And yet for any thing out of History none of them euer admonish'd much less reprehended him in this matter You doubt or at least would fain make others doubt whether Constantin said it was not lawfull for him to take cognizance of Ecclesiastical complaints or causes If Constantin said so at all You perceiue at length this story is not much for your purpose Why then did you mention it But why do you doubt of this part of the story and not of the rest You haue the same authority for this which you haue for the whole and when you take any thing vpon authority you must take all or nothing Jt had bin more for your purpose to haue resolutely denyed the whole story as most men do who defend such an ill cause as yours when the story makes so pat against you But if Constantin said so at all he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excess of reuerence and piety to their Order for if he mean'd to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull or to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge he had neuer receiued the petitions but remitted them to their own proper Iudges What do you mean Mr. Walsh Must Constantin be supposed to haue spoken one thing and meant the quite contrary Had he no other buisness ac Nice but to compliment the Bishops and tell them lyes so preiudicial to his own right and authority Is it the style of Soueraigns to declare that their Subiects ought not be iudged by the Supreme Secular Judicature Why must men suppose these absurdities Mr. Walsh Because forsooth if Constantin meant to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word lawfull when he said he was no lawfull or competent Iudge of the Clergy he had neuer receiued the petitions but remitted them to their own proper Iudges I beg your pardon Sir Princes can not diuine what men put in their petitions they can not well reiect them before they are informed of the contents Jndeed you are in the right when you lay that Constantin ought to haue remitted the Clergy to their own proper Iudges if he did not think himself one And the same Authors a Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè iudicamur vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari propter quod Dei Solius inter vos expectate iudicium vestra iurgia quaecunque sunt ad â—â—ud Diuinorum reseruentur examen Soz lib. 1. cap. 16. who tells you the story tells you he did so his words are God hath constituted you Priests and gaue you power to iudge also of vs therfore we are rightly iudged by you but you can not be iudged by men wherfore expect the iudgment of God alone and reserue your differences whateuer they be to that diuine examination What cause then had the Catholik Bishops to admonish or reprehend so pious an Emperor who remitted them to God and his Diuine Tribunal What wonder is it you find no mention of any Bishops complaint admonition
Emperors admiring Exclamation imports and signifies the Appellants ignorance or peruersness in appealing to himself a lay person in ecclesiastical affairs For you confess if he did remit them to Episcopal Iudges that is a sufficient proof of his reprouing their appealing to himself But howeuer this be say you it s enough that Constantin admitted the Appeal How did he admit of it Doth not Saint Augustin tell you how he admitted of it yielding to their mad animosities to put an end to them insanissinus animositatibus suis How did he admit of it with a resolution to ask pardon of the Pope and those Bishops who ioynd with him in the sentence giuen by them against the Donatists in Rome Eis ipse cessit vt de illa causa post Episcopos iudicaret à Sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus He knew very well that himself could not iudge of Ecclesiastical matters he knew also very well that after the Bishop of Romes sentence giuen in the same there was no need of any other euen of Bishops in a Councel Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudicium aliorum scilicet Episcoporum non quia iam necesse erat Why then did the Emperor Constantin admit and remit the Donatists appeal after the Pope had condemned them to the Councel of Arles The Saint tells you in the very next following words Non quia iam necesse erat sed eorum peruersitatibus cedens omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Are not you then as peruerse and as impudent as the Donatists when you quote S. Augustin for your imposture when you deny that Constantin was drawn against his will to admit an Appeal from the iudgment or sentence of the great Pontiff I am sure say you S. Augustin neuer reprehends it What needed S. Augustin the Pope or any Bishop reprehend a pious Emperor that acknowledg'd his own fault and resolued to ask pardon for it veniam petiturus though he was forc't to commit it by the impudency and peruersness of a powerfull faction of the Donatists threatning to disturb the whole Empire Are not you wors than the Donatists Mr. Walsh when you say pag. 349. S. Augustin insinuates that the sole iudgment of Melchiades Pope had he vndertaken any such himself alone in this controuersy as it was then had bin vsurpt or had bin so if he had without the Emperors special delegation presumed to determin it but together with those other his French Collegues For Augustin treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their proceedings c. obiects to himself in behalf of the Donatists Ep. 162. thus An fortè non debuis Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarints â—pipopts illud sibi vsurpare iudicium quod ab Afris septuaginta vbi Primas Tigisitanus prasedit fuerat terminatum To this what doth Augustin answer Certainly he doth not deny that such iudgment of Melchiades might be iustly thought in tâ—e case to be vsurped but excuses the iudgment of Melchiades which realy de facto was not that which only â—ight be falsely supposed or bruited to haue bin and defends it that so was truly by saying again thus Quid auod necâ—â—ipse vsurpauit Rogatiâ—s quippe Imperator Iudites misit Episâ—opes qui cum eo viderent de tota illa causa quodinsium videretur Hoc probamus Donatistarum precibus verbis ipsius Imperatoris So Augustin a S. Augustin abused by Mr. Walsh Js it possible Mr. Walsh you will haue the Pope be an vsurper of the Imperial authority in case he should without the Emperors delegation or leaue decide a Controuersy between Bishops which caused so great a schim in the Church as that of the Donatists Js it possible you will quote for this mad error S. Augustin Do you belieue Melchiades receiued his authority for iudging the Controuerly of the Donatists and Caecilianus from Constantin Js it because Constantin commanded three french Bishops to ioyn with the Pope in that matter therfore they must be of equal authority with the Pope in deciding it or any other Controuersy of Religion Was this S. Augustins opinion Read ouer again that 162. Epistle of Saint Augustin You will find you mistake or abuse him and your Readers all along Allmost in the beginning of that Epistle he tells the Donatists that Caecilianus needed not feare or value the conspiring multitude of his Aduersaries who were 70. Bishops with their Numidian Primat And why Because he was in Communion with the Roman Church wherin alwayes the principality of the Apostolik Chaire was of force in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus and where he was ready to haue his cause tryed vbi paratus esset causam suam dicere Not a word heer of vsurpation of authority to iudge of this or any other cause in case the Pope should do it without the Emperors delegation or desire The principality of the Apostolik Chair is the Popes warrant to iudge of all Ecclesiastical controuersies according to Saint Austin not the Emperors Commission or delegation But how coms the Emperor Constantin to make the Pope his delegat in this matter How coms Saint Augustin to say the Pope did not vsurp his iudging it because the Roman Emperor being desired sent Bishops Iudges who might sit with the Pope and iudge of the whole cause what might seem iust First I do not see that Constantin delegated or gaue the Pope any power to iudge but only sent other Bishops to sit and iudge with him The vsurping therfore which S. Augustin speakes of heer is not any vsurpation of authority as if the Pope had not any to iudge such matters without the Emperors delegation or approbation but the Emperor hauing bin chosen by the Donatists as Arbiter and not hauing bin excepted against by Caecilianus or hauing bin desired to name Ecclesiastical Iudges in this cause it might seem to the Donatists that Melchiades had thrust himself into a matter which was with the consent or permission of both parties to be determined by the Emperors arbitration or by Iudges which he was desired to appoint Rogatus quippe Imperator Iudices misit Episcopos qui cum eo sederent But the Emperor sending these Iudges he had appointed to Pope Melchiades and bidding them ioyn in iudgment with him is not to giue authority of iudging to the Pope but rather to confirm by the Papal authority the Bishops iudgment And therfore S. Augustin had reason to tell the Donatists the Pope did neither vsurp any authority or intermedle in their controuersy officiously without hauing bin appeald to or without being desired by the Emperor to whom they had remitted both the matter and the manner of deciding it But what shall we say of your ingenuity Mr. Walsh if it appears out of the very places or Epistles you ouâ—te of Saint Augustin for maintaining temporal Soâ—â—raigns iudicature in ecclesiastical matters and his insinuating that the Pope would vsurp the Emperors authority
if he had iudged this cause of Caecilianus without his Maiesties commission it should be demonstrated that Saint Augustin maintains the quite contrary and reproaches the Donatists that euen against their own holding the Emperor not to be a competent Iudge of Ecclesiastical differences they made vse of him in this controuersy and at the same time found fault with Caecilianus and Felix a An fortè sicut quidam dixit quod quidem cum nobis diceretur displicuit sed tamen praetermittendum non est Ait enim quidam non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari iudicio purgarâ— c. for defending themselues before a Secular Iudge A Certaine man saith Saint Augustin meaning one of the Donatists themselues said a thing which you are not willing to heare but must be told you this man said A Bishop ought not be cleerd by the iudgment of a Proconsul This the Donatists obiected against Bishop Felix because Aelianus by Constantins command had examined the whole matter again and declared Felix innocent What doth Saint Augustin answer to this obiection As if forsooth Felix or Caecilianus had sued or desired such a iudgment quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit Jt was at the instance of the Donatists not of the Catholiks a lay man iudg'd the matter and supposing the Emperor took vpon him the arbitration or iudgment of it whether with consent of the parties or only with permission of Felix and Caecilian who could not help themselues any other way supposing I say the Emperor took vpon himself the examination of the matter he was bound in conscience to haue a great care to find out the truth that innocency might not be oppressed and the innocent Bishops had no reason to refuse or hinder the relief and remedy they found by that examination And therfore S. Augustin answers the Donatists obiection Non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari iudicio purgari Quasi vero ipse sibi hoc comperauerit ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserit ad cuius curam de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset res illa maximè pertinebat Arbitrum enim Iudicem causae traditionis Schismatis illi eum fecerant qui ad eum etiam pretes miserant ad quem posteà prouocarunt tamen iuditio eorum acquiescere noluerunt Out of these words you see Saint Augustin sayes it belong'd to Constantins care most of all to examin or inquire into that matter because the Donatists had desired him to be Arbiter or iudge of it and Caecilianus and Felix did not or rather durst not except against him as appears by the Saints words excusing these two for not excepting against that lay Iudge which the Donatists impos'd vpon them and taxing these for recurring to him Wherfore saith Saint Augustin Ep. 162. a Itaque si culpandus est quem Iudâ—x â—errenus abâ—oâ—uit cum ipse â—bi hoc non proposcisset quâ—nto magiâ— culpandi sunt qui terrenum Râ—gem suae causae iudicem esse voluerunâ— Si autem criminis non est prouocare ad Impâ—ratorem non est criminis audiri ab Imperatore Ergâ— nec ab illo câ—â— causam delegauerit imperator D Aug ibid. Quendam euam suspenâ—um eculeo in causa Felicis Episcopi amicus ille voâ—uit criminati c. quoted by yourself Mr. Walsh if he ought to be blamed who is deâ—lared by a temporal Iudge when he desired none such how much more are they to be blamed that would needs haue a temporal King to be Iudge of their cause But if it be no crime to appeal to the Emperor sure it is no crime to be heard by the Emperor Therfore neither is it any to be heard by him to whom the Emperor did delegat the cause This is a good argument ad hominem against the Donatists They also obiected against the Bishop Felix that one was tortured in the examination of his cause to wrest the truth from him Saint Augustin excuses Felix from being any way blameable in that buisness Nunquid poterat Felix saith he contradicere ne tanta diligentia vel seueritate quaereretur cum eius causam inueniendam cognitor agitaret Quid enim erat aliud nolle sic quaeri quam de crimine confiteri How could Felix hinder the diligence or seuerity of him that inquired into that cause would he not haue confessed himself guilty if he had obstructed that examination Heer you see Mr. Walsh how S. Augustin blames the Donatist Bishops for repairing to a lay Iudge but excuses the Catholik Bishop Caecilianus and Felix for defending themselues before a lay Iudge whom they did not desire to be Iudge of that Ecclesiastical cause There is great difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Many things are lawfully don in a man's defence when he is violently or vnreasonably assaulted which are not lawfull when don otherwise The same practise of the Donatist Bishops recurring a Friar Walsh imitats the Donatists example in his persecuting Catholiks Bishops to a secular Iudge of their own accord and taxing the Catholik Bishops with a crime for answering and defending themselues when they are recommanded to appeare before the same Iudge doth Saint Augustin obiect in his 48. Epistle also which you quote as fauoring the quite contrary Nay Saint Augustin himself say you pag. 350. openly sayes and auers that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselues were to be reprehended on this account that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of or accusations against other Bishops to a secular Iudicatory For thus he writes Ep. 48. Si autem sicut falsò arbitramini verè criminosum Caecilianum iudicandum terrents potestatibus tradiderant quid obijâ—itis quod vestrorum praesumptio primitus fecit he speaks to the later Donatists quod eos non arguerimus sayes he quia fecerunt si non animo inuido noxio sed emendandi corrigendi voluntate fecissent Therfore Saint Augustin sayes that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesiasticks to demand the iudgment or sentence and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes is not reprehensible if the accusers proceed not in such or indeed any other application out of enuy or malice Thus you Is it the part of a Christian writer Mr. Walsh to impose vpon his Readers such falshoods as you do and then vpon that great Doctor of the Church Saint Augustin This great Doctor writ that Epistle 48. to proue it was lawfull for Churchmen to implore the protection and help of secular Princes and the execution of their lawes against heretiks and schismatiks but not their Iudicature as is euident by the text And because Rogatus and other Donatists reprehended the Saint for changing his former opinion into this which he now defended he retorts their arguments and puts them in mind of the ancient Donatists practises against Caecilian shewing how inconsequently and absurdly they argued against the punishment of conuicted heretical
to giue an account to the Emperor of their proceedings And Stephen not finding any crime against them he and som of his Priests hired or persuaded a Harlot to accuse Euphrates as if he had artempted to be dishonest with her but she not hauing bin fully instructed or not following punctualy his instructions the fraud of Stephen and his Priests was discouered and himself deposed by the Arian Bishops by command of the Arian Emperor who began then to suspect that a religion maintain'd by such villanies could not be good How Stephen's case recounted either after your own way or that of Saint Athanasius can be for your purpose I do nor perceiue for we Catholiks not only confess but desire that such declared and condemnd heretiks as Stephen and you be corrected and punish'd by the secular power though you should plead the priuileges of Churchmen You haue forfeited all such exemptions as soon as you declare yourselues heretiks But you tell us an other pretty story how S. Athanesius Bishop of Alexandria and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed from their sees by other Bishops and hauing their refuge to the Emperor Constance in the west he at their instance and earnest petition and euen in a cause merly ecclesiastical but for the relief of innocency oppressed wrongfully sent letters to his brother Constantius wherin as Socrates writes lib. 2. c. 12. and Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 9. he signifies his pleasure that three Bishops be sent from the east to giue him an account of the causes why Athanasius and Paulus had bin deposed c. In which procedure of Constance I belieue our very Antagonists will not haue the confidence to say there was any vsurpation being that such religious Orthodox Bishops as this Paul and Athanasius and so rigidly obseruant as they of ecclesiastical discipline were his Authors and Petitioners to reassume the iudgment of themselues albeit in a cause purely ecclesiastical or which onely or at least chiefly concern'd a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bishops from their Episcopal sees pronunced against them by a Council of other Bishops But whether our said Antagonists will or no pretend therin any vsurpation I am sure the matter of fact is true as I am sure also that euen natural reason itself will force them to confess there was a supream right in â—onstans to relieue by all due means oppressed innocency and that there was no other way so ready iust and equitable as this which he took a The case of S. Athanasius and Paulus I haue in other occasions aduiled you Mr. Walsh neuer to bring stories which make against yourself but I see you are resolued to continue that course Howeuer I will now aduise you that when you quote such passages let them not be those which are most obuious and of persons so generally known that its impossible to conceal your imposture Is there any thing more known or celebrated in the ecclesiastical History than Saint Athanasius his disputes and differences with the Arians Why then are you so vnwary in your wicked way of corrupting Authors and abusing Readers as to say that S. Athanasius and Paul were earnest Suitors and Petitioners to the Emperor Constance to reassume the iudgment of themselues albeit in a cause purely ecclesiastical Doth Socrates or Sozomen say this Doth any writer but your lying self say it Would any but so dull and sensless a man as you print it To what purpose should those two Patriarks of the East petition the Emperor of the west to reassume the iudgment of a cause or fact that had no relation to his Dominions or iurisdiction Do not you know that this Emperors iurisdiction was limited by the Alps and that Epypt and Asia was vnder that of Constantius his brother How com you then to say that Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria in Egypt and Paul Patriark of Constantinople were earnest Petitioners to an Emperor only of the west part of Europe for reassuming the iudgment of a cause depending in Constantinople and Egypt That out of his zeal he writ to his Brother Constantius and threatned to make warr against him if he did not let those Patriarks return and gouern their sees we confess but that these two holy men euer petitioned to him to reassume the iudgment of that matter which only can make for your purpose is one of your accustomed fictions and impostures Would not they be Rebells against their lawfull Soueraign according to your own principles if they had don so Hath the passion you haue to establish your heresies so blinded you and blotted out of your soul all truth and common sense that you can not see your own contradictions You do not tell your Reader that those two Patriarks were restored to their sees by the Catholik Councel of Sardica and that they were deposed by an Arian Conuenticle You only say they were deposed by other Bishops What Bishops Do you incline to Arianism also make you no difference between Bishops and Bishops Catholiks and Arians Jf Athanasius and Paul had bin deposed by such a Catholik aecumenical Council as that of Sardica which restored them to their sees they had bin as iustly banisht by the Emperor as you may be by any Christian Soueraign after you haue bin excommunicated by your Superiors and declared an heretik by yourself in print You haue an admirable wit and faculty Mr. Walsh in arguing against yourself To proue that Emperors and temporal Soueraigns haue a power inherent in them to make ecclesiastical lawes and that de facto they did punish Church men by their own sole authority you quote examples of Bishops punished and banished by them after they had bin deposed and degraded by the Pope and Councils How many times hath Belarmin told Caluin and others from whom you borow all your obiections but as they also do you conceal his answers that temporal Soueraigns not only may but are bound in conscience to protect the Church by punishing according to law such as are declared by it heretiks deposed from their Bishopriks or degraded You argue against yourself when pag. 360. you quote S. Leo the Popes words Ep. 81. to Leo the Emperor wherin he begs of him to banish from Constantinople those of the Clergy which fauored heresy seing Anatolius the Bishop of that see was remiss in doing that his duty Vouchsafe saith the Pope for your Faiths sake to do this fauor to the Church or to apply this remedy to it you argue against yourself Mr. Walsh when you quote the words of the Pope Simplitius Ep. 9.11 beseeching the Emperor Zeno Vt quod per nos Ecclesiae serio postulat imò quod ipsi specialius supplicamus Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae Peruersorem ad exteriora tranferri pijssima praereptione inbeatis Suppose Mr. Walsh the Pope or the General of your Order should write to the King or England these very same words The Church by me doth seriously desire and I more particularly
farr was he from acknowledging the Emperor to be lawfull Iudge either of his cause or of his banishment Som months after Chrysostoms return he reprehended the sportes and playes which were acted almost at the Church door with so much profaness and noyse that the Diuine seruice and Sermons could scarce be heard But because this stirr was kept in honor of the Empress Endoxia and at her statue which was set vp neer the Church vpon a noble pillar she interpreted Chrysostoms zeal to be but animosity against herself and sent priuatly for those Bishops which had formerly condemned and deposed him at Chalcedon to the end they might renew or confirm that sentence or any other by virtue wherof he might be deposed and banished They finding no crime wherupon to ground his deposition pretended it was a sufficient cause for it that hauing bin lately deposed by themselues in their Synod of Calcedon he return'd to take possession of his see without the sentence of an other Synod greater than that which had deposed him alleaging this to be against a Canon made in a Councell of Antioch But the Saint replyed it was a Canon made by som Arian Bishops against S. Athanasius and therfore of no force Heerupon the aforsaid Bishops and Eudoxia importuned the Emperor Arcadius to banish Chrylostom assuring him that their sentence therof was iust taking vpon their own souls the sin and blame therof The Emperor at their instance sent a Message to Chrysostom to be gon but he answering that he had receiued the charge of that Church from God to procure the saluation of souls and therefore could not leaue it vnless he were forc't away the Emperor sent soldiers to do it Then Chrysostom appeald to Pope Innocent the first vsing these words I beseech you write and by your authority decree that these wicked transactions be of no force as of their own nature they are voyd and null we hauing bin absent and not refusing iudgment those who haue don them make them subiect to the Censure of the Church But we who are innocent and not coâ—â—cted nor found guilty of any crime command to be restored to our Churches to the end we may enioy peace and charity with our brethren You see Mr. Walsh whether S. Iohn Chrysostom owned the Emperor to be his lawfull and supreme Iudge You see how he appeals from his iudgment to the Pope Now you shall see how the Pope not only reprehended but punish't iudg'd and excommunicated the Emperor declared voyd Theophilus and all the other Bishops sentence Innocent his words are I the last of all and a sinnâ—r yet hauing the throne of the greate Apostle Peter committed to me do separat thee and her Eudoxia from receeiuing the immaculat Mysteries of Christ our God and euery Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to minister or giue to you those holy Mysteries after the time that you haue read these present letters of my binding I pronounce them deposed from their dignities c. Arsacius whom you plac't in the Bishops throne in Chrysostom's room though he be dead we depose and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops In like manner we depose all other Bishops which of purposed aduice haue communicated with him c. To the deposing of Theophilus we add Excommunication Arcadius writ a submissiue letter to the Pope excusing himself and laying all the blame vpon the Bishops and Eudoxia saying he was ignorant of their iniustice against Chrysostom therfore beg'd that himself and Eudoxia who he said was sick and had bin seuerely reprehended by him might be absoluted from his Holiness Censures The Pope accepting of this excuse and submission restored them both to the Ecclesiastical communion This is the true story of S. Iohn Chrysostom out of which Mr. Walsh you may gather 1. That Areadius did not as much as pretend to be Iudge of S. Iohn Chrysostom or of his cause 2. That neither the Saint nor the Pope nor euen the factious Bishops who met at Chalcedon pretended there was any power in the Emperor to iudge or sentence the person or cause of Iohn but only to banish him pursuant to the sentence of the Conuenticle of Calcedon who took vpon themselues the sin of that action at which the Emperor scrupled as you haue heard 3. That when the Emperor commanded Iohn to be gon from his Church the Saint would not obey him as not being his Iudge and therfore the soldiers forc't him away Would such a great Saint as this haue disobeyed if he thought the Emperor had any lawfull power or iudicature ouer him in that matter It were an endless and superfluous labor to follow this wild Friar wandring vp and down the Ecclesiastical History with so litle iudgment that though he can not find therin any thing for his purpose yet is sure allwayes to fix vpon those examples which make most against him as we haue seen hitherto and any one may see in his own book wherin he instances half a dozen other Princes actions som wherof were confess'd heretiks as Theodoricus the Arrian This Prince though an Arian saith the iudicious Friar pag. 357. as to his belief of the Trinity of persons or Diuinity of Iesus Christ yet in all other points of Christian Religion he was precise wary and strict enough It s very likely a man who denyed the Trinity and the Diuinity of Christ would be very precise in belieuing and strict in not violating the Clergyes Priuileges The Catholik Princes did but execute the laws against Bishops when these were deposed and declared heretiks by the Church and that somtimes at the express petition of the Popes or Councells themselues and yet this dull Friar thinks this is a confession and acknowledgment of the Clergyes subiection in spiritual matters to temporal Soueraigns as Iudges therof What man in his wits would quote as this Friar doth pag. 361. these words of Pope Iohn 2. in his letter to the Emperor Iustinian as an euidence of â—ay Soueraigns iudicature or supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs It s fit that they who obey not our Statuts be esteemed out of the Church But because the Church neuer shuts her bosom to those who return to it I beseech your Clemency that if those men hauing for saken their error and bad intention will return to the vnity of the Church and be receiued in your Communion that you will remoue the sting of your indignation and at our intreaty grant them the fauor of a benign mind Perhaps you Reader see not any thing in those words for Peter Walsh his purpose at least I do not see where the acumen lyes But we are dull Obserue saith this acute Friar that he the Pope sayes your indignation not our condemnation Mark that Sir Well I see these searching and subtile wits are strange things they find out Mysteries where there are none Mr. Walsh would you haue the Pope speake nonsense like