Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n bishop_n king_n thomas_n 3,072 5 7.6639 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A62533 The friar disciplind, or, Animadversions on Friar Peter Walsh his new remonstrant religion : the articles whereof are to be seen in the following page : taken out of his history and vindication of the loyal formulary ... / the author Robert Wilson. Talbot, Peter, 1620-1680. 1674 (1674) Wing T116; ESTC R24115 96,556 164

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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 Bi●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 Catholik● 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
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 foulmo●th'd Author that makes the two late greatest writers of the Church Cardinal Baron●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 Wal●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 Protesta●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 h●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
his King and Countrey by preaching and publishing Excommunications against the peace of 46. to the vain hopes of obtaining a Bishoprik from his master the Nuncius would make no scruple to haue three brothers put to death for a feign'd conspiracy against the life of a priuy Councellor What troubled me most in this intrigue was the loss of Sir Robert Talbots Estate and of a considerable summe for ten years Agency setled by Act of Parliament vpon him and the other Agents into which was inserted I know not how an obscure odd kind of clause of preference of payment in fauor of Mr. Milo Power as if he had bin a mor meriting and suffering Caualeer before Sir Robert Talbot and others both Agents and Caualiers And though euery one knowes Mr. Milo Power to be a very worthy gentleman and pleasant company it s also well knowen that though his affection to the Kings seruice be as great as any mans yet the possibility of shewing it or of loosing much for it was not comparable to the sufferings and seruices of those who lost the benefit of the Act vpon his account And indeed Sir Robert Talbot ought to be pittied because hauing bin employd by the publik he neglected his own particular concern meerly out of honor least it should be thought as it was reported but groundlesly of others that to secure his own estate he concurr'd to the ruin of his Countrey As for Friar Walsh his no less ridiculous than malitious obseruation and Comments vpon the most R. Father Olina his letter to me and my deuotion and respect to him and the whole Society I must own to the whole world I should be as ill a man and as great a lyar as Wash himself and that is the worst can be sayd of any man if I did not esteem very much and speake well of the virtue and learning of that Society Few can speake with more knowledge and none shall with less partiality I haue bin in most of their Prouinces of Europe I haue liued in their most famous Colleges and taught in som I neuer was in any College or Community of theirs where there was not one or more of known eminent Sanctity many of extraordinary virtue and none that I knew vicious I alwayes found their Superiors charitable and sincere their Procurators deuout their Professors humble though learned their yong masters of humanity and students of Philosophy or Diuinity very chast and if any gaue the least suspicion of being otherwise he was presently dismissed It is my greatest admiration how so great a body so generaly employ'd and trusted by the greatest Princes so conuersant in the world according to their holy institut can sauor so litle of it and liue so innocently as they do and euen forsake the best part of it Europe their many conueniencies and relations which are illustrious and banish themselues to Asia Afrik and America vpon no other account but that of sauing souls In their Schools they teach not those infamous doctrins which that foulmouthd Friar Walsh asperseth their Authors with and sayes I do practise but are very reserued in deliuering any larger opinion euen of the most famous writers for feare men should abuse and misapply their authority This is the substance of what I alwayes said and must say if I will speake truth of an Order wherin I haue liued many years with great content and truly so innocently through Gods grace and their example that the greatest sin I can charge my self with during my abode amongst them is the resolution I took of leauing them though perhaps erroneously I framed then a iudgement that the circumstances wherin I found my self did excuse it from being mortal But afterwards reflecting with more maturity and less passion vpon the positiueness of that my resolution notwithstanding the charitable offers of the Superiors aboue mentioned as soon as I knew I was design'd to be made Bishop I offerd to F. General Oliua and F. Ioseph Simons then Prouincial of England to re-enter into the Society but they thinking perhaps I could not be of any great seruice to it and edified with my sincere resignation of being directed in that particular as they iudged best for my saluation did of their own accord forward by fauorable informations and a better caracter than I deserued the promotion which the Court of Rome had design'd for me I hauing notice of this ciuility could do no less than write a letter of thanks to Father General Oliua and he answerd me in those vsual vnsignificant and general terms wherwith Generals of Regular Orders congratulat new made Prelats and wherupon Peter Walsh makes very silly but malicious reflexions to persuade the simpler sort of people that my promotion was carried on by the Iesuits as if it had bin a buisness of great importance for their Order or as if their Order had bin hugely concern'd in the discredit of his ridiculous Remonstrance which needed not be disgrac't otherwise than by saying it was his As for my answer to his petition against me presensented to the Councel in England I could not excuse answering it hauing bin commanded by the Lord Lieutenant and Councel of Ireland where I was to put in my answer which containd nothing but truth and so it appear'd to that honorable Bord which declared me innocent It was no other but that I neuer persecuted him nor any of his seuen Friars Remonstrants in whose behalf he petitioned neither did I nor could I excommunicat any Regulars who by the Roman Canons are exempted from the Ordinarys iurisdiction neither indeed did their own regular Superiors punish them for signing the Remonstrance but for cheating the people of money and for exacting it from the Kings Subiects by virtue of a counterfeit commission from the Pope I did afterwards tell som of the priuy Councellors and others that I was surprised to see such criminal persons countenanc't in prescribing ruler of loyalty to men whose families an well old Irish as old english had for these 500. years past stuck according to duty to the Crown of England and themselues had suffer'd so particularly vpon the same account That as to my own family the Nuncius and his Dean of Fermo endeuored to haue myself banisht out of Rome as an Ormonian that Sir Robert Talbots houses and Tenants were destroyd by the Nuncius party in Ireland his command taken from him himself imprison'd as hauing bin the only man in Ireland euen of the Ormonian party who would not giue his voto in a subsequent general Assembly for reiecting the peace of 46. notwithstanding that General Oneals Army was at hand and the Bishop of Clogher enraged at his speeches for the Assemblies reassuming the same peace which Peter Walsh had so disloyaly cry'd down from pulpit and press by commending so seasonably for the Nuncius and so seditiously against the Kings interest and safety D. Enos his libel against that peace and the proceedings of my Lord of
and vnity to expect if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification the iudgment of God alone and not proceed to the Censure of one an other especialy in the occasion then present of the grand Controuersy with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith itself and in itself abstracting so much from all personal failings in life and conuersation of either Bishop Priest or Laik Nor doth it matter it at present how or in what sense we must vnderstand this saying of Cyprian or euery or any particular branch of it further than that of Constantin and in his right meaning which I haue before giuen is paralell to it ANIMADVERSION 11. Friar Walsh his Idea of the doctrin and disciplin of the Catholik Church and of the equality of its Bishops THIS Explication and Comment of yours Mr. Walsh vpon Saint Cyprian and Constantins words concerning the Iudicature and Priuileges of the Clergy doth declare very wel that entertaining and pleasing Idea you tell the Catholiks of the three Kingdoms a Pag. 5. Dedicat. you haue had these many years wherin they are so much concern'd It can not be denyed but that its a very pleasant thing especialy for the Bishops to be so absolute so at peace and enioy such liberty amongst themselues that none but our Sauiour Iesus Christ can question them for the gouernment of their flocks or for any scandal of their own liues and conuersation This is your Idea and you say it was the sentiment of Saint Cyprian if you be not much mistaken and that Constantin the great had it from his writings and aduised the Bishops of the Nicen Councel according to this Idea to fall vpon the Arians and neuer trouble themselues with reprehending or correcting their own faults and frailties because all such things must be remitted to the day of Iudgment in the mean time euery Bishop hath his own proper abitrement pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae according to the pleasure of his own liberty and his own power I confess this is a great priuilege and more than euer the Roman Catholik Clergy euen the Pope himself prerended to for the Pope may be vnpoped at least for heresy But the Bishops of your Idea or Church Mr. Walsh are all Popes and yet can not be declared by any other Bishops or Cardinals to be deposed by Christ for any heresy or fault committed in gouerning their flocks Now though you declare yourself to be no Roman Catholik by this your parity of all Bishops and saying that by the immediat law of God the Pope hath no spiritual superiority or authority ouer other Bishops yet I hope you will giue temporal Soueraigns a superintendence or som power to keep those independent Bishops in order and Church disciplin at least you pretended so hitherto But now you say no. For Constantin and Saint Cyprians rule is that no Emperor no King none but Jesus Christ alone may order or iudge Bishops Vnus solus Iesus Christus habet potestatem proeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro iudicandi How com you then to fool vs hitherto and make the world belieue from the first page of your great volume vnto this 345 that temporal Soueraigns haue power and authority from God to correct not only the lay crimes but the Ecclesiastical faults of Bishops and to force them to keep the Canons Customs and disciplin of the Church Js this your zeal for the right of temporal Soueraigns Js this the scope and sense of your loyal Remonstrance Certainly it will be suspected you are a Cheat. Jf you be such a man Mr. Walsh you either were too scrupulous or did ouer act the Hypocrite when you refused the Bishoprick you say was ofterd to you by the Protestants I suppose in Ireland What could you desire more than to be equal with the Pope a Mr. Walsh his opinion of the validity of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Episcopacy and not accountable to any spiritual or temporal Superior vpon earth for the gouernment of your flock or yourself Especialy you hauing declared pag 42. n. 13. of your Preface that you hold yourself oblig'd in conscience for any thing you know yet to concurr with them who doubt not the ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Protestant Church of England to be at least valid And yea you haue read all whateuer hath bin to the contrary obiected by the Roman Catholik writers whether against the matter or form or want of power in the Consecraters by reason of their Schism or heresy or of their being deposed formerly from their sees By the way Mr. Walsh let me tell you that the Roman Catholik Church doth not ground its practise of ordaining absolutely and without any condition at all protestant Ministers who are conuerted and desire to be Priests amongst vs vpon their want of true and valid ordination proceeding from any Schism heresy or deposition of their Ordainers and first protestant Bishops for we all grant that neither Schism nor heresy of the Consecraters or their deposition makes an Ordination inualid as you see by what we hold of heretical Bishops but we ground the nullity of the protestant Episcopacy and ordination both vpon the inualidity of the protestant form of Episcopacy priestood and vpon their first Consecrater Parker vpon whose consecration all theirs doth depend neuer hauing bin consecrated a Bishop himself for besides many other proofs Iewel and Horn pretending to make out his and their own Episcopal consecration could neuer in their bookes printed to that purpose and in answer to Harding and Stapletons printed bookes and questions name then when it concern'd them most the Bishop that consecrated Parker nor produce as much as one witness of so publik and solemn a Consecration as his was pretended to be 50 years after This together with the 25. article of the Church of England declaring that Ordination is not properly a Sacrament because it requires no visible sign or ceremony and by consequence no imposition of Episcopal hands together with the Act of Parliament 8. Eliz. 1. is one of the chief grounds we haue to belieue the Protestant Bishops are not validly consecrated nor the Catholiks guilty of sacriledge in reordaining them when they are made Priests amongst vs. An other ground is the inualidity of the protestant Form for ordaining Priests and Bishops the Form I mean that had bin vsed since King Eduard 6. reign vntill the hapy restauration of King Charles 2 For after his restauration the Bishops themselues found our exceptions against the validity of King Eduards Form were reasonable and therupon were pleased to alter it adding therunto the words Bishop and Prust as we directed which or the equiualent are necessary to express the caracter receiued by the form and which were wanting in the old form a Sanders in Schism F. H●livood or Sacrobosco in hode●nuestig vera Christs Ecclesia c.