she was a woman yet her successors can not be excepted against vpon that score But speak seriously Mr. Walsh do you think it was in the power of those who explain'd the Oath of supremacy if any did explain it to alter the common known signification of words and giue them a quite contrary in matters of religion Sacraments and Oaths If it were there would be no religion in the world no Faith either human or Diuine How could you therfore imagin the Conuocation or euen the Parliament of England did or can alter the signification of words in an Oath wherin a man professeth his Religion or an important point therof Can any power vpon earth declare this form of baptism valid I Baptise thee in the name of the mother and sister and Brother by pretending forsooth that by an Admonition of the Conuocation or any earthly authority the word Mother signifies Father sister son Brother Holy Ghost Do you fancy Mr. Walsh that any iudicious protestant or any Parliament man in England will belieue you if you should tell him that his child is well-baptis'd by such a form and explanation Jf you wil read the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. 8. Eliz 1. You will find that the Kings of Englands supremacy is so spiritual and sublime that there needs no changing the signification of the word spiritual into temporal and that a King of England if he should think fit may according to the principles of the Protestaâ—e religion establih'd by the lawes of the land giue power by letters patents to any of his lay subiects to consecrate Bishops and Priests which is more than the Pope can do for he must a point a Bishop to ordain Priests and Bishops That the Kings of England may giue by their letters patents power to any of their lay subiects to consecrat Bishops and Priests is very cleer in the aforesaid statuts For by two of them there is giuen to the Queen's Highness her Heirs and Successors c. full power and authority by letters patents vnder the great seal of England from time to time to assigne name and authorise such person or persons at she and they shall think meet and conuenient to exercise vse enjoy and execute vnder her Highness all manner of iurisdictions priuileges preheminences and authorities in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or iurisdiction within this Realm or any other her Majesties Dominions or Countreyes Now Priestood being nothing but a spiritual power to consecrat Christ's body and bloud and forgiue sins and Episcopacy including besides the same a spiritual power to consecrat and ordain Priests and Bishops who can doubt but that by vertue of these words and Statuts the Queen might and her successors may by their letters patents and great seal giue power to any of their lay subiects to make a protestant Bishop or Priest seing by those letters patents any person that is a subiect receiueth full power to exercise vse execute enioy c. all manner of iurisdictions preheminences and authorities in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power c. This is no vain speculation Mr. Walsh but a known practise grounded vpon the 25. article of 39. of the english Protestant Religion it being declared therby that no visible sign or ceremony and by consequence no imposition of Episcopal hands hath bin ordain'd of God for any of these fiue commonly call'd Sacraments wherof holy Orders or Episcopal consecration is one And therfore it s no meruail the Parliament declared 8. Eliz. 1. that the first protestant Bishops were should be true Bishops though it could not be proued that any Bishops euer laid hands vpon them The Story is known In the beginning of Q. Elizabeths reign it was questioned whether the Protestant Bishops were true or real Bishops the Catholik Bishops who refused to consecrat any of them maintain'd they were not because they had not any protestant who was a true Bishop to consecrat them hauing nothing to shew for the Episcopal caracter but the Queens letters parents and therfore the Catholik writers prouokt them in print to name the Bishop who ordain'd or consecrated them as themselues pretended but fiue or six years before This appears in * D Stapleton in his Counter blast against Horn fol. 79. 301. and in his return of vntruths gaianst Iewel fol. 130. D. Stapleton Dr. Harding and other bookes against Iewel edit 1565. 1563. fol. 57. 59. All the world perceiuing at that time how none of the two protestant writers who vndertook to answer Iewel and Horn could name any that consecrated Parker of whose consecration depended that of all the rest nor produce any Registers therof as Harding in express terms demanded it was thought necessary for supplying this shamefull silence and repressing the insolency of the popish Aduersaries to declare the ground wherupon the protestants claim'd to be true Bishops and to be both legaly and validly consecrated Then was made the Statut 8. Elizab. 1. which begins Forasmuch as diuers questions by ouermuch boldness of speech and talk hath lately grown vpon the making and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm c. And though D. Bramhall late Protestant Archbishop of Armagh and others in their bookes do endeauor to diuert the protestant layty from reflecting vpon the consequences which euidently follow from this Act of Parliament as fauoring more the Kings supremacy and spiritual iurisdiction than true Episcopacy and pretend that this Statut doth not giue his Majesty power to make Priests and Bishops hy letters patents and that euen Harding and Stapleion excepted not against the validity but against the legality of the first protestant Bishops consecration and caracter yet the words of this Statut as also of those Catholik Authors admit of no such interpretation The Statuts words are very cleer so are those of the Catholik writers whose design was not to proue that Parker Iewel Horn c. were not protestant Bishops but that they were not true Bishops or Bishops at all They knew very well that they were legal protestant Bishops because they knew they had the Queens letters patents issued forth to the person or persons whether Bishops or not that matters nothing as cleerly appears in the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. And therfore D. Harding tells Iewel he doubts not but that he may shew him the Queens letters patents for his Episcopacy and by consequence that he was a protestant Bishop adding withall that he was no true Bishop because sayes he the Queen may giue the lands but not the caracter of a Bishop To proue then that they were both legaly and vasidly protestant Bishops the Parliament insisting vpon the purest protestant principles thought it sufficient to declare and make out that they were consecrated by virtue of the Queens letters patents and by som of hâ—r Majesties subjects whether lay or Ecclesiastiks was not thought material by any
other than to put the lawfull Proprietor in possession Mr Walsh see how heretical and destructiue your doctrin is Suppose a thing which hath happened and may happen very often Suppose I say an vsurper or Rebell will not go to confession or if he doth will not restore the vsurp't Kingdom or Prouince to his lawfull Soueraign according to his Confessarius his command Hervpon the Bishops of that Kingdom or Prouince according to their duty excommunicat the Tyrant or Rebell for his publik sin and contumacy in keeping out of his Kingdom the lawfull King He contemns their Censures Let me ask you this question Do the Bishops sin in raising of their own accord and as Bishops an Army against the Tyrant or Rebell only to put their lawfull King in possession Answer M. Walsh Do they sin I say in doing this duty would the Pope sin if as Pope he had don the same would Innocenâ— 10. haue sin'd if he helpt to raise an Army in defence of the late King or for the restauration of the present against that vsurper Cromuell would other Popeâ— haue sinn'd in doing the same in prosecution of theiâ— Spiritual Censures in case these had not seru'd theiâ— turn against the Barons when they excommunicated them for their rebellion against King Iohn or King Henry the third Is the whole Catholik Church guiltâ— of heresy and impiety for maintaining this doctrinâ— Speake out Mr. Walsh or at least retract for shamâ— this wicked destructiue principle and accuse not thâ— Church of God as asserting in itself a power preiudiâ—cial to Soueraigns that power I say which hath biâ— so often applied and of its own nature is so appliâ—abâ— to their safety and seruice Do not follow Blacklows he retical principles whom you page 43. 1. p. termâ— learned Priest of the Roman Communion though much for most of his bookes censur'd at Rome They are censured all and censured as Arch heretical And one of them obedience and Gouernment is censur'd for this very doctrin of yours viz. That Subiects sin if they endeauor to restore their disposest and exiled lawfull Soueraign And this Blaklow after all this you and the Blakloistes call a learned Catholik Priest Do you imagin that any Catholik or protestant Soueraign will permit you or a Chapter and Clergy that hold such an Author to be a Catholik and of eminent learning to liue in their Dominions and instruct their Subiects Retire retire to your Conuent good Father Walsh obey your Superiors retract your heretical doctrin so inconsistent with the safety of lawfull Soueraigns submit to the corporal punishment your General will inflict vpon you when you are absolued from so many spiritual Censures you haue incurr'd buisy your-self no longer with Church or state affairs seing you are not sit for either and are so ignorant that pretending to fauor the Soueraignty of Princes you make it vnlawfull for Bishops to ferue them and accuse the Church of heresy for claiming a power to correct with corporal punishments you and such Friars as you are ANIMAD 5. Whether the Roman Catholik Church hath fallen into heresy or hatherr'd enormously these last 600. years for contradicting Friar Peter Walsh his doctrin of a spiritual supremary in temporal Soueraigns and whether all the Roman Catholik Bishops of all the world haue bin for the same 600. years or as least are in this last Century either Traytors to their Soueraigns or periur'd to the Pope for taking the ancient and vsual eath before Episcopal Consecration IT S euident Mr. Walsh by your own words quoted in the first and second Animaduersion that one of the enormous errors wherwith you charge the Church of God for these last 600. years is that the 80. Popes the innumerable writers and all the Bishops therof deny'd to temporal Soueraigns that Supremacy which is attributed in the English oath of Supremacy and a Legislatiue power of making lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith We haue also quoted these your words of the page 40. n. 3. in your Preface to the Reader If the truth were known it would be found that Baronius and the rest following him were willing to make vse of any malicious vngrounded fictions whatsoeuer against Instinian the Emperor c. by reason his Lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen those of Faith are a perpetual eysore to them because these Lawes are a precedent to all other good Princes to gouern their own respectine Churches in the like manner without any regard of Bulla Coenae 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 for the gouernment of the Church c. To reform therfore this so long erroneus Church and to restore to Secular Princes that spiritual iurisdiction which is giuen them in the oath of Supremacy or a legislatiue power of making ecclesiastical lawes euen in matters of Faith by their own sole authority you Friar Walsh haue found out a Remonstrance wherin all this power and right is asserted and as you say ought to be taken by all loyall Subiects especialy the Bishops who renounce their allegiance by this ensuing oath to the Pope before their consecration which you set down in latin and I translate into inglish The Oath wherby according to Friar Walsh all Bishops are made Traytors pag. 19 Dedic IN. Elect of the Church N. from this hour forward will be faithfull and obedient to S. Peter the Apostle and to the holy Roman Church and to our Lord Pope N. as also to his Successors I will not be in counsel consent or fact that they may loose life or limb or be imprisoned or violent hands laid vpon them in any manner or any iniury don to them vpon any color whatsoeuer The Counsell wherwith they will trust me by themselues their Nuncios or letters I will not reueal to their preiudice The Roman Papacy and royalties of Saint Peter I shall help to retain and defend Saluo meo Ordine against all men I will treat honourably the Legat of the see Apostolik as he passeth by and returns and shall help him in his necessities I shall endeauor to conserue defend increase and promote the rights honors priuileges and authority of the holy Roman Church of our Lord the Pope and of his Successors I will not be in counsell fact or treaty wherin are plotted any sinister or preiudicial things against the Lord Pope or the Roman Church And if I know of any such plots against them I will endeauor to hinder them to the best of my power as also discouer them as soon as I can to the Pope himself or to som other that may giue him notice therof I shall obserue and cause to be obserued to the vttermost of my power the rules of the holy Fathers the Decrees Ordinations or dispositions reseruations prouisions and Apostolik Mandats I shall impugn and prosecute to my power Heretiks
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
Bishop of Rome his spiritual supremacy That 28. Canon pretends only precedency of Constantinople before Alexandria not before Rome But it s much to my purpose and I hope it will be for your profit to mind you how the Emperor Martianus after that the Catholik Faith had bin confirm'd by the Bishops subscriptions did propose somthings in fauor therof to the Fathers thinking it decent saith he to haue them rather form'd or regularly framed by their Decree than by his own Imperial law And the first point of the intended Reformation was that to hinder heresies and the disorders of irregular Monks which of late had so disturbed and infected the Church of God it might be decreed that they should be subiect to the Bishops and not medle with Ecclesiastical or ciuil affairs but serue God and keep within their Monasteries Well Mr. Walsh I see let your friends do all they can to excuse or extenuate your faults you are resolued to lay yourself and them open to your Aduersaries Did not I but iust now aduise you as your best friend not to medle with ecclesiastical affairs which are aboue your capacity and learning especialy these general Councells You see what this of Calcedon and the Emperor Martianus think of irregular religious men and how the generality of people take you to be one of that kind a disturber of the peace of the Church and a broacher of heresies Lord God! could not you be quiet what made you name at all this Councell of Calcedon Did you not know how seuere it is against such men as you are reputed to be I wish with all my heart you had neuer com out of your Conuent and that you were retired in your cell For God's sake quote no more general Councells they are very opposit to your wayes and doctrin This of Calcedon consisting of 630. Bishops at least own'd S. Leo Pope for Head of the vniuersal Church and in his name and by his authority Dioscorus was condemn'd and deposed See Leo his epistle 47. to the Councel sent by his Legats to reside therin saying In these Brethren a Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops Boniface and Basil Priests directed to you by the Apostolical see your Fraternities may belieue that I preside in your Synod And the Synod answers Truly you did preside as Head to the Members And the Legats sentence against Dioscorus was Sanctissimus ac Beatissimus Papa a The most holy and blessed Pope Leo Head of the uniuersal Church by vs his Legats with consent of the holy Synod being endow'd with Peter the Apostles dignity who is the foundation and rock of the faith and call'd Porter of the heauenly Kingdom hath depriued Dioscorus of Episcopal dignity and of all priestly functions Caput vninersalis Ecclesiae Leo per nos Legatos suos S. Synodo consentiente Petri Apostoli praeditus dignitate qui Ecclesiae fundamentum petra Fidei coelestis regni Ianitor nuncupatur Episcopali dignitate Dioscorum nudauit ab omni Sacerdotali opere fecit extorrem Mr. Walsh doth the Oath of Supremacy allow the Pope to be Head of the vniuersal Church or allow him so much spiritual iurisdiction as this Councel of Calcedon If not why do you quote it to that purpose Perhaps you may haue better luck with Prouincial Councells Let us see You alleadge S. Augustin and 217. Bishops of Afrik against Appeals to Rome in the case of Apiarius and you apply the same to the Oath of Supremacy Mr. Walsh if I be not mistaken Belarmin hath cleerly answer'd that obiection which you borrowed from Caluin as you do most others in your tedious volume from heretiks and Baronius in the very yeare and place quoted by you though you conceal it proues that S. Augustin and the Bishops of Afrik owned the Popes Supremacy and spiritual authority ouer them instancing the case of Antony Bishop Fussalensis of Numidia deposed from his Episcopal administration and reuenue by the Bishops of that Prouince He obtaining a letter of his pretended innocency from his Primat to Pope Boniface appeald to his Holiness Boniface dying his successor Celestinus fauored Antony yet with this caution and Prouiso in his letters if the matter of fact was true and Antony his narration not subreptitious Antony boasted much of this sauor and writ to his friends that the Pope not only gaue sentence for him but also would command the same to be executed by his Executors with military power Wherupon S. Augustin writ a letter to the Pope informing him of the truth and desired him to giue sentence for the people of Antony's Diocess which was the other party because the right was on their side and not to think vpon that violent way wherwith Antony threatned the poor people Permit not saith the Saint these things to be don I beseech thee per Christi sanguinem by the bloud of Christ by the memory of Peter the Apostle who admonisht the Prelats of Christian people not to domineer violently amongst the brethren Heer you see Mr. Wash S. Augustin and the African Bishops admitting of Appeals to Rome nay admitting in the Bishop of Rome right to a coerciue power for executing his sentence in Afrik though indeed they aduise him not to make vse of it in that case so did Ireneus aduise S. Victor the Pope not to excommunicat the Asian Churches albeit he doubted not of his power to excommunicat them Doth the oath of Supremacy allow the Pope such a Supremacy or such a latitude or extent of spiritual jurisdiction out of his temporal estate Let me once more intreat you Mr. Walsh per Christi Sanguinem not to betray your ignorance so manifestly not to expose your-self to the Censure and laughter of all who read Councells or Fathers Had it not bin much better for you not to haue intermedled with these matters wherof you vnderstand so litle than to be look't vpon as a vain ignorant heretik we your friends can not but be concern'd though we can say but litle for you ANIMAD 3. Whether it be rashness obstinacy and a sin in Roman Catholiks to refuse the Oath of Supremacy and Friar Walsh his Remonstrance MR Walsh I couple these two instruments the oath of Supremacy and your Remonstrance together because yourself makes no distinction between them as to the lawfullness of their being taken by Catholiks For though each of them seem to renounce the Popes spiritual authority a Pag. 24. 1. part yet you tell vs there is no such matter because Spiritual authority in those oathes Formularies signifies not Spiritual but temporal authority Seing therfore you are of opinion that the oath of supremacy may be taken with a good conscience by Roman Catholiks and that the whole Roman Catholik Church belieues and tells vs the contrary you haue no reason to be angry with Catholiks if they do not rely vpon your word in any point that concerns their conscience or religion and though your Remonstrance
down of Almainus his definition and I haue no exception against it though I haue against your sincerity in deliuering the sense of it in English The true translation of it is this One to be a King is nothing else than to haus Superiority towards Subiects and that in Subjects there be an obligation of obeying the King This you translate thus One to be a King is nothing else but to haue a politik both directiue and coerciue power of Superiority ouer all the people of his Dominions and that consequently there be obligation answerable on the same people as Subjects to obey him These are your words pag. 271. Take my humble aduice Mr. Walsh and let it be a general rule to you her after neuer falsify neuer add words to a definition or Author wherupon you build the force of your argument especialy in a matter of so great importance as this For if you do most men will be tempted to say you are a knaue and if your dispute be against the doctrin and practise of the Church they will add you are so obstinat that though you see the weakness of your cause you had rather support it against the Church by corrupting Authors and abusing illiterat Readers than embrace and declare the truth Our Controuersy with you Mr. Walsh is reduced to this point whether a King deuests himself of his Kingship when he grants to the Clergy his own Subiects an exemption from his Supreme coerciue power or from being cited or punished for crimes by his Secular Supreme Courts of Judicature but withall leaues them to be cited and punished by Bishops or som other Spiritual power which in cases of Treason degrades the delinquent and deliuers him ouer to the Secular Courts You say a King doth deuest himself of his Kingship by granting such a priuilege to the Clergy And you proue it by the definition of Kingship But not finding in the definition of Kingship any mention of coercire power as if it were essential to a King not to dispense in it or exempt a Subiect from it you thrust into the desinition the word coerciue power and very cleerly conclude from your own forgery that if a King doth exempt any Subiects from it he doth vnking himself as to them and makes them no Subiects To be a King Mr. Walsh as your own friend Almain tells you is to haue a Superiority ouer Subiects and Subiects to haue an obligation of obeying their King Both are consistent with such an exemption from the supreme coerciue secular power as the Clergy pretends to You say no. Why not pag. 269. Because the point of Lording commanding iudging punishing at least in som cases is the very essence of principality so that the Prince can not remit or quit this and withall continue Prince Certainly you are mistaken Do you belieue Mr. Walsh that God is a Soueraign Prince or Lord of his Angels and Saints in Heauen This is no impertinent question to one of your principles If God then be a Soueraign Prince or Lord of his blessed Angels and Saints in Heauen without doubt Soueraignty may well stand with an exemption from the Soueraigns coerciue power of punishing euer or in any case his Subiects for the Saints in Heauen are Gods subiects and yet by his special fauor and gratious priuilege are exempted from his supreme coerciue power of inflicting euer pain or punishment vpon them If therfore it be not against the Diuine Kingship or Soueraignty of God to haue Subiects exempted from his supreme coerciue power I see no reason why human Kingship and Soueraignty which is not so absolute but a shadow of the Diuine may not be consistent with an exemption from the supreme human coerciue power sure you will grant the Angels and Saints in Heauen are as properly Gods subiects and he at least as properly their Soueraign as any King is of his subiects vpon earth Therfore the nature notion and essence of Kingship Soueraignty or Superiority as such is consistent with an exemption of the subiects from the coerciue power of the Soueraign Perhaps you will say That the Saints in Heauen can not sin and therfore there can not be any coerciue power in God their King to punish them This Mr. Walsh makes nothing for you Though the Saints in Heauen can not sin yet still they are Gods subiects and he their Soueraign they are exempted from his coerciue power though his subiects Therfore Soueraignty and subiection doth not necessarily exclude an exemption in subiects from the soueraigns supreme coerciue power Let me ask you an other question Was the mother of God or S Iohn Baptist and other Saints who by a singular priuilege were preserued from sinning Gods subiects vpon earth And yet there was no absolute impossibility of their not sinning vpon earth and by consequence none of being punish'd by Gods coerciue power for sinning And yet they were exempt from any such coerciue power vpon earth Therfore an exemption from coerciue supreme power is consrstent with subiection and a possibility of sinning Be not startled at this Mr. Walsh it s no new doctrin t is but a smale parcel of that ordinary Theology and common sense which you want I will giue you a reason for all this and you can not deny it without declaring yourself an Atheist The proper nature notion and essence of Soueraignty or Superiority doth not consist in not exempting subiects from a supreme or superior coerciue power of punishing them but rather in hauing power to pardon or exempt them as well as to inflict the punishment they haue deserued or may deserue Nay if you be not very stupid you will easily perceiue that the notion of exemption or priuilege inuolues a subiection and dependency in the person exempted or priuileg'd as doth independency Soueraignty or Superiority in him that grants it How then can it be inferr'd from an exemption from a supreme coerciue power of Secular Soueraigns granted to their Subiects of the Clergy that these are no Subiects and they no Soueraigns Learn a litle wit Mr. Walsh and know that nothing argues greater Soueraignty in a Prince than a power of exempting such of his subiects as he thinks fit from his own supreme coerciue power for that very exemption is still a dependency or an argument of their subiects dependency and subiection as well as a mark of the Prince his fauor to them I hope you comprehend now how it was and is in the power of temporal Soueraigns Without deuesting themselues of their Kingship to exempt from their own supreme coerciue power their subiects of the Clergy You say they neuer did so de facto that shall be now examined A NIMADVERSION 10. Whether Christian temporal Soueraigns haue de facto exempted their Subiects of the Clergy from their Supreme Secular Iudicature and coerciue power FRiar Walsh sayes they did not and proues by particular instances that they neuer intended any such thing The first Prince therfore I
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
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. Hâ—livood or Sacrobosco in hodeâ—nuestig vera Christs Ecclesia c.
do supplicat your Majesty you be pleased to command by a most pious order that Peter Walsh a disturber of the peace in lieu of Peter the Inuader of the Church Alexandria be transported to foreign parts Would any man of sense iudge by this humble request that our King or any other to whom it were made had that spiritual authority in Ecclesiastical matters which you would fain flatter Soueraigns with Nay suppose his Majesty or the Parliament were pleased for the peace of the three Nations and to punish you for teaching and printing that Bishops as Bishops can not lawfully help or succor their King to pull down an vsurper or oppose any rebellion to send you to row in the Galleys of Tangiers or to the Baâ—bados to labor with the slaues in the Sugar Mills as you say pag. 357. one Chronopius a Bishop was sent to digg in the Syluer Mines by the Emperor Valentinian for appealing to him after he had bin condemned by an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70. Bishops would any one think that this Mission of yours to Tangiers or Barbados after you had bin condemned by the Church as an heretik for this doctrin could proue that the King or Parliament had power to gouern the Church or to make lawes in spiritual matters T is therfore to no purpose for me to confute these and other wild arguments of yours seing themselues sufficiently lay open your gross mistake and demonsttat your litle wit and iudgment But I will beg my Readers leaue and patience to relate your Achilles a The case of S. Iohn Chrysosiom in the controuersy of S. John Chrysostom Arcadius an Emperor also very Orthodo◠〈◊〉 Friar Walsh pag. 360. receiued the accusations against Iohn Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and thervpon hauing first ordered a iudicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop at last condemn'd and sent him with a guard of Soldiers farr off to exile Socrates lib 6. c. 16. Falad in Dial. And certainly Pope Innocent the first of that name who then gouerned the see of Rome where he inueighs bitterly against Arcadius and against Endoxia his Empress as against most grieuous Persecutors of so great and so holy a man doth not at all obiect that Arcadius being a meer lay man vsurped a iâ—dâ—â—iary power in Ecclesiastical matters or so against his own Bishop nor that he proceeded so against him out of or by a tyrannical power and not by any legal authority ouer him in the case but only reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded iustly against Chrysostom or in that he had not made right vse of the power which he had in the case and in a word in that he expell'd Chrysostom from his Episcopal throne before his cause had bin legaly and throughly sifted or iudged as it ought and consequently without obseruing the due formaliues or euen substantial or essential procedure in such case required by the law 〈◊〉 sayes he è throno suo re non iudicata magnum totius orbâ—s Doctorem Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Nor doth Chrysostom himself any where complain of the Emperor as hauing vsurped a power of iudging condemning or banishing him And yet we know he writ to seueral especialy to Pope Innocent many letters fâ—aught with complaints of the Emperors vniust iudgment and proceedings against him acknowledging Arcadius or at least supposing him still a legal Iudge though vniust as to the sentence in the case You haue the misfortune Mr. Walsh to contradict yourself in euery story you tell and by consequence you haue a special gift of discrediting your own writings and making your relation and comments vpon it incredible and ridiculous You say in the beginning of this story that Arcadius receiued the accusations against Saint Iohn Chrysostom and therupon hauing first ordered a iudicial procedure against that holy Bishop at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Soldiers farr off to exise A iudicial procedure Mr. Walsh is to proceed secundum allegata probata if Arcadius did so and was Chrysostoms lawfull Iudge Pope Innocent could not reprchend Arcadius as proceeding vniustly against him or say that he condemned him re non iudicata Js to condemn one according to a iudicial procedure and by a lawfull authority to condemn him re non iudicata When therfore the Pope reprehended Arcadius for banishing Chrysostom re non iudicata before his cause was sentene't he meant as is vnderstood by euery man of sense that Arcadius was not his lawfull Iudge and that he ought to haue expected the sentence of the Apostolik sea or a Catholik Councel of Bishops to which the Saint had appeald You see Mr. Walsh how you contradict yourself and how difficult a thing it is to contradict truth and to corrupt such Authors as tell it without being caught in a lye Heare then the true story of S. Iohn Chtysostoms controuersy with the Emperor Arcadius as it is related by S. Iohn himself Palladius and the same Authors which you quote Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and others ill affected to S. Iohn Chrysostom were employ'd by Eudoxia the Empress to depose that holy Prelat from his see his chief Accusers were som of his own Priests who could not endure his iust reprehensions for their faults Amongst other things himself sayes he was accused of too much familiarity with a certain woman and that he permitted people to receiue the communion after eating This accusation was heard by Theophilus and 36. Bishops of his and the Empress faction met at Calcedon and exhibited by two Priests of Constantinople which Chrysostom had excommunicated for notorious crimes The Saint had with him in Constantinople forty Bishops assembled to heare a charge of 70. articles giuen in against Theophilus but Thophilus who should haue stood at the bair in Constantinople sate as a Iudge in Calcedon and without any lawfull authority summon'd Chrysostom to appeare before him at Calcedon to answer the charge put in against him by the two excommunicated Priests But though the S. said he would appeare when soeuer the Iudges were lawfull and not parties yet the 40. Bishops who stuck to him signified to Theophilus that he should rather com to Constantiuople to cleer himself than call others to iudgment at Chalcedon Vpon this Chrysostom had sentence of deposition past vpon him at Chalcedon for contumacy forsooth And though he appeald to a Councell of Catholik and indisterent Bishops yet those of Chalcedon had so much interest with the Empress and shee with the Emperor as to haue Chrysostom halled out of his Church by Soldiers wherupon he retired to Bernetum of Bithinia But a sedition being feared in Constantinople for this iniustice the Emperor and the Empress also sent to desire him to return withall diligence which he did but as soon as he return'd he desired the Emperor as may be seen in his Epistle to Pope Innocent that his cause might be tryed in a lawfull Synod of Bishops so
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