or reprehension in his History against Constantin You will needs haue it that Constantin by his own sole authority banish'd and restored Bishops and Priests amongst others you instance both S. Athanasius a The case of Athanasius and Arius and the heretik Arius You impart to vs pag. 347. this general obseruation You shall neuer find that any Councel especialy this of Nice forc'd or gaue sentence of forcing corporaly a Bishop from his see and Citty and haling him into banishment but only a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gaue him formerly And on the other side you shall euer see So the the print must be corrected putting Neuer for Euer it was the Prince alone that by his own royal power onely sont Bishops to exile Nay and this too not seldom without any preuious sentence of deposition by other Bishops as also that not seldom also the sole exile of a Bishop from his see by the only sentence of the Secular Prince was by the Church held for a sufficient deposition of such a Bishop and that the Clergy proceeded to election and consecration of an other when the Prince desir'd it as holding the see absolutely vacant Mr. Wash General rules and obseruations ought to be well considered before they be prescrib'd because there are few which admit not of som exceptions But yours is so totaly false that you can not name as much as one partioular to giue the least colour of probability b Mr. Walsh his general rule failing in euery particular to your vniuersal proposition I challenge you to name any one Catholik Emperor or Soueraign that banished or deposed any Catholik Bishop or Priest by his own sole authority or before they had bin deposed by the Pope or other Bishops Your instance of S. Athanasius and Arius are ridiculous Was S. Athanasius banished by Constantin before the Tyrian Synod such as it was had deposed him and banisht him also from Alexandria Were not the Arian Bishops deposed and banisht also by sentence of the Nicen Councel as well as Arius himself Jts true the sentence was not put in execution because they submitted and subscribed to the Councells Creed But yet you see how Socrates and others tell you that though Arius submitted yet the Councel reserued vpon him that part of his sentence which banisht him from his home Alexandria Was this no coerciue corporal punishment inflicted by a spiritual power or by Bishops as Bishops How ignorantly or disingeniously then do you reprehend Baronius in this particular pag. 347. That great Annalist as you call him knew very well how to distinguish twixt a meer ecclesiastical or meerly spiritual sentence of deposition and a ciuil imperial sentence of exile Constantins sentence of exile against Arius was long after this of the Councel and was but a continuation or confirmation of it as Baronius tells you Neither did Constantin recall Arius from his banishment vntill he thought he was canonicaly pardon'd or cleer'd and restored by the Synod of Hierusalem But why name you not at least the Bishop whose exile by the sole temporal authority was iudged by the Church for a sufficient deposition of such a Bishop Now Mr. Walsh I will giue you a general rule or obseruation against which you can not find any exception and it is that the general practise of the Church is eo ipso that a Clergyman is declared an heretik and therfore deposed or degraded in that declaration or sentence is inuolued and vnderstood exile imprisonment or whatsoeuer corporal punishment the lawes prescribe This appears by the ancient Canons of Councells and true practise of the Church and yourself grant it by what you quote pag. 348. out of the Councel of Calcedon Act. 4. Si autem permanserit turbas faciens seditiones Ecclesiae per extraneam potestatem tanquam seditionem debere corripi If a Churchman will continue to make tumults and seditions in the Church he ought to be punisht as a seditious man by the secular power Reflect Mr. Walsh vpon yourself and consider whether according to this generall rule of the Church you ought not be punished by the secular power as a seditious man You continue still your seditious doctrin You would fain set the Church and state by the eares and incense temporal Soueraigns against their spiriâ—ual Fathers and Pastors God gaue the temporal sword to Princes that they may protect his Church and that is the principal end of their power and hitherto most of the Christian Soueraigns haue employd their power and sword that way therfore it s neither necessary nor decent that Churchmen should take the sword out of their hands or manage it against heretiks and Preachers of sedition That 's don to their hand But indeed rather then such an heretik and seditious fellow as you should pass without correction the lay Brothers of your Order if they had you in any of S. Francis his Conuents would imprison and whip you soundly and that I dare say without offending any one of those temporal Soueraigns you flatter and would fain persnade that if such a seditious Friar as you be corporaly punished by your spiritual Superiors they are in danger of loosing their Kingdoms And as we grant that the temporal sword is more properly in the hands of temporal Soueraigns than of the Clergy so we deny not but that it hath bin a constant custom in the Church to let Treason and murther be tryed and iudged by the Princes themselues to take away the occasion of ialousies Treason being against the Princes person and murther so horrid a crime that the Church thinks not fit any way to excuse or exempt Clerks who commit them from the cognizance and sentence of Secular Courts This is the reason why S. Athanasius when he was fasly accused both of treason and murther to Constantin was content to leaue the cognizance of those crimes to his Officer Dalmatius as were also the Catholik Egyptian Bishops whose words you quote pag. 348. But you thought it not for your purpose to quote Constantins own words after that Athanasius had presented himself before him The pious Emperor writ to the Bishops of the Prouince of Alexandria as Athanasius a Athan. Apol. 2. Theod. lib. 1. c. 17. himself and Theodoret testify these words Vestri autem est non mei iudicij de ea re cognoscere It belongs to your iudgment not to mine to take cognizance of that matter But the matter was treasonable for Athanasius was accused to haue sent a quantity of gold to abett the rebellion of Philemenus against the Emperor Mr. Walsh you are accused both of treason and murther Why do you not imitat S. Athanasius and cleer yourself of both Why do you not present yourself before the King b All applied to Mr. Walsh himself or his Lieutenant in Ireland and say Sir I am charged with a barbarous murther of
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
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
vacant But where are your Bishops and parish Priests Must your Clergy be compos'd only of Cardinals Nay where are your sheep your flocks Mr. Walsh you name but 97. Laiks which number can not afford two Parishioners to each Pastor This is indeed a very litle flock pusillus grex but great I hope in virtue and merit Well! we will not say any thing against their persons but we will set down the fundamental principles wherby you distinguish this blessed flock from that of the Roman Catholik Church which you call Papalin puritan papist popish recusant c. Your 1. principle is that the english oath of supremacy may br a Page 16. of the Dedicatory lawfully taken by all Roman Catholiks nay that they commit a sin of rashness and obstinacy in refusing it You know Mr. Walsh all rashness and obstinacy is a sin 2. a In the Prof. pag. 40. Pref. pag. 49 That temporal Soueraigns may lawfully make lawes in ecclesiastical matters euen of Faith by their own sole authority 3. That for these 600. b Dedic page 13. last years the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd enormously for gainsaying these principles of yours 4. c Pet. Walsh sayes pag. 75. And yet I must tell my Aduersaries that such Catholik Diuines as hold the absolute fallibility of general Councels euen I mean in points of faith think they can say enough for themselâ—es c. That Roman Catholik Authors hold and maintain general Councells are not infallible in defining matters of Faith or doctrin Do you hold such Authors to be Roman Catholik Mr. Walsh If you do your are not one your-self 5. d Pag. 20. Dedic That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world for as many hundred years as they haue taken the vsual oath before their consecration haue bin and are now either Traitors or periur'd persons for taking it So that for all this time all general Councels were compos'd wholy of Traitors or periur'd persons 6. That Popes as Popes and Bishops as Bishops e Hâ—â—ory 1. p. sect 33. page 79 can not in conscience contribute or concurr by raising Troops or any other temporal wayes to defend the liues or rights of their lawfull soueraigns against Rebells or endeauor to restore them to their Kingdoms and Dominions if possess'd by vsurpers and Tyrants 7. That the supreme secular Princes can not grant to Clergy f 1. part of the 1. Treatise pag 417. sin men their subiects an exemption from the supreme secular judicature or from their supreme coerciue power Whence must follow that all Christian Princes haue sin'd in doing so and the whole Catholik Church err'd in commanding their piety for granting those immunities 8. That a Page 79 cit no spiritual power as such can inflict vpon any score a corporal punishment for any misdemeanors whatsoeuer particularly for heresy So that the Kings of England by virtue of their spiritual supremacy can not punish heresies And as supreme heads in temporal affairs they can as litle Whence follows that neither as spiritual nor as temporal Heads they can punish heretiks This is good newes for you and the Blakloists Mr. Walsh 9. That neither the Pope nor the b Friar Walsh in his pag 430. 1. part of the first Treatise saith I do my self as I confess I am bound most Religiously allow the â—anonization vencration and inuocation of Saint Thomas of Canterbury and all three of him as of a glerious Martyr too and not with standing I allow also all the mercies raported of him Generals of Regular Orders can inflict any corporal punishment vpon their inferior Priests or Friars for the greatest misdemeanors or for writing such follies as these of yours are Mr. Walsh This also may comfort you 10. That notwithstanding supreme temporal Princes can not in conscience or reason c Pag 429. exempt Clerks from their supreme coerciue power or Courts of secular iudicature according to your 7. principle yet God may and hath wrought great Miracles in the case of S. Thomas of Canterbury to confirm they may so exempt them and by consequence God according to your principles may encourage men to sin by miracles 11. That God may in all like cases work Miracles to assure the Church c Pag 429. that a man who dyes for defending the Church immunities is a Saint and enjoyes his Diuine sight notwithstanding those immunities could not be lawfully granted by Princes to the Church and the man who dyed for maintaining them dyed maintaining an error 12. a Fâ—iar Walsh his words ibid page 4â—9 One may be inuok't as a Martyr in the Church largely or not so strictly yet properly still if he dyes for witnessing or bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more iust and generaly seems the more pious for all he knows though it be not an euangelical trnth and though perhaps too he may be deceiued in the obiectiue truth of what he dyes for This is your Creed Mr. Walsh the twelue articles of your Remonstrant Religion By this last all Iewes Turks and heretiks that are pious in their own way and dye for their erroneous Tenets are properly Martyrs though not so strictly and God may work Miracles to confirm the belief of their bliss piety and good conscience and by consequence all our Christian Miracles signify nothing as to the proof of the obiectiue truth of what we belieue they only proue that we mean well in belieuing the Mysteries of Faith though falie in themselues only such Christian and Catholik Martyrs whose Miracles as were wrought say you at the inuocation of God by the Saint himself or by any other that God might be pleased by working such Miracles b Page 429. to euidence the iustice of such a cause do confirm the truth of the doctrin profess'd by such a Martyr or Maintainer of it For if they had bin â—rought so the case would be cleer enough as to such who saw those Miracles or to whose knowledge authentik proofs of them di sufficiently com that enen the obedience truth and iustice of things in such a controuersy had bin on such a Saint or Martyr's side But otherwise wrought they can be no more but Diuine testimonies of his hauing wonderfully or extraordinarily serâ—ed God either â—n his life or death or both whether he was deceiued or no in som things And besides they can be no more or at least on any rational ground can not be said to be any more than Diuine testimonies of his being now with God in glory Do you say all this Mr Walsh to make the world belieue that Turks and Iewes are now with God or Saints in Gods glory Or only to proue that the Miracles wrought by God for S Thomas of Canterbury may stand very well with hauing no truth or iustice on his side in his known controuersy with King Henry 2.
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 foulmoâ—th'd Author that makes the two late greatest writers of the Church Cardinal Baronâ—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 Walâ—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
cases a deposition of themselues from their whole temporal estates Kingdoms or Empires as in that of a tyrannical and manifest vsurpation and of necessary restitution the true and legal heire suruiuing and known and possible to be admitted without subuersion of the state or people much more where it may be auaileable to the support of both Yet I hope the Author of this Querie and reasons for the affirmatiue will not say that euery such Ghostly Father can proceed to execution whether their penitents will or not Or can by force of Arms or other corporal means diuest them respectiuely of their ill gotten goods Estates Kingdoms Empires though only to put the lawfull proprietors in possession therof Mr. Walsh the dulness and ignorance which you imputed to the Irish Clergy must be retorted vpon yourself in this dispute Are you so short sighted as not to discern the vast difference there is between the spiritual power of a ghostly Father in soro confessionali as you call it and the spiritual power of a Bishop in his Diocess or of your General in his Order as they are Pastors and Iudges in foro externo The one is exercised and extended no further than to absolue and punish priuatly a penitent who is his own accuser and coms with a perfect submission and resignation to any penance or penalty the Confessor shall think fit to giue If the penitent coms not with this preparation there is no power in the Confessor to absolue him or to giue him a penance But the spiritual power and authority of the Bishops and Generals of orders as such is not only to absolue priuarly one who submits voluntarily and confesseth his frailties and faults of his own accord but to punish and correct publikly such as will not submit voluntarily to any penance nor confess their faults but rather maintain their errors with obstinacy These can not be punished corporaly in foro externo by a spiritual Iudge vntill their sin and perversness be proued by cleer euidence of lawfull witnesses So that it is a quite different power from that of a Confessor If this obstinacy therfore be not checkt and corrected by temporal and corporal penalties independently of the voluntary acceptation of the offender it will encourage and corrupt others to the like insolency and destroy the whole Flock and the whole Order Therfore they who are to ouersee the Church or flock and a religious order and to giue a strict account for the souls committed to their charge must haue annexed to their correctiue power not only that of applying spiritual Censures which vpon obstinat and incredulous minds work litle or nothing as appears in your self Mr. Walsh but also corporal punishments that Virga ferrea wherof Dauid prophecis'd Psal 2. That therwith Christ should gouern his inheritance that is the Church Dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam possessionem tuam terminos terrae Reges eos in virga ferrea That iron rod wherwith S. Paul threatned the Corinthians Vultis vt in virga ferrea veniam ad vos And wherwith he punished the incestuous Corinthian and deliuered him ouer to Sathan not only by Excommunication but to be corporaly tormented as the Expositors commonly vnderstand those words in interitum carnis 1. Cor. 4. That iron rod Mr. Walsh wherof it is said Prouerb 13. Qui parâ—it virgae odit filium He who spares the rod hates the child Can you imagin that Christ our Sauior doth hate his children or that he would not leaue a rod in his Church to chastie them with corporal punishments when vice and passion hath rendred them insensible of all spiritual admonitions and censures If according to Scripture Vexatio dat intellectum why should you think that Christ would forbid his Church to vere by corporal punishments those souls which are not troubled or moued at spiritual ones Jf corporal punishments or torments be proportionable or apt to punish correct deterr and amend delinquents in the Common-wealth why not also in the Church would Christ haue his Church wors gouern'd or more destitute of proportionable means to gouern than a Commonwealth Do you grant Mr. Walsh that the Church of Christ ought not to be destitute of means sufficient to compass its ends Do you grant one of the ends of the same Church is to conuert the most incredulous and obstinat sinners Can you deny there are many sinners so incredulous and obstinat that no spiritual admonitions or Censures do them good This you can not deny for it is most euident in your self how often haue you bin admonish'd how often excommunicated by your lawfull Superiors for printing heretical and non sensical bookes and for intermedling in Church and state affairs contrary to your profession and without any commission or capacity for such employments If you do not see this you are the only person that doth not see it and therfore your not seing or at least not belieuing it demonstrats you are incredulous and obstinat This supposed will not you acknowledge that this incredulity and obstinacy of yours which all the world doth iudge to be grounded vpon pride and passion may be lessen'd and reclaim'd by shutting you vp in a cell giuing you spare diet keeping you from ill company that flatter and debauch you and whipping you once or twice a day I wish you would try it The Scripture tells you Virga correptio tribuunt sapientiam Proverb 29. These corporal vexations questionless would work more vpon you than the spiritual Censures haue don for I doubt not but that Gods grace by means of these helps would make you reflect vpon your self and giue you vnderstanding to see how ridiculous presumption it is in an inconsiderable half-witted and not so much as half learned petty friar to take vpon himself to teach the whole or the most considerable part of the Catholik Church Faith and Loyalty as if they had err'd in both for these 600. last years and hath the impudence to print that all the Catholik Bishops now liuing are either Traytors to their Soueraigns or periur'd to the Pope Now Mr. Walsh let 's see which of the two doctrins is destructiue to Soueraigns yours or that of the Catholik Church You state the case in an vsurper or Rebel against his lawfull King He coms to confession the Confessarius enioyns him to restore the Kingdom to the right Souerain He will not I hope say you pag. 79. the Author of this Querie will not say that euery such Ghostly Father can proceed to execution whether the penitent will or no or can by force of Arms or other corporal means deuest them respectiuely of their ill gotten goods Kingdoms c. And from this priuat and penitential power of a Confessarius you inferr that neither Bishops nor Pope can in conscience ferue their Soueraign as not being allowed by God to proceed by force of Arms or other corporal means against vsurpers and Rebells though their design be no
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
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.
yourself Would you haue him exhort the Emperor to remoue from his mind the Popes thoughts or a papal condemnation What would you be at The Pope desires the Emperor to be charitable and to be recoucil'd to the Church Is this to acknowledge in him a full proper legal and supreme power of coercion of Clerks write sense Mr. Walsh and beg pardon of the prinrer and Reader for your book is a manifest nuysance to common sense a The case of Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen in Charles 5. time I will presume a little further vpon my Readers patience to let him see how wittily you confute Belarmins answer to Barclay obiecting against the Ecclesiastical immunity the case of Hermanus Archbishop of Cullen whom the Emperor Charles 5. summon'd to iudment Belarmin sayes he did it as Hermanus was a Prince of the Empire and not as he was a Bishop To this you say pag. 264. That Belarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that Ieer wherwith a certain Boor pleasantly check'd a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a Countrey clown hauing first admired and said this pomp was very vnlyke that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and som of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreouer he was a Duke and a Prince too the Clown replyed but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will becom of the Bishop Euen so doth Belarmin write as that seauant spoke that this Hermanus whom Charles 5. summon'd to appeare was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And euen so do I say and reply with the Countrey swain when the Emperor iudg'd the Prince of the Empire did he not I pray iudge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he iudg'd the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so for neither do I intend or mean or at least vrge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subiect to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Cittizens and politik parts of the body politik which Kind of authority as Belarmin confesses Charles 5. both acknowledged and vindicated to the Emperor Mr. Walsh if BèlarmÃn doth confess as indeed he doth that Clerks as men and Cittizens are subiect to the coerciue power and secular iudicature of temporal Soueraigns doth it follow that the Soueraigns can not exempt them as they are Clergymen from that very coerciue power and secular iudicature Heer you grant they are exempted as Clerks from it though in other places of your book you say its impossible they should be exempted vnless their Soueraigns cease to be Soueraigns I wish you did exempt and free yourself from these contradictions Indeed your story of the Countrey swain doth sufficiently conuince us of your great erudition but me thinks the application doth not so cleerly shew your incomparable acuteness You take the material man somwhat toogrossely You who are a Scotist should be better at your formal distinctions and consider in a man the form or quality of a Clerk or Churchman as raising him a degree aboue the natural or material manhood and common sort of mankind Saint Peter was more subtile he call'd the Priestood Regale Sacerdotium Not that the spiritual caracter of Priesthood or Episcopacy changes mans nature but his quality it places the person in a higher ranck than naturally he could arriue vnto Euen in human Creatures as such you may see this metaphysical distinction explain'd A Peer of the Realm is a man and as a man ought to be tryed by a common iury but his Peerage exempts him from that ordinary way of trial and yet he is still a man and can not euen as a man be tryed by twelue Commoners but by his Peers Jf the example of Subiects will not satisfy you consider that of Soueraigns Our ancient Kings of England did homage to the ancient Kings of France as Dukes of of Normandy Aquitain c. You will not deny they were men both as Kings and Dukes and did homage as men Doth it follow that because they were men and did homage as men they must needs do homage as Kings Or doth it follow that the King of France could not out of his respect to their Kingship exempt them euen as Dukes of Normandy and men from the supreme coerciue power of his Courts Would this vnking the French Kings I haue proued this to be consistent with Soueraignty and subiection in the 9. Animaduersion to which I remit you if you vnderstand not as yet how the same man may be priuiledged and punish'd vpon different scores What the Clown said is very true if God condemns the Bishop as he is a Prince to hell fire he must go thither also as he is a Bishop yet there is this comfort left to Bishops who are Princes God will neuer send them thither for maintaining the iust priuileges either of a Prince or Bishop but for som mortal sin vnrepented for which there is no priuilege or exemption I haue heard your story of the Bishop and Prince told otherwise viz that the Bishop lying a dying the Deuil appear'd to him as som think he doth to all men in that passage and tempting him to despair said he had don such and such things which were not sutable to his Episcopal function The Bishop answer'd he did not do those things as a Bishop but as a temporal Prince To this the Deuil reply'd I am a dull Deuil and can not vnderstand well those subtile distinctions as a Prince and as a Bishop therfote I will carry you to hell as you are such a man and as I find you without questioning whether you go as a Prince or as a Bishop I feare Mr. Walsh this will be your fate You will meet with som dull Deuil one as dull as yourself a Deuil that knowes not how to distinguish between Peter Walsh the Procurator and Peter Walsh the Friar He must be a very acute Deuil that can find out any formality or distinction to excuse your actings either as Procurator or Friar As Procurator you betrayd your trust and acted quite contrary to your commission and as a Friar you ought not to haue taken any without your Superiors leaue Therfore you being neither Prince Bishop nor lawfull Procurator but a poor simple Franciscan Friar suppose the Deuil had met you when you set out from Dublin well mounted and much finer I belieue in cloathes and ribands than the Bishop your Countrey swain was so much scandalized at and attended to search after those poor soules that hid themselues from your persecution suppose I say the Deuil should meet you and endeauor to hurry you with him to hell how could you find out any pretext to excuse your persecution