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