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 [Page 28]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 ^* 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 [Page 29]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 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) [Page 30]may, according to the principles of the Protesta [...]e re­ligion, establih'd by the lawes of the land, giue power by letters patents, to any of his lay subiects to conse­crate Bishops and Priests; which is more than the Pope can do; for he must a point a Bishop to ordain Priests and Bishops. That the Kings of England may giue by their letters patents power to any of their lay subiects to consecrat Bishops and Priests, is very cleer in the aforesaid statuts. For, by two of them, there is giuen to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs, and Successors &c. full power and authority by letters patents vnder the great seal of England, from time to time to assigne, name and authorise such person or persons at she and they shall think meet and conuenient, to exercise, vse, enjoy, and execute vnder her Highness all manner of iurisdictions, priuileges, preheminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, or iurisdiction, within this Realm, or any other her Majesties Dominions or Countreyes. Now Prie­stood being nothing but a spiritual power to consecrat Christ's body and bloud, and forgiue sins; and Episco­pacy including besides the same, a spiritual power to consecrat and ordain Priests and Bishops, who can doubt but that by vertue of these words and Statuts, the Queen might, and her successors may, by their letters patents and great seal, giue power to any of their lay subiects to make a protestant Bishop or Priest; seing by those letters patents any person that is a subiect, receiueth full power to exercise, vse, execute, enioy &c. all manner of iurisdictions, preheminences, and authori­ties, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, &c.

This is no vain speculation Mr. Walsh, but a known practise grounded vpon the 25. article of 39. of the english Protestant Religion: it being declared therby, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by conse­quence [Page 31]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 its 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, 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 [Page 32]this Realm &c. And though D. Bramhall late Pro­testant Archbishop of Armagh, and others in their bookes, do endeauor to diuert the protestant layty from reflecting vpon the consequences, which euident­ly follow from this Act of Parliament, as fauoring more the Kings supremacy and spiritual iurisdiction, than true Episcopacy; and pretend, that this Statut doth not giue his Majesty power to make Priests and Bishops hy letters patents; and that euen Harding and Stapleion excepted not against the validity, but against the legality of the first protestant Bishops consecration, and caracter; yet the words of this Statut, as also of those Catholik Authors, admit of no such interpreta­tion. The Statuts words are very cleer, so are those of the Catholik writers, whose design was not to proue, that Parker, Iewel, Horn &c. were not protestant Bi­shops; but that they were not true Bishops, or Bi­shops at all. They knew very well that they were legal protestant Bishops, because they knew they had the Queens letters patents issued forth to the person or persons; whether Bishops or not, that matters nothing, as cleerly appears in the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. And therfore D. Harding tells Iewel, he doubts not but that he may shew him the Queens letters patents for his Episcopacy; and by consequence that he was a protestant Bishop; adding withall, that he was no true Bishop; because (sayes he) the Queen may giue the lands, but not the caracter of a Bishop.

To proue then that they were both legaly and va­sidly protestant Bishops, the Parliament (insisting vpon the purest protestant principles) thought it suffi­cient to declare, and make out that they were conse­crated by virtue of the Queens letters patents, and by som of h [...]r Majesties subjects; whether lay, or Ecclesi­astiks, was not thought material; by any person, or per­sons, [Page 33]are the words of the Act; and the title of the same, (which declares the substance and scope therof) is, All acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the consecrating in­uesting &c. of any Archbishop, or Bishop, shall be good.

The making of Bishops, and giuing them spiritual iurisdiction only by the Kings letters patents, was the primitiue doctrin and spirit of the english Reformation, as appears by an Act of Parliament an. 1. Eduard. 6. entituled, an Act for the election of Bishops, and what scales and stiles they, and other spiritual persons, exercising iurisdiction Ecclesiastical, shall vse. In which Act (saith D. Heylin the famous prelatik protestant writer) it is ordain'd that Bi­shops should be made by the Kings letters patents, and not by the election of the Dean and Chapters; and that all their processes and writings should be made in the Kings name, only with the Bishops Teste added to, and seald with his seal &c. it was plain and euident (saith the aforesaid Doctor) that the intent of the Contriuers was, by degrees to weaken the authority of the Episcopal Order, by forcing them from their strong hold of Di­uine institution, and making them no other than the Kings Ministers only; his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs, as a man might say. I belieue a man may say so still, according to the Sta­tuts 1. and 8 Eliz. what say you Mr. Walsh? will you yet say that the Oath of Supremacy acknowledges no spiritual authority in the King? I am sure it ownes none in the Bishops, bur that which they receiue from his Majesty; and themselues own it in their Act or Oath of homage, that they receiue all their iurisdiction, as well spi­ritual and ecclesiastical, as temporal, wholy and solely from the King. Are not you a litle out of countenance, Mr. Walsh, to see your confident assertion so mani­festly contradicted by the Oath it self, by the Statuts, by D. Heylin, and the Bishops themselues?

A NIMADVERSION 2. Whether the general Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as also the Prouincial of Afrik of 217. Bishops allowed as much to the Emperor and no more spiritual autho­rity to the Pope, than the Oath of Supremacy doth?

BUT in the name of God Mr. Walsh, how com you to quote for the lawfull­ness of the Eglish Oath of Supremacy, the general Councells of Ephesus, and Chaltedon, as also the Prouincial of Afrik, with S. Augustin? was not Nestorius and his heresy, as also that of Pelagius, condemn'd in that Councell of Ephesus by Pope Celestinus spiritual authority, residing in his Legat Cyrillus of Alexandria? Doth not S. Prosper say, that all the Eastern Churches were purg'd of two plagues by Celestinus, when the most glorious defender of the Catholik Faith Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria was helpt by the Apostolik sword? Did the Emperor Theodosius the yonger, pretend to any spiritual iurisdiction, or authority in that Councel? He sent indeed his Domestik Candidia­nus to it, not to act therin (as the Emperor himself writes to the Synod) but with an express caution and condition, that he should not haue any thing to do with mat­ters of Faith; (because saith he) it is not lawfull for one that is not a Bishop, to intermedle in Ecclesiastical buisness, or con­sultations. Why then was Candidianus sent by Theo­dosius the Emperor? Mark well, Mr. Walsh, the rea­son. [Page 35] That he might remoue buisy Monks, and others from Ephesus; because it is not lawfull (saith he) for such people to hinder by any tumult the examination of holy Tenets &c. I feare most men will be apt to iudge that you are more concern'd in these words and reason of Theodosius, than you are aware of. T'is a wicked world, Mr. Walsh, we can not bridle ill tongues; men will talke idely, let vs be neuer so circumspect. I hope you do not buisy yourself in these matters of the Church without your Superiors approbation, or commission from the Bi­shops, to whom such matters apertain properly. And yet I know not what muttering there is, that if any you had, its recall'd long since, because you acted quite contrary to it. Yourself doth confess (page 5. of your first Treatise) that your commission was to procure for Ecclesiastiks the benefit of the peace of 48. wherof the principal article or end was freedom of conscience, and that ^a the Roman Catholiks should not be required [Page 36]to take any oathes but one specified in the 8. article, of the same peace. How came you then to act (as their Procurator) quite contrary to this, and to your com­mission? Realy Mr. Walsh, if this be true, you are wors than the buisy Monks of Ephesus. At least you are very vnfortunat in your allegations of Councells: they alwayes seem to make against yourself. You bring against the Popes spiritual supremacy the exam­ple of the Emperor Martianus, in the case of Anatolius, and make the 28. Canon of the Councel of Calcedon the ground of your obiection; wheras you know in your conscience (if you know or read any thing) that there are admitted but 27. Canons of the Councell of Calcedon; and Theodoret, who was present at it, testifieth there were no more; the clandestin Decree, which Anatolius and som Greeks made and foisted into the Canons, is reiected as ridiculous, and forged; as you may see at large in learned Cardinal Perons answer to King Iames lib. 1. cap. 34.2. That though the 28. were admitted as a genuine Canon, yet what is that to your purpose, against the Bishop of Rome his spiritual supremacy? That 28. Canon pretends only preceden­cy of Constantinople before Alexandria; not before Rome.

But its 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, [Page 37]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. [Page 38]And the Legats sentence against Dioscorus was, Sanctissimus ac Beatissimus Papa, ^a 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 [Page 39]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 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 had no other fault, but that it is placed by you in the same line and predicament (as to the lawfulness of taking it) with the oath of Suprecacy, Catholiks are bound to refuse it; neither can a Franciscan Friar, who reproaches Ro­man Catholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking the oath of Supremacy, expect to be their Spiritual Director, but rather to be concluded by them an Apo­stat; and must not take ill, if his writings should be reiected and burnt as heretical.

Seing therfore Mr. Walsh, your arguments preten­ding to proue that the two general Councells of Ephesus, and Calcedon, as well as the Prouincial of Afrik, taught the doctrin which Roman Catholiks except against in the oath of Supremacy, are found to be mistakes; what other arguments do you produce to conuince Catho­liks of rashness and obstinancy for not taking that oath? None but your own authority; nothing but your say­ing, that the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd ra­shly and obstinatly for these 600. last years, because it admitted not a Spiritual Supremacy in temporal Soue­ueraigns. Realy Mr. Walsh, I do not belieue your sole authority is a sufficient argument to proue the Church hath erred. To proue so rash an assertion you would fain make us mistrust the testimonies of holy and lear­ned Authors of the Church History, as Baronius, Bellar­min, and others; They are Impostors, you say, hired by the Court of Rome to diuest Emperors and Kings of their right of gouerning spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs; and to place it in the Pope. Your words (page 40. to the Reader) are, If the truth were known it would be found that Baronius, and the rest fallowing him were willing to make vse of any malitious vngrounded fictions whatsoeuer against lustinian the Emperor.—This Justinian was in the later end of his dayes, an heretik; and took vpon him to make lawes in matters of Faith; but he dyed sudenly before he could publish them. Yet before he was an heretik, he made good Edicts in fauor of the true Faith; and for this he is commended by Popes and Councells, as a Catholik; as also because its sayd he was reconcil'd at his death. Now you, Mr. Walsh, say, that the ancient and modern writers knew well enough he was neuer an heretik, but that they diffame him as an heretik, because his laws in Ecclesiastical matters, euen those of Faith, are a perpetual eysore to them, because [Page 42]these laws are a precedent to all other good Princes to gouern their own respectiue Churches in the like manner without any regard, of Bulla Caenae, 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.

Truly Mr. Walsh, I haue endeuored to know the truth of those two Cardinals, Bellarmin, and Baronius; and do find, they were both, holy humble men, so farr from being hir'd by the Court of Rome, that nei­ther of them could be persuaded by it to accept of more for their maintenance, than what was absolutely ne­cessary for their dignity. They liued and dyed in the list of the poor Cardinals; both were named Cardinalls against their will: both industriously sought to make themselues vncapable of the Popedom. Twenty dayes did Baronius resist in the Conclaue the offers and im­portunities of the Cardinals his friends, who were able and resolued to make him Pope, vntill at length he persuaded them to choose Leo 11. Both these Car­dinals virtues are so conspicuous, that many press for their Canonization, and its belieued it will be obtain'd, God working Miracles to testify that they deserue it. This is the truth, Mr. Walsh, and the world blames you very much for calling such men Hirelings, Impo­stors &c. What shall your friends say to excuse you when they heare you call'd an ignorant spitefull heretik, for calumniating such holy men as these? Som who obserue your actions, say, you are hired to write these calumnies, and that you haue chosen rather so base and mercenary a way to damn your self and others, than to liue quiet, and serue God in your Cell, according to your rule and profession. Good God, Mr. Walsh; is this possible? Can you sell your own soul and the re­putation of Saints for such paltrey stuff, and at so low [Page 43]a rate as 200. per an. If this be true, you are vnhappy; but Gods mercy expects your repentance, for which we your friends can but pray.

Others think you despair not by your litle bookes, and this great Volume to gain the fauor of temporal Soueraings. I can not belieue they will (by your per­suasion) degenerat from the example of their renown'd Predecessors, and particularly from that of Constantin the great, who was so far from making laws for eccle­siastical matters or persons, or medling with matters of Faith, that his saying and maxim was ^a (speaking to the Bishops) Ves Dij estis a summo Deo constituti, aequum non est, vt homo iudicet Deos; I do not think I say Mr. Walsh, that Christian Princes will degenerat from this example, (applauded by all the world when Christianity was in its primitiue purity) to follow that of the Emperor Iustinian, when he fell from the Faith of Christ. Would it not be rashness both in Soueraigns and Subiects to preferr your bare testimony (who are (to my griefe) reported to be the greatest lyar and Impostor in the world) before the joint testimony of all orthodox wri­ters, and the practise of the whole Roman Catholik Church, euer since it began to florish vnder Constan­tin the great? Many except against your stile as well as against the matter: You excuse (page 43. of your Pre­face) the meanness, or rather sadness of your stile all along your book, — you took no care (you say) of the language, though you took enough of the matter. In my opinion you are more faulty in the choice of your matter, than in your expression of it. But you thought perhaps, the matter was so good, and necessary for the Saluation of souls, that you ^b enlarged often, and repeated the same things not seldom where you needed not, were your design to write only [Page 44]for the learned, or those of quick apprehension. But seing those you intended chiefly to speak vnto, were the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland, wherof very few are great Clerks, you chose that manner of writing for their sake, that the meanest of them might vnderstand whateuer you would be at. I am sory to heare this Mr. Walsh; will you disgrace your own nation? One of them spoke thus to me of you. How comes none of the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland to haue as quick an apprehension, and as much learning, as Peter Walsh their Countreyman, and one who spent his time more idely than most of them? Is it because his forwardness in promoting protestancy against his conscience, and his importuning great men to be made an instrument of sowing dissention, and diuiding Ro­man Catholiks by his Remonstrance, hath gain'd him a litle credit and countenance in Court, therfore he must be so learned and loyal, as to teach not only the Irish Catholik Clergy, but the whole Catholik Church their duty (as if they were ignorant of it) to God and Cesar? Whence had he all this learning? Did his tea­ching a yeare or two Philosophy, and half a yeare, or therabouts Diuinity in Kilkenny, to half a dozen Schol­lars, make him an Oecumenical master, and adorn him with so extraordinary knowledge, both Diuine and hu­man, as to instruct not only the dull Clergy of Ireland, but the acutest wits of France, Spain, and Italy? The man was so sensible of the aspersion you cast vpon his, and your own Countreymen, that I durst not excuse you; and indeed you spoke inconsideratly; for its well known to most of the famous Vniuersities of Europe, that as Irish men haue bin antiently their first Founders, so they haue bin of late their chiefest Professors and greatest Ornament. Your self might haue known, or at least heard of Richard Wadding the Augustin in Co­nimbria, of Iames Arthur the Dominican in Alcala, Sala­manca, [Page 45]and Conimbria; of Holiwood in Padua, and Mussi­pont: of Luke Wadding and Richard Lynch in Sala­manca: of Peter wadding in Prague, all Jesuits: of many famous Doctors of Sorbon in Paris: of your own Friars Hicky, Cauel, Lombard, and Luke Waddin, in Ro­me. Of the Iesuit Thomas Talbot (aliàs de Leon) in Gra­nada, the Oracle of all Spain, not only for his pro­foundness in Diuinity, but also for the vast extent of his knowledge in other sciences and languages. You might haue knowen the eminent Doctor of Bologna, Riredan of Tolosa, not to speake of other famous Physitians, who though not Professors, yet Practio­ners so farr aboue the common sort, as Fenell Fo­gotty, O Meara &c. That they may be recorded to posterity for patterns of safe and successfull prescrip­tions as others are for printed bookes. These and o­thers, though all dead (the two last only excepted) yet are a fresh and euerlasting euidence against your impu­ting dulness of apprehension, and ignorance, to the Irish Clergy, and nation. I could name (said an other) four of the Irish Bishops, yet liuing, and many of the inferior Clergy (especialy Regulars) who taught with great applause in foreign and famous Vniuersities both Diuinity and Philosophy. Without doubt they take ill that a petty friar should pretend to teach them their duty either to God or the King. Why did he not con­fute them in the Congregation of Dublin an. 1666. when he had the Lord Lieutenants fauor to counte­nance his doctrin, and fright them into his opinions? Why did not he answer then the Prolocutor (Bishop Lynch) and Father Nicholas Netteruilles reasons? Why did he not accept of Father Iohn Talbots offer, to shew, in diuers particulars, Frier Redmund Carons gross inex­cusable falsifications in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, and in his lesser libel intituled Loyalty asserted? Why did he [Page 46]not answer the obiections and reasons of many others as learned men as these, who confounded him and his errors in that Congregation? Then was the time to vindicat his doctrin and Remonstrance; but if now after 6. years study, Walsh his volum of that subiect is a nuisance to the Academies, a bundell of errors rak't out of the ashes of burnt heretical bookes, how wat it possible for him to speake then any thing but heresies and nonsense? This your Countrey men. What could I answer to this?

But 'tis wors yet. He gaue me the ensuing writing, wherin he vndertakes to shew, euen to yourself, that those of the Irish Clergy you so much vndervalue, had, and haue still the better of you, not only in wit, but in learning, euen in this controuersy, after your 6. years study of this matter. Let vs first of all (saith he) state it right. You pretend that the Supremacy of tem­poral Soueraings, doth not only giue them power to make ecclesiastical lawes, euen in matters of Faith (as appears by your foresaid own words, speaking of lusti­nian the Emperor) but that the spiritual authority of the Church, can not warrant its punishing by corporal penalties such an irregular Friar as you are thought to be. And to make this your Tenet more plausible, you would fain inferr from the coerciue power in the Church of whipping such a fellow as you are, a coer­ciue power to dethrone Princes; as if forsooth they could not sit securely, nor be at ease in their thrones, if you should be disciplin'd. Mr. Walsh the Soueraignty of Princes is so sacred a thing, that I dare not medle with it, and am forbid to write of that subiect, as all others are; who liue in France; (the man is a Graduate of Sorbon.) But you know that Bellarmin himself confesseth, Princes can not be deposed for bare heresy, though Popes may. Their temporal iurisdiction can [Page 47]not be question'd for their errors. How then can you inferr that if the Church may punish and whip you for heresy, it may also depose Kings for the same? Ther­fore I hope it may be discussed without consequence or offence.

ANIMAD: 4. Whether it be heresy or Treason to maintain, that the Superiors of the Franciscan Order (by virtue of the spiritual power which they haue from the Pope of gouerning their Friars) may command Friar Peter Walsh to be whipt against his own will, for misdemeanors?

BE not angry Mr. Walsh, vntill you heare me out. It is no disgrace for a Religious man to be corrected by his Prouincial or General; neither is it the first time that a Friar hath bin whipt, and I am sure none euer deserued it better than you do. But let us see, what can you say for your not being whipt against your will for misde­meanors; we will now suppose there are som and shall be proued time enough: My self and others of the Irish Clergy obiected against this your main Tenet, (viz. that no corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiri­tual power) the general practise of the whole Catholik Church, and all Religious Orders, which not only put from Mass, and depriue of the suffrages of the faith­full, such Apostats, as they excommunicat, but also forbid them any commerce, and conuersation with [Page 48]others, nay command them to be whipt, and impri­prison'd, when hands can be layd on them. To this obiection you answer (page 79. sec. 33.) thus. I take in the first place their allegation of the Faithfull being whipt, and commanded to vndergoe austere pennances, to be vnconclusure: Your reason Mr. Walsh? Because euery Ghostly Father may in som cases enioyn his Penitent such punishments; and by virtue of his meer spiritual power may do so; but can inflict none either by himself, or by an other, if the penitent will be refractory. And not only the Pope, not only the Bi­shop, but euery inferior Priest may in fore confessionali, enioyn his penitent, euen a King or Emperor, whateuer is iudged necessary for his eternal Saluation: and consequently in som 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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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 par [...]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. [Page 51]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 half­witted, 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 [Page 52]God to proceed by force of Arms, or other corporal means against vsurpers and Rebells, though their design be no 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 Innocen [...] 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 Pope [...] haue sinn'd in doing the same, in prosecution of thei [...] Spiritual Censures (in case these had not seru'd thei [...] turn) against the Barons, when they excommunicated them for their rebellion against King Iohn, or King Henry the third? Is the whole Catholik Church guilt [...] of heresy and impiety for maintaining this doctrin [...] Speake out Mr. Walsh, or at least retract for sham [...] this wicked destructiue principle; and accuse not th [...] Church of God, as asserting in itself a power preiudi [...] ­cial to Soueraigns; that power, I say, which hath bi [...] so often applied, and of its own nature is so appli [...]ab [...] to their safety and seruice. Do not follow Blacklows he retical principles, whom you (page 43. 1. p.) term [...] [Page 53] 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?

ITS 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 [Page 55]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.

For my part, Mr. Walsh, I can not find any Trea­son in this oath, it contrains but such general tyes and words as are vsual in other oathes of obedience, and are restraind to a spiritual subiection, and superiority in Ecclesiastical matters, and with a clause Saluo Ordine meo, which you confess King Henry 2. so much ex­cepted against in the oath S. Thomas of Canterb [...]ry, and the other Bishops were to take at Clarendon to his Majesty as their temporal Soueraign. But you say its no wonder the Irish Archbishops and Bishops were so disloyal at waterford an. 1646. in reiecting the peace &c. because they took this oath to the Pope, and none of them took the bath of Supremacy or alleigance to the King. We know (Say you page 20. of your Dedicatory spea­king of all Bishops) they must be periur'd to the Pope, if they proue faithfull to the King. Whether so, or no, to God? iudge you. I am sure if they were not Traytors in taking the foresaid oath to his Holiness, they were at least Renoun [...]ers of their alleigance to his Majesty, and of their obedience also to the Catholik Church.

To accuse all Bishops, and by consequence the Re­presentatiue Roman Catholik Church, or (which is all one) its supreme Pastor together with all the other Bishops of the said Communion, of holding and swea­ring the lawfullness of Treason, and other enormous errors, euen but for one year, is iudg'd by General [Page 58]Councells, and all Roman Catholiks, a great heresy. What then shall we say of you, Mr. Walsh who main­tains they haue bin in that desperat condition and here­sy these [...]00. ^a last years and that they took no notice of the loud cryes of many thousands most learned god­ly Prelats, Priests, and Doctors, besides Laiks, putting all those Popes, and all those traiterous or periur'd Bi­shops in mind of their false, wi [...]ked, impious, heretical, un­christian, and plainly destructine Tenets. But first Mr Walsh, let me ask you, if all the Bishops take the foresaid oath (and its certain they do, and haue taken it for many hundred years) how can any part of them be most, learned zealous, and most godly Prelats? Can heretiks, Traitors, and impious Bishops be most zealous, and godly men? why did you not name at least one of those godly Prelats, or writers, that cry'd down the Popes and Bishops as holding impious, heretical and destructiue principles euer since Pope Gregory 7? You name none but Blaklow, the two Barclayes (both lay men) and the ablest of them but a Romantik Poet, one Preston, (alias widrington) hired by Abbots of Canterbury, to write against the Pope, and make a schism in the Ro­man Church; Redmund Caron, and your-self, not so much hired, as intruding your-selues, and pressing state Ministers to hire you, for the same ends. Are these your thousands of most learned, zealous, godly Prelats, Priests and Laiks? Though bad these men be, I do not find that any of them doth assert so cleerly the oath of supremacy as you do, or say, that all the Roman Ca­tholik Bishops, who take the vsual oath at their conse­crations, are Traitors or periu [...]'d. What a pretty re­presentatiue Church you make vp of such Bishops? But suppose Mr. Walsh, there had bin in euery Century these 600. last years, or since Gregory 7. thousands [Page 59]of such as these, or as your-self, that cry'd down som principles and practises of the Roman Catholik Church as impious and heretical, and all the Bishops therof as Traitors. What then? All pious and prudent Roman Catholiks would value such men no more than they do you, or so many curst Currs barking at the moon and starrs. Preston I did not know; som who knew him, say, he repented his folly, and was very much ashamed of hauing bin so egregiously foold by Archbishop Ab­bots. Caron I knew, and so did many others, who iudg'd him to be no better than a pleasant Friar, that had no more s'kill in squsing out a dolefull tune or Cronan, than science or sincerity in quoting the Authors he wrests in fauor of those errors, wherin he agrees with you. My self haue seen him conuicted of vnexcusable falsifications by Mr. Leugar the late Lord Baltimores Priest: and all his defence and Apology was, to say with heretical pride and passion to that good Priest his Confuter, Go, go your wayes, you litle man. You haue heard I suppose of his reply to one D. Pugh a learned man, as I am told; who questioning Caron for printing contrary doctrins in two bookes, answer'd, when he writ one of them, he was in the King of Spains Domi­nions; but the other he writ in the King o [...] [...]glands Dominions. This indeed is a sincere confession and declaration of the genious and practise of your new re­monstrant Church, and of your self M. Walsh, in par­ticular, as shall be now proued.

ANIMADVERSION 6. Of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church. Which principles be treasonable and impious; those of Friar Wal [...]h, or those of the Ro­man Catholik Church for these last 600. years?

MR. Walsh, you charge the Roman Catholik Popes and Bishops euer since Pope Gregory 7. with treasonable and impious principles and practises. Let vs compare yours with theirs, that so the truth may appear. You are Pope of this new Remonstrant Church, which you confess, had (euen in its prime) but sixty nine Church men in all the world. I belieue they are your Cardinals, you haue three caps yet to bestow; the Cardinals you know are 72. Its good policy to keep som places 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 lawfully taken by all Roman Catholiks; [Page 61]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 That temporal Soueraigns may lawfully make lawes in ecclesiastical matters, euen of Faith, by their own sole authority.

3. That for these 600. ^b last years the Roman Ca­tholik Church hath err'd enormously, for gainsaying these principles of yours.

4. ^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 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 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 men (their subiects) an exemption from the [Page 62]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 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 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 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 that a man who dyes for defen­ding [Page 63]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 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 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 [...]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 [Page 64]wrought, they can be no more but Diuine testimonies of his ha­uing wonderfully or extraordinarily ser [...]ed God either [...]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. And that the Chur­ches ho [...]ouring and innoking him, as a true Martyr for maintaining its immunities, is no argument, that he defended therin iustice or truth; because forsooth nei­ther himself, nor any other did inuoke God to work the Miracles to euidence the truth or iustice of those immunities S. Thomas maintain'd against the 16. or 12. lawes or customs of Henry 2. which were all in order to take away or diminish the Popes external spi­ritual iurisdiction and supremacy, and to assert in the King a coerciue power ouer the Clergy.

I pray Mr. Walsh, where do you find it declared necessary, that the Mysteries of Christian faith be made credible or confirm'd by a formal or express inuocation of God to work miracles for euery one of them in par­ticular? Christ himself taught, that Miracles confirm any general doctrin preacht by him who works them; neither doth he put that condition or caution of a particular and formal inuocation of God, without which you pretend the doctrin taught, or sufferd for, may be false. But let that pass. What more express inuocation or declaration of God, can you desire for the truth and iustice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's do­ctrin, than that so notorious and so long depending a [Page 65]controuersy between the Church and state, should sus­pend all Christendom, there being on the one side a powerfull Monarch, who stood for the pretended right of Kings, on the other but a poor banish't subiect, though a Bishop, to maintain that of the Church? and that this poor man hauing bin murther'd (by flattering Courtiers) for maintaining the Church immunities, God should work so many, and so vndeniable Miracles, at his dead body and Tomb, that you are not only fore't to confess they are true ones, but that King Henry 2. himself acknowledged S. Thomas had the truth and iustice on his side. And therfore to satisfy God and the world, rather for his vniust contest against the Church, than for the Saints murther (which the King neither intended nor desired) that great Monarch did vndergo those corporal punishments, which the Pope (as his spiritual Pastor) commanded him to do; though you say he hath (as spiritual Pastor) no power to inflict vpon your self, as much as a Disiplin, like that which the Monks of Canterbury gaue King Henry 2. We haue related the principles of your religion and Re­monstrance, out of your own Alcoran (your great vo­lum is no better than Mahomet's Alcoran) now let vs see what practises did flow from such principles.

ANIMADVERSION 7. Of the practises of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church.

IF the Roman Catholik Church of these last 600. years, hath fall'n from the ancient Christian princi­ples, of loyalty due to temporal Princes, as Friar Walsh [Page 66]pretends; and all the Roman Catholik Bishops are Tray [...]ors to their Soueraigns, (by the oath they take at their consecration) we may rather wonder God did not send sooner a holy man to reform these enormous errours, than that after so long a time, he should at length send Saint Peter Walsh to do it, who by his good example, as well as by his learned writings, doth teach Catholik Subiects that allegiance, from which they haue bin withdrawn for these six last Centuries Blessed be God, who albeit for our sins, he deferreth his mercies, yet neuer fails to impart them sooner than we deserue. Nor indeed could this age, so infamous for murthers and rebellions against lawfull Soueraigns, expect so Apostolik a Reformer, as Peter Walsh hath proued himself to be.

You complain Mr. Walsh (page 43 of your Preface to the Reader, as also page 50 & seqq.) that F. Peter TAlbot (the titular Ar [...]h [...]ishop of Dublin, and Ring leader of the [...]i [...]h Anti Remonstrants hath perseented the said Remon­strants to death, as far as in him lay; and that his answers to the petition you presented against him, contain'd manifest vntruths; you suggest also that he is thought to be Author of the Dublin Libel, written against your Remonstrants directly, but withall indirectly, or euen princi­paly aiming at the most illustrous personof his Grace the Duke of Ormond. Though I haue not the honor to be ac­quainted with that Prelat, yet his being one, and his writing against your accusations in his own defence, mad me curious and concern'd; and hauing inquir'd after the Papers which past between you, I obtain'd a sight of them, as also of that which you call the Dublin libel, which is term'd by the Author therof, a Vin [...]ication against Friar Walsh his Calumnies, written by a Pastor of the Diocess of Dublin.

If all be true, Mr. Walsh, that is ther in alledged [Page 67]against you with particular circumstances, you are the greatest Traitor and Rebel that breathes. You are charg'd likewise (not by Peter Talbot nor in the an­swer to your petition, nor in the Vindication or Du­blin libel) but in another paper a part, of murthering fiue poor English Soldiers of the garison of Raroffy in the County of Kildare, at the bridge of Iohnston, in the very beginning of the Irish commotion; and that, with such barbarous breach of faith, or at least of the law of armes, and incredible cruelty, that its to be admired, how any, who values the name or bloud of an english­man, can see you, much less profess to be your friend, before you cleer your-self of that accusation.

2. You are charged (in the Vindication) of being a most seditious Preacher, or seducer of the people against their allegiance to the King, and the royal au­thority residing in the Marques of Ormond Lord Lieu­tenant of Ireland, vpon the proclamation of the peace of 1646. you seconded one Doctor Enos, by approuing his infamous libel against the person and authority of his Excellency. The drift and matter of the libel was, to dissuade the people from admitting, or adhearing to that good peace, and from any agreement with the said Matques of Ormond, because forsooth, he design'd the Kings ruin, as well as theirs. This calumny Enos pretended to proue (and you approued of all, by com­mending the libel, and the Author in print, in the first leaf therof) because his Excellency would not conclude before the yeare 46. any peace with the Irish, though he had positiue and pressing commands from the King to do it; but for three or four years delayd it by vnprofitable and suspitious cessations, in which time the King was subdued, and imprison'd, and therfore his sayd Lieutenant might pretend and plead that seruice (or at least a neutrality) to the Parliament, when they [Page 68]came to be Masters of all. And besides, his Excellency obseruing that the Erle of Glamorgan had giuen the Irish full satisfaction in the article of Religion (most insisted vpon by them) the Lord Lieutenant would not con­descend therunto, but rather declared against it, impri­son'd the Erle in the Castle of Dublin, and therby dis­perst 10000. men ready to be shipt at water ford for his Maiesty's relief in England, and ruin'd him by hin­dering that succor. This was the Subiect of Enos and your libel Mr. Walsh; the common sort of the Irish nation belieued you and D. Enos, and by your means conceiued such hatred against their Countreyman the Duke of Ormond (very popular before that time, for his extraction and good parts) that it could neuer be rooted out of their hearts, nor put out of their heads, but that he hated the royal family and his Countrey. This made his most loyal actions and attempts (if not successfull) be look't vpon as so many plots to ruin the King, and the only subiects then capable of helping him, the Irish. From hence proceeded the Towns re­fusing to receiue his garisons, from hence the diuisions and diffidencies of the people, and Clergy; from hence the factions of Ormond and Oneal, of old English and old Irish; from hence the Censures and Declarations of the Bishops at Iameston against his grace; from hence all other disorders, wherof you and Enos are more guilty than the Bishops, or the common people.

Mr. Walsh, you may as well pretend this repetition and repr [...]hension of your Knauery is writ against the Lord Duke of Ormond, as that the Dublin libel aymed at the most Illustrious Person of his Grace. But I assure you, I ho [...] or and loue my Lord Duke of Ormond and his family much more than you do. And if you had had any respect for his Grace, you would not pin your­self vpon him; nor abuse the generosity of so noble and [Page 69]discerning a person, who would easily perceiue (if he had heard what others know) how ill Englishmen must take his protecting and countenancing a suspected Murtherer of innocent English, and one who by the great hand he had in reiecting the peace of 46. and therby vnsetling and diuiding Ireland, concurr'd very much to the Murther of the late King. This counte­nancing of you is the greatest fault I think can be found in my Lord Duke of Ormond. There is not any who considers his descent, and how his interest can not be separated from that of the Crown, will entertain the least suspition against his Loyalty; som indeed admire how so wise a man should think, it the interest of the Crown, to permit those who fought for it, to be des­troyd, and disinherited; and admire his want of memo­ry in not remembring so many meriting men, who lost all for the King, and stuck to his Excellency, as the Kings Lieutenant, in all his misfortunes. He hath forgot, they say, euen those few, wherof the Act of Parliament puts him in mind by special name, and ther­fore are call'd the Nominees. But seing his neerest rela­tions complain, that they also are forgot, we must not accuse him of any thing but want of memory; especialy since he hath forgot your treasons, Mr. Walsh, as that of your wresting the Castle of Kilkenny out of the Kings and his own hands, and deliuering it to the Nun­tius But to conuince you, and all the world of the ve­neration I haue for that great Minister's loyalty, it is sufficient that notwithstanding I haue read D. Enos his libel, and your approbation of it, I shall still continue to think my Lord Duke of Ormond one of the faith­fullest Subiects our King hath, and the fittest to be em­ploy'd in great affairs, prouided he neuer belieues nor trusts you, when he is satisfied that what is generaly reported, and belieued of you, is true. Mistake me not [Page 70]Mr. Walsh, I would not haue his Grace aduise to put you to death, but would haue you not trouble him, auoyd the occasion, and retire into your Conuent. But I feare you had rather venter hanging, than do that. If you be not guilty, in Gods name make out your innocency. The vindication or Dublin libel sayes, you writ with your own hand that fatal excommunication of the Popes Nuncius, wherby the Castle of Kilkenny (the key then of Ireland) was put into the Nuntius his hands; and that with this Excommunication you marcht vp to the Castle gate in your Franciscan habit, and fixt it therupon with the same hand which writ it. What I know certainly is, that this Excommunication writ with your own hand, was deliuer'd to my Lord Iohn Berkley when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and am confident he hath it still in his custody, as an eui­dence of your loyalty, and of your being a fit man to preach it to others.

To these three particulars, of the murther of inno­cent English, of your approuing Enos his libel against the Lord Marques of Ormond, and reiecting the peace of 46. and of your wresting from the King, by an Ex­communication of your own hand writing, and fixing, the Castle and Citty of Kilkenny (and by consequence the whole Kingdom of Ireland) I expected a cleer and particular answer in this great volume of yours, wherin you answer other obiections of less moment; truly se­ing you named the Dublin libel, me thinks you ought rather to haue confuted it, at least briefly, than spend so much time and paper in quoting the penalties, which the Canon and ciuil Law prescribe against libellers. For the sake of F. Peter Talbot the titular Archbishop of Dublin (say you page 51. of your Preface) and of his Complices, I took the pains to quote these Laws and Canons. Me thinks, I say, you ought rather for the sake of Friar Peter Walsh [Page 71]haue confuted the pretended libel, then haue quoted the Lawes, that punish Libellers; because none can be punish't by such Lawes, before it be proued that the writing is a Libel. Indeed, Mr. Walsh, I was much surpris'd to see you remit English Readers ^a (for the confutation of these accusations) into your latin Hiber­nica, a book not as yet printed, and when printed, not vnderstood by the generality of the English nation, which you ought to satisfy, and cleer your-self from that horrid aspersion of Treasons, and english innocent bloud cast vpon you; you shall see how your titular Archbishop of Dublin doth cleer himself of what you haue printed to his disaduantage. I thought fit to giue the publik a view of the letter he writ for that purpose to a friend of his, who desir'd it to satisfy himself and others.

Mr. Walsh, I haue bin assured by credible persons, that what this Prelat sayes heer of you and himself, is very true; and that a man would be laught at in Ireland (where these things happen'd) if he question'd so noto­rious matters of fact, wherof there are yet liuing many legal witnesses. This supposed I must needs blame you for printing such lyes to discredit a Bishop, or at least for not prouing what you say of him by more credible arguments than the bare assertion of your-self in your own cause. If you, being but a priuat person, and a petty Friar, say (pag. 51. of your Preface) that the Au­thor of the Dublin libel (for writing against you som pretended vntruths) ought by the ciuil lawes to be put to death; and by the Canon of Pope Adrian, be stript naked, and whipt with scourges, if he can not proue the truth of the particulars of his libel; what will the world say of you, for writing manifest vntruths of an Archbishop? Espe­cialy when you can not proue that he is the Author, or that you are iniur'd by that Dublin libel, as you call it; and for want of an answer to the particulars therin alle­ged against you, remit your english Reader to a latin Irish work, not yet composed, not euer like to be printed? I am troubled Mr. Walsh, at this malitious folly of yours. But patience. I will now consider how your Remonstrant Church came to fail and fall.

ANIMADVERSION 8. How the Protestants who had formerly a good opinion of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church came at length to alter it, and be fully conuinc't that both he and his Remonsttant Church­men are Cheats.

MR. Walsh, you complain very much (pag. 577. & seq. of the second part of your first long Treatise) that the Anti Remonstrants not­withstanding their opposition against you, lost no­thing either of liberty, or other benefits or fanors at home from the Ciuil Magistrate, from the Lord Lieutenant, or Kings Ma­jesty, or his Court, Council, or Parliament; being equal in all such (for any material thing) to the Remonstrants: and on the other side were sure of all euen extraordinary fauors &c. from their own Church, and from the Conrt of Rome abroad, while the Remonstrants were sure of nothing from either, but slight from the one, and extreme persecution from the other. And these fate last years, from 1667. to the end of the present year 1672 haue giuen sufficient arguments of both the one and the other. During which time, those poor Remonsirants had nothing to ball [...]nce all their sufferings, but the bare satis­faction of conscience, to be slighted so by their friends, and per­secuted so by their Ennemies, for professing and performing their duty to the King, atterding to the law of God.

This is a very sad story Mr. Walsh, but the Dublin libel (as you call it) tells you an other quite contrary; and you know it to be true; nay you giue a hint of it [Page 83]in the pag 3. of your Preface to the Catholiks (which needed an other Preface, itself being a large book.) There you say, that the Anti-Remonstrants persecuted your (holy) Church in a most surious manner with all the vilest arts of malicious Cabals, Conspiraties, Plots, libels, and an Impostor Commissary and a forged Commission. What's that Mr. Walsh? An Impostor Commissary! A forged Commission! I pray explain yourself. Did the Anti Remonstrants per­secute your Remonstrance and Church by an Impostor Commissary and a forged Commission? did the court of Rome, send such a person, and giue him such a commis­sion? If so, he was no Impostor. Well: I see those Ro­mans are strange men. Is it possible they could be so ill natur'd as to persuade a poor Friar to play the Impos­tor? or that he would be persuade to play the fool and knaue so egregiously, meerly to vndermine your Re­monstrant Church? Good God, in what a great mista­ke hath the world bin these 9. or ten years. Truly Mr. Walsh, 'tis the persuasion of all England, Ireland, Fran­ce, and Italy, that you and the Impostor Commissary agreed to persecute the Roman Catholik Clergy; and vnderstood one an other so well, that you combin'd to cheat the Kings Subiects of money, and to establish the Remonstrant Church by virtue of the same impos­ture, and forged Commission, wherby your visitators and Collectors raised good summs for the Commissary Apostolyks occasions and expence.

This common persuasion seems to be well grounded. 1. You could not be ignorant the Commissary was an Impostor, because he had no other Commission to shew for his authority ouer all the Clergy of Ireland, both secular and regular, but a copy of the pretended Original; and that so litle authentik, that to gain it credit, you got the vnwary Bi [...]hop of Ardagh to confirm it as a true one 2. the Commissary had no instructions; [Page 84]a thing vnusual and vnheard of in any person authorised with such an employment. But this defect you supply­ed, by drawing instructions for his visitators (which are extant of your own hands writing) all which tended to the establishment of your Remonstrant Church. And these instructions written with your own hand Mr. Walst, shall be produced whensoeuer you please. So that if you did not forge the Commission, you drew for the Commissarys Instructions. 3. You knew very well, it was not a likely thing that the Court of Rome would giue so ample a power to an ordinary Friar, ouer Bishops, and all regular Superiors. 4. When the It suits made difficulty to submit to your Impostor Commissary, standing vpon the Priuileges of their Or­der, you reprehended them seuerely, and gaue God thanks that your-self was so deuoted to the Pope, as not to dispute his Commissaries authority, when they, who by a peculiar vow are tyed to obey his Holiness, were refractory; and vpon this, you, and by your example the rest kneeld down, crauing the Impostor Commissaries benediction, and owning his authority. 5. He was wholy directed by you, still in your compa­ny; he was your old acquaintance, and of your own Order. How is it then possible, so remarkable an im­posture as this, could be conceald from a man so curi­ous and corcern'd as you were in this intrigue? Be not so filly Mr. Walsh, as to fancy you can impose vpon the world that you went not halfs in a cheate, your-self ma [...]ag'd from first to last.

You haue no reason to say that during this time, the poor Remonstrants had nothing to ballance all their suffe­rings but the bare sati, sactten of conscience to be slighted by their friends and persecuted by their Fnnemies, for proses [...]ing and per­so [...]ming their duty to the King, according to the law of God. Mr. Walsh, call you suffering, to haue a Commissary [Page 85] cum plenitudine potestatis at your command? To see your deerest Remonstrants made his Visitators and Collec­tors, taxing and raising moneys? and that, with Cen­sures and Excommunications against such as refused or delayd punctual payment? Call you suffering, to see these your spiritual Children return home to you with money in their purses, and treat you and your Com­missary, very splendidly at the sign of the Harp, and Croun in Dublin, almost euery night, with good Cheer, dancing, and Danes, or Irish Cronans; especialy that famous Macquillemone; which was stiled in a letter to Rome, Cantio barbara & aggrestu; and call'd by the Soldiors of the Guards in Dublin (hearing it euery night at midnight) Friar Walsh, and Friar N. singing of Psalmes? Call you suffering to see your graue Re­monstrants dance Giggs and Countrey dances, to re­creat your-self and the Commissary, who was as ready and nimble at it, as any of his Collectors? but indeed its said, you danc't with a better grace than any of the Company. Call you suffering, that your Remonstrants in their visitations and exactions of money, were so well horst as to run races, and that your Saint N. should ex­communicat and pursue the honest Priest Philip Draycot, and cry [...]d the N. because he would not submit to his authority and tax? Call you suffering, that the rest of your Collectors should do the like, and make you and the Commissary merry with telling stories of the frights, they put the simple people into, and of the summs they extorted from them? None durst complain of these exactions, the Collectors pretending your power and fauor with the gouernment was so great, as to wink at these your most illegal proceedings.

These were your sufferings and persecutions Mr. Walsh. But you know persecution if not suffered for iustice, is not meritorious. You say your Remonstrant [Page 86]Church suffered this great persecution, for professing and performing their duty to the King, according to the law of God. I pray is it a duty to the King according to the law of God, to impose vpon and leuy from his Subiects mo­ney by the Popes authority, either counterfeit or real? We Anti-Remonstrants maintain the Pope hath no such power nor authority. Your Remonstrants main­tain he hath, as appears by your Excommunications and suspensions yet extant. Js this your duty to the King? Is this according to the law of God? Is this a bare satisfaction of conscience for professing and per­forming your duty? Complain not then Mr. Walsh, that you and your Remonstrant Church was slighted by the King, by the Council, by the Parliaments, and Lords Lieutenants. They clearly perceiued ye were but a company of Cheats, that pretended loyalty, and practised treason; to be for the King, and ruin'd his Subjects by the Popes pretended authority.

Besides Mr. Walsh, you cheated my Lord Duke of Ormond as well in the beginning as in the whole progress of your Remonstrance. You made his grace belieue, that you were commissioned and had power to present that Formulary to his Majesty, and to him, in the name of the Clergy of Ireland, both secular and regular; and yet the power you had, was but from very few; and that power was in order to obtain for the Clergy the benefit of the peace 1648. (as appeareth by their instrument pag. 5. of your History) wherof one atticle is, there should not be tendred any other oath, or Formulary of Allegiance to them, but one which is set down in the same articles, to which your Remon­strance is manifestly opposit. Moreouer you confess pag. 6. that you were soundly check't by his Grace (as you ex­pected) for daring to reteine such an instrument from such men; that is, men, as to the generality and chief of them, for­merly [Page 87]and lately too so caractered as they were for being in their indignations and carriage very much disaffected to his Majesties interests, and very obnoxious to the Laws. You see Mr. Walsh, what thankes such buisy Friars as you get, for intermedling in aflairs, whether Ministers of state, and the people concern'd will or no. On the other side you cheated the Irish Clergy and Gentry, making the Clergy belieue, they should haue liberty to exercise their functions; and the Gentry that they should be restored to their estates, if they sign'd your Remons­trance. I pray Mr. Wash, how many of the 95. no­blemen and Gentlemen that subscribed, are restored to their Estates by your Remonstrance? name at least one, who hath bin the better for his subscription? A man would think that my Lord of Iueaghs extraction, innocency, and merit; his breaking General Oneales Army; his raising and loosing two or three Regiments in the Kings seruice; his venturing himself, and his neerest relations in the towns besieged by Cromu [...]ll; his constant following his Majesties person and fortune in exile, needed no further remonstrance of his loyalty; but howeuer, that nothing might be obiected against him, he sign'd yours; and yet is nothing the neerer his Estate. I know you pressed my Lord Duke of Ormond very much in Sir Robert Talbots behalf, saying it would be a great scandal, if the only gentle­man in Ireland, who neuer would reiect the peace of 46. and sufferd so much vpon that account, were not restored to his Estate, and yet you see he was, and his son is, in the same condition with the rest of your subscribers.

But the most damnable cheat of all Mr. Walsh, is, that you made the subscribers belieue, your Remon­strance was only a recognition of his Majesties supreme temporal authority and right to his Kingdoms; but [Page 88]now you declare that it asserts, all which the oath of Supremacy doth, and that Roman Catholiks are rash and obstinat (and by consequence commit a sin) in denying to take the oath of supremacy, wherof (as was well known to such as refus'd to subscribe) this your Remonstrance contains the substance; which is, that temporal Soueraigns may by their own sole autho­rity gouern the Church, and make lawes in Ecclesi­astical matters, euen of Faith. To proue this and the lawfullness of your Remonstrance, renouncing all those papalin or popish recusants doctrins, against which the oath of supremacy was made, and is tender'd, is the subiect and scope of this great Tome of yours: This is your own ingenious confession; these your endea­uors since the year 61. You should haue told this in the beginning to the Layty, and to such of the Clergy as vnderstood not your design and doctrin. Now that they all know both, you must not admire, if euen the subscribers detest you as a betrayer of their souls, as well as of the Kings interest, not only by your former acti­ons, but now also by your bookes and writings, incul­cating to all Bishops and other Churchmen, that they commit a sin, if, (as Churchmen) they concurr and contribute with their reuenues, or any other corporal means, to preserue their King, or to restore him, if God should, for our sins, permit an other reuolution, and that his right were possess'd by a rebel or Tyrant. Is this Christian or Catholik doctrin? Hath the spiri­tual calling or caracter of a Bishop, or of a Clergy man, such antipathy with the duty of a subiect, and of spiritual Father, that a Bishop or Priest must sin, if either of them apply his temporal goods to the support of his lawfull Prince? You may as well maintain, that the caracter of Baptism, or Christianity, must make it a sin (in lay subiects) to defend or restore their lawfull [Page 89]Soueraign; for Christianity is as solemn and spiritual a profession of following Christs doctrin, as Episcopacy ^a and Priestod is. I see Mr. Walsh, you are half a Blak­loist: Blaklow and you agree in saying, that Subiects can not in conscience concurr to restore a dispossess'd lawfull soueraign; but you say it only of the Clergy; he, of all. You ground your error vpon the spiritua­lity, and supernaturality of the Clergyes caracter; Blaklow vpon the nature of man; which (as that heretical Tray­tor pretends in his book of Obedience and Gouernment) inclines him rationaly, and obliges him to preferr his quiet and share of the human conueniencies of an v­surpt gouernment before the Diuine right which here­ditary Soueraigns haue to be temporal Gouernors (vn­der God) of their Subjects, and the obligation Subiects haue to venter their liues and fortunes to assert that right, and restore their lawfull Soueraigns in case they should be disposest therof. Its no more a meruail to me, that the ^b pretended Dean and Chapter of England, which commended Blaklows doctrin as eminent, after he had writ this destructiue Tenet, did also commend your Remonstrance. But I admire, you should boast so much (pag. 55.) of their approbation, as to print, their Dean's letter to the Bishop of Dromore, for an euidence therof. Consider, what credit can such mens approba­tion as cry vp Blaklows condemned doctrin and bookes, for eminent, be to yours? I am sure such principles as these, are not to be tolerated either in the Church, or commonwealth.

Cease then to complain, and to wonder Mr. Walsh, that our King, our Parliaments, our priuy Councellors, and the Lords Lieutenants of Ireland, slight a Remon­strance and doctrin which doth inculcat or inferr so [Page 90]vnchristian Tenets as yours, so destructiue to Monar­chy and morality, so incontinent with the safety of Soueraigns, and the duty of Subiects. What think you Mr. Walsh of the Clergy of France? Do they sin when euery fifth or third year in their Assemblies they voluntarily tax themselues, and giue so considerable summs to their King for his occasious? They do not giue this help as temporal Peers or Barons of the Re­alm, but as Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Curats &c. Do they sin, I say, in doing this? Doth the Spanish Clergy sin in giuing their Milliones voluntarily, and as a Clergy, to their King? Doth the Pope sin for concurring as Pope with them by Bull or licence for these donations? If your Remonstrant Church had com to that perfec­tion you flatter'd yourself with, sure your Clergy would haue bin very rich, for they must not haue giuen vo­luntarily as Bishops one penny of their Reuenues to the King, to defend himself or the Kingdom against Re­bells, or foreign Inuaders. But if an Impostor Com­missary comes, he way by a forged commission and the Popes authority impose a taxe vpon the Kings Sub­iects, and leuy it by Excommunications and Censures. Js your loyal Formulary, and Reformation of the Ro­man Catholik Church of these last 600. years com to this Mr. Walsh? Who is the Traytor, who is the here­tik? You, for your Remonstrance, or all the Bishops in the world for taking the vsual oath at their Conse­crations? For shame, Mr. Walsh, repent, retract, and retire to your Conuent, and neuer write more of matters you vnderstand not. But before you retire, I will solue a very curious and material question, put by yourself in the page 579. of the second part of your first Trea­tise.

But if any demand (saith Friar Walsh sect. 2. pag. 579) how it came to p [...]ss, that in the year 1648. there was so great [Page 91]and numerous a party of the Roman Catholik Clergimen of Ireland, who together with Father Peter Walsh, appeared so realy, zealously, constantly, and successfully too, for the King against the Nun [...]ios Censures of Excommunication and Inter­dict, that they quite worsted the other side, and preuaild, euen for and to the actual reduction of the Consederates to an absolute submission to the King and his Lieutenant in that Kingdom; and yet now since his Majeslyes happy restauration, sixty nine only of a great body of 200. Clergymen at home in Ireland, should be found to appear professing so their Allegiance to his Majesty? And yet also these very few so professing to be ther­fore, and only therfore, by their Aduersaries without any feare or shame opposed, yea to their power, persecuted?

This is, Mr. Walsh, a rational doubt, if rightly pro­posed. You mistake the question; it ought to be this. How coms it to pass that of the great and numerous body of the loyal Irish Catholik Clergy, that approued themselues so in the occasion of tryal, an, 1648. there should be found so many as 69. an. 1662. that subscribed to Peter Walsh his Remonstran­ce, so destructiue to the Kings safety, right and autho­rity, as he hath bin demonstrated? Now I will solue this question.

Yow know Mr. Walsh when ambitious and irregu­lar Friars, who aspire to Bishopriks, and hate the po­uerty and disciplin of their institute, want friends and money, they inuent twenty deuices to compass both. Now, Redmund Caron and you, were resolued to be Bi­shops, the one of Armagh, the other of Dublin. You despar'd of obtaining Miters by your merit, and the ordinary wayes; therfore you resolued to fright the Court of Rome into it by setting vp this your Re­monstrance; and including yourselues into ecclesiastical and state affairs; you importun'd two great Ministers of state to countenance the pressing of your Formulary, [Page 92]vpon the Irish Clergy and Gentry, which had so faith­fully serued and followed the King in the worst of times, by shedding their bloud and spending their Estates in his quarrel, that they needed not any paper instrument to manifest or confirm their loyalty. And though the Ministers knew this very well, and vnderstood as well that it was not any good zeal, but your ambition and couetousness, which moued Caron and you to buisy yourselues in a matter very improper for your calling, and much aboue your capacities; yet for reasons best knowen to themselues, and common to all statesmen, they were content to let two such fellows as you, preach and press a Formulary, which they foresaw would diuide the Catholiks amongst themselues, discredit their Reli­gion, and giue the gouernment the color and aduan­tage of excluding from their Estates many meriting gentlemen, for not professing that allegiance, which learned Friars of their own persuasion, maintain'd to be absolutely necessary in a faithfull Subiect: So that your Remonstrance serued to exclude many honest men from their right, but neuer restored any to his inheritance; though many (foold by you and Caron) put their hands to it in hopes of receiuing therby the benefit of the peace 48.

As for your 69. Clergymen that subscribed the Re­monstrance, yourself doth confess (pag. 578. part. 2.1. Treat) Som fell off immediatly after their signing in the yeare 1662. — Others were content only to haue sign'd it, like so many Nicodemus de nocte; not acknowledging amongst the Op­posers what they had don. Som, who albeit they had sufficient iudgment to guide themselues, or their own personal duty in order to themselues alone; yet had not those abilities either to persuade or satisfy others. Finaly there was not wanting a­monst them a false and treacherous troublesom and impudent Brother &c. who discouered all might do them prejudice, and [Page 93]betray, them too wherin soeuer he might.

I see Mr. Walsh, that of your 69. Ecclesiastical subscribers, som fell off immediatly; others durst not own their subscription; others knew not how to iustify it; and one false Brother betrayd your Councells or cheats. The matter is wors than I thought. I pray how many able constant subscribers are there left in your Remonstrant Church? When you petitioned the King and Councell in its behalf against the titular Archbi­shop of Dublin, you could name but seuen; and four of the seuen fell off then: and I belieue the other two haue don the same since. What? A Church, and none but one Friar Walsh to profess its Faith? Is AntiChrist com? Euen in his time the Professors of Christianity will be more then one. One makes no Congregation, and by consequence no Church. But you say (pag. 577.) the deceased Bishop of Dromore, Oliner Darcy, was one. What then? Doth his authority weigh more than that of all the Bishops who condemn your Remons­trance?

I abstain as much as I can from censuring the dead; but I can not well in this occasion, you relying so much vpon this deceased Bishops authority, who was the only that subscrib'd to your Remonstrance. This obli­ges me to diminish a litle his credit. Father Iohn Talbot, of whom you said when he dyed (as if it were a rarity, or kind of miracle) There lyes one honest Iesuit, assured me, that after his Brother Sir Robert Talbot had with the rest of the Commissioners, at length, concluded with my Lord of Ormond the peace of 1646. Sir Ro­bert went in great hast from Dublin to Conaght, where General Presion then was with his Army, and persua­ded that General to haue the peace proclaim'd in the head of the same. A litle after, the Nuntius began to treat with you, and Friar Oliner Darcy (before he was [Page 94]Bishop of Dromore) who was General Preston's Ghostly Father; and vpon that score could do much with him. Sir Robert Talbot hauing bin made Priso­ner for his zeal to the Kings seruice, and to that peace, charged his Brother Iohn Talbot, to keep still neer General Preston, to the end he might keep him constant to the peace; for that he feard Friar Oliuer Darcy (v­pon the hopes which were giuen him of a Bishoprik) would make the General alter his resolution. F. Iohn Talbot did so, and hauing certain intelligence that Friar Darcy had vndertaken to the Nuncius to gain Preston to his party, he ask't the General (at Lucan) whether he was still constant to the resolution he had taken of reassuming and adhering to the peace of 46. as he had lately promised to my Lord of Ormond. He sayd he was, and the rather because Friar Oliuer Darcy told him, he ought to be so. Father Iohn replyed, my Lord, will you giue me your word, and hand, to con­tinue so, though Father Darcy should aduise you to the contrary? The General laught at the improbabi­lity of such a thing. But the weak, though honest General, fell from his resolution by the Friars impor­tunity, who had bin gain'd by the Nuncius; and vpon this Friar Oliuer Darcy was made Bishop of Dramo­re.

Now I will tell you Mr. Walsh, how he came to be the chief subscriber of your Remonstrance. Be not startled; do not think I am a witch; there are hundreds can tell you as well as I, though you make it a secret. This poor Bishop had the misfortune to hinder his Brother Sir I [...]mes Darcy from doing his duty of fol­lowing the King into Flanders with the Duke of yorks Regiment (which he commanded) when he re­ceiued Orders to take his pass, as the other Colonells did. Hereby the Bishop incurr'd his Kings displeasure, [Page 95]and ruin'd the fortune of his Brother, a very loyal worthy gentleman, and a good Commander. After the Kings happy restauration, this vndutifull carriage of the Bishop was not forgot at whitehall; and he not know­ing how to liue in France, hauing also a desire to return to his own Countrey, writ to you Mr. Walsh, that he would do any thing you would haue him do, so he might be permitted to return and liue at home. A large offer, and an argument of a large conscience, in circum­stances wherin he knew you wanted and sought (at this very time) a Bishop to head your vpstart Church. You took him at his word, and he set his hand to to your Remonstrance. Whether he repented, or no, at his death, I know not, but I am sure Friar Redmund Caron, whom you canonize for a Saint (pag. 759.) ought to haue retracted the doctrin of his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, which was stuff't with so notorious and palpable falsifications, that he can not be presumed to haue bin ignorant of them. But his last aduice and Adieu to you is sad, and remarkable; for, he declared (as you say pag. 760.) That you were bound in conscience to prosecute still, euen after his death, that matter (of the Remonstrance) and continue the defence or aduancement of that doctrin, which in his life time you had for so many years, and notwithstanding so much contradiction, maintain'd.

You do a great iniury, Mr. Walsh, to the memory and merit of that Illustrious and Catholik Prelat, Tho­mas Dease, quondam Bishop of Meath, in ioyning him (in the same page) with Caron, as approuing at his death of your Remonstrance, and doctrin. What if he did ap­proue of the book of Queries? Was there any thought or knowledge then of your Remonstrance? Is there any thing in that book of Queries, asserting a spiritual supremacy in Princes, or denying it to the Pope? Doth it say that Secular Princes by their own sole authority may [Page 96] gouern the Church, and make Ecclesiastical lawes, euen in matter of Faith? Doth it maintain that Catholiks both rashly and obstinatly deny to take the oath of Supre­macy, and by consequence commit a sin for not taking it? Doth it say the General Councells of Ephesus and Calcedon gaue as much to temporal Princes, and as litle to the Pope of spiritual authority, as the oath of Supremacy doth? Doth it say that som Catholiks hold Generall Councells are fallible? Where will you find in the book of Queries, that the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd enormously in its principles and practises these last 600. years, and that all the Bishops thereof, are either Traytors to their Princes, or per­iur'd to the Pope in taking the vsual oath at their con­secration? Doth the book of Queries teach that if Bi­shops, as Bishops, help their Soueraigns with money or armes against Rebells or Vsurpers, they offend God? As also that temporal Soueraings offend God in exemp­ting the Clergy from their Secular Supreme Courts? Doth the book of Queries teach that God may work Miracles to confirm a falshood, or at least the Sanctity of a man who has a good intention and zeale in main­taining it or dying for it, thinking it to be a truth? Or that a man who dyes so for maintaining an error, is properly (though not strictly) a Martyr? Or that the whole Church, when it celebrats the feast of a Saint as (properly and strictly) a Martvr, may be mistaken in declaring and belieuing him such a Martyr, though not in belieuing him a Saint in Heauen? All this you maintain (in Saint Thomas of Canterberies case) as ne­cessary consequences flowing from the doctrin of your Remonstrance. Did Bishop Thomas Dease, nay did Caron himself, defend these heresies? The book of Queries only asserted the lawfullness of making peace and Confederacies with Protestants, and that the Popes [Page 97] Nuncius could not validly excommunicat the Irish Ca­tholiks for doing so; and that it was lawfull to appeal to the Pope in those circumstances, and that the said Appeal did suspend the Nuncius Censures. No learned Catholik denyes this doctrin. But not one Catholik in the world doth or can maintain your doctrines now mention'd, and therfore you are not only heretik, but an Impostor, pretending that they who opposed the Nuntius his Censures and practises in Ireland, were your Remonstrants.

ANIMADVERSION 9. Whether temporal Soueraigns can exempt from their Supreme coerciue power the Clergy of their Dominions?

THAT they haue don so de facto, is euident by the lawes and practise of all Christian Emperors and Kings, espe­cialy in England, euer since Christia­nity florished. But what's that to the purpose, if Friar Walsh say they could not de iure, or in conscience? Pardon me, 'tis som­thing. For, though Friar Walsh his authority be very great, (Especialy when he hath Barclay the Poet, or Ro­mantik writer, to back him) yet I hope the persuasion and practise of the whole Catholik Church, the belief of all Christian Princes, and Prelats, for so many hun­dred years, will weigh more than the opinion of a Ro­mantik Poet, or a Remonstrant Friar. Excuse then, I pray, Mr. Walsh, poor Cardinal Belarmin (whose [Page 98]ignorance you so much pitty) for being mightily start­led at this position of yours and Barklay's, The temporal ^a Princes themselues, how otherwise Supreme soeuer, could not, can not by any law, right, authority, or power giuen them by God, or man, exempt from themselues, that is, from their own Supreme Ciuil, and euen coerciue power, the Clergy men of their Dominions.

Sure you must needs haue a very cleer demonstra­tion for this Tenet, that forces you to hold it being so contrary to the doctrin and practise of the Church. You say you haue. Out with it then, Mr. Walsh, and let not the Faithfull be any longer foold. Good Rea­der, be attentiue; 'tis a profound acute argument, you will find it pag. 271. cit. in these words. Whosoeuer haue, and continue any office, which essentially inuolues a power Su­preme, both directiue and coerciue, of all Clerks within their Dominions, may not deuest themselues of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks, vnless they do withal deuest them­selues of that office as towards the self same Clerks. Because they can not deuest themselues of the essence of that which they hold still; this arguing a plain contradiction. But the Office of Kings inuolues a power supream, both directiue and coerciue of all Clerks within their Dominions. Ergo.

The Minor you must proue Mr. Walsh, I haue al­ready don that (saith he) and at large, by very natural reason. I find none but that desinition of a King, for which you quote your great claslik Author Almainus de sup. po­test &c. cap. 5. thus. Aliquem esie Regem nihil aliud est, quam habere Superioritatem erga subditos, & in subditis esse obligationem pariendi Regi. &c. This is all you set 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 [Page 99]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 [Page 100]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, its no new doc­trin, tis 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 [Page 102]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 bring to my purpose (saith this honest Friar pag. 345. 1 part.) is that very same first, and greatest of all Christian Emperors, Constantin himself. A Prince who as by the Confession of all sides, and all writers, was most pious, and of all Princes deser­ted best of the Christian Catholik Churches, so no man I think [Page 103]will haue the confidente to accuse him of hauing vsurped any kind of authority ouer Churchmen, or practised any at all ouer them, but what was allowed him by the lawes of God and nature, ^a and approued also by the state ciuil and Ecclesiastical. And yet this very great and pious Coustantin is he who in the General Councell of Nice, or when it sate, himself being present with them at Nice, and often in the very session hall amidst the Council, which was in his own Pallace there, commanded the libels or petitions of accusitions and criminations offerd to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bish­ops, and as a Iudge of them all of both sides, and in such criminal matters, commanded the same libels to be brought before him, and receiued them; albeit immediatly therupon, hauing first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wisdom and piety, and rebuking seuerely both the Accusers and accused, for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings, he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire. — Indeed Sozamen tells vs that Constantin said in this occasion; It was not lawfull for him, as being a man, to take vpon or vnto himself the cog­nizance of such causes, when the Accusers and the accused were Priests. But if Constantin said so at all, without any kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so, partly out of somexcess of reuerence and piety to their Order &c.

Mr. Walsh, you tell vs heer a long story, but let me tell you, 'tis not euery one can tell a story well, or to purpose. You must neuer bring a story for a proof of what you say, if it makes against yourself, and proues the quite contrary of what you quote it for: you bring this passage of Constantin the great, to proue that Secular Princes neuer exempted the Clergy from their own suprem Iudicature; and yet S. Gregory ^b the great, [Page 104]and Pope Nicholas, quote the very same passage in their letters to the Emperors Mauritius and Michaël, to shew those Princes how much they degenerated from the piety and proceedings of the great Constantin, who acknowledg'd it was not lawfull for him to iudge or punish the Clergy. You say Constantin receiued those libels as Iudge of the Bishops and Priests; but Constan­tin himself said it was not lawfull for him to take vpon himself the cognizance of such causes. But (say you) if Constantin said so at all, without any Kind of doubt he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excesse of reue­rence —. For, if Constantin had said so indeed, and withall mean'd to be vnderstood of euen meer lay crimes, or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull, in order to such crimes of Priests, or euen also to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge, nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion &c. He had neuer receiued the petitions either of the accusers or accused, but remitted them on both sides to their own proper Iudges and Iudicatories, the Tribunals of Bishops. Nay the Bishops themselues, at least such of them as were not particularly concerned in such criminations, had like­ly admonished him not to giue eare or audience to the accu­sers of Bishops, or at all receiued their libels, as not being their competent Iudges. — And yet for any thing out of History, none of them euer admonish'd, much less reprehended him in this matter.

You doubt, or at least would fain make others doubt, whether Constantin said it was not lawfull for him, to take cognizance of Ecclesiastical complaints or causes. If Constantin said so at all. You perceiue at length this story is not much for your purpose. Why then did you mention it? But why do you doubt of this part of the story, and not of the rest? You haue the same authority for this, which you haue for the whole: and when you take any thing vpon authority, you [Page 105]must take all or nothing. Jt had bin more for your purpose to haue resolutely denyed the whole story, (as most men do, who defend such an ill cause as yours) when the story makes so pat against you. But if Con­stantin said so at all, he must be supposed to haue said so partly out of som excess of reuerence and piety to their Order; for if he mean'd to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word fas or law­full, or to signify that himself was not a competent Iudge, he had neuer receiued the petitions, but remitted them to their own proper Iudges. What do you mean Mr. Walsh? Must Constantin be supposed to haue spoken one thing, and meant the quite contrary? Had he no other buis­ness ac Nice, but to compliment the Bishops, and tell them lyes so preiudicial to his own right and authority? Is it the style of Soueraigns to declare that their Sub­iects ought not be iudged by the Supreme Secular Ju­dicature? Why must men suppose these absurdities Mr. Walsh? Because forsooth if Constantin meant to be vnderstood in a strict sense of the word lawfull, when he said he was no lawfull or competent Iudge of the Clergy, he had neuer receiued the petitions, but remitted them to their own proper Iudges. I beg your pardon, Sir. Prin­ces can not diuine what men put in their petitions; they can not well reiect them, before they are informed of the contents. Jndeed you are in the right, when you lay that Constantin ought to haue remitted the Clergy to their own proper Iudges, if he did not think himself one. And the same Authors ^a who tells you the story, tells you he did so; his words are, God hath constituted, you Priests, and gaue you power to iudge also of vs, therfore we [Page 106]are rightly iudged by you, but you can not be iudged by men, wherfore expect the iudgment of God alone, and reserue your differences, whateuer they be, to that diuine examination. What cause then had the Catholik Bishops to admo­nish, or reprehend so pious an Emperor, who remitted them to God, and his Diuine Tribunal? What wonder is it you find no mention of any Bishops complaint, admonition 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 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 [Page 107]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 [Page 108]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 spiri [...]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 its neither necessary nor decent, that Churchmen should take the sword out of their hands, or manage it against heretiks and Preachers of sedition. Thats 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 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 or his Lieutenant in Ireland, and say, Sir, I am charged with a barbarous murther of six Englishmen at the bridge of Iohnston, I am also accu­sed of hauing wrested the Castle of Kilkenny from your Majesties faithfull subiects, the Lord Viscomt Montgacret, [Page 110]and put it into the Nuntius hands, and this by virtue of an Excommunication writ and fixt by my own hand, which is said to be (the very original) in my Lord Iohn Berkley's custody. Sir, all these are but calumnies, heer I offer my self to the tryal of both. Why do you not do this Mr. Walsh, if you be innocent? You are very forward in accusing others, both to the King and Parliament of treason; and after your accusations were found to be meer calumnies, you haue the considence to print them in this your bundle of lyes, as truths. But if you scruple presenting yourself, as S. Athanasius did, before the King, or his Lieutenant, me thinks you might imitat that Saint in writing at least an Apology for yourself, and confuting the calumny, especialy ha­uing mention'd and complain'd of it in this large volum of yours, wherin you repeat ouer and ouer many of yours own tedious and impertinent speeches. Js it possible Mr. Walsh, that you can not bring one argu­ment or example to defend your principles, that is not retorted against your person and proceedings.

You coin not off much better with your story and instance of Constantin the same Emperor, ^a about the controuersy between the Donatists and Caecilianus the Primat of Afrik, whom those heretiks or schismatiks had accused of betraying and burning the holy scriptu­res in time of persecution. Constantin admiring at their troubling himself, a lay Prince, with such matters, an­swerd them in great anger (as Optatus tells you) with those words, ^b Petitis à me in saetulo iudicium, cum Ego ipse Christi iudicium expecto; Yet they extorted by their im­portunity from him (being then but a new Cathecu­men) the naming of three Bishops for Iudges of the cause, but considering afterwards that without the Bi­shop [Page 111]of Rome, such causes could not be canonicaly decided, he remitted both parties to Melchiades then Pope, bidding each take along with them ten Bishops of their own faction, together with the three aforesaid French Bishops. Sentence being giuen by the Pope and his Collegues in Rome against the Donatists, and Caecilianus by the same sentence declared innocent, the Donatists appeal'd from it to the Emperor, who in a rage (for their appealing to him) said, O rabida furoria audatia! Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. But the Donatists, pretending that Bi­shop Felix (the Ordainer of Caecilianus) was as guilty as any one of the Traditores, and that Caecilianus, and the matter of fact had not bin well examined, the principal things hauing bin omitted, the Emperor commanded the Proconful Aelianus to inquire very diligently into the whole buisness again; which he hauing don, decla­red Caecilianus and Felix innocent, and condemned again the Donatists. From this sentence also they appeald to the Emperor, who (as S. Augustin sayes Ep. 162. ^a) like a Christian Emperor not daring to humor so much their peruersness as to iudge of the sentence formerly giuen by the Bishop of Rome and his Collegues, ap­pointed other Bishops at Arles to iudge the cause, not [Page 112]because it was necessary to haue an other iudgment, but to giue way to their impudent obstinacy, resoluing afterwards to beg pardon of the holy Bishops. The Donatists hauing bin cast also in the Councell of Aries, they appeald again to the Emperor, who then vtter'd those remarkable words recorded by Optatus, Dico enim (vt se veritas habet) Sacerdotum indicium ita debet haberi, ac si ipse [...]ominus residens iudicet, nihil enim licet his alind sentire, vel aliud iudicare, nisi quod Christi Magisterio sum educts. I speake the truth as it is (saith Constantin) The Priests (or Bishops) iudgment ought to be esteem'd so as if our Lord himself residing amongst them did iudge. For they may not think nor iudge otherwise than they are taught by Christ.

This is the truth of the story Mr. Walsh, which you corrupt (pag. 348 & seqq.) concealing Constan­tins sentences and sentiment of the incompetency of his own iudicature in Ecclesiastical matters (related by Optatus) and your contradicting Saint Augustins plain text, to impose Caluins ridiculous answer consured by Belarmin (and other heretiks errors) vpon such as be­lieue you haue so much common honesty and shame, as not to be a wicked falsifier and Forger. Tis true (say you pag. 349.) Constamin breaks out into this no less iust than admiring exclamation, O rabidi furoris audacia! sicut in causa Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Yet this imports not, signifies not by any means, that Con­stantin abominats the ignorance of the Appellants, for hauing, or as if they had against any Diuine or human rule or Canon, had recourse to a lay Tribunal. For had it bin so, or had this been the Motiue of his Exclamation, he had dismissed them, and re­mitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal Iudges, which yet he did not, but admitted their Appeal. But how euer this be, or what euer moued Constantin to this exclama­tion the matter of fact which followed, can not be denyed. For sure [Page 113]enough it is that Constantin admitted this appeal. You add pag. 349. This admission of the Appeal, and this reexa­mination by Constantin, and by his Councel of Orleans (you ignorantly mistake all the way Orleans for Arles) seems very harsh to Baronius. And therfore sayes that Constantin was drawn against his will to admit so vniust an Appeal from the iudgment or sentence of the great Pontiff. But to that of being drawn against his will, we haue said before enough, or that there was none could force him. And for his admission (of the Appeal) I am sure Augustin neuer reprehends it.

I pray Mr. Walsh, did not Constantin remit the Donatists to Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and those others ioyn'd with him when they appeal to Constantin himself? Therfore (euen according to your own Confession) the 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) its 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 [Page 114]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 [...]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 t [...]e case to be vsurped; but excuses the iudgment of Melchiades, which realy de facto was (not that which only [...]ight be falsely supposed, or bruited to haue bin) and defends it (that so was truly) by saying again thus. Quid auod nec [...]ipse vsurpauit? Rogati [...]s quippe Imperator Iudites misit Epis [...]opes, qui cum eo viderent, & de tota illa causa quodinsium videretur, [Page 115]Hoc probamus, & Donatistarum precibus, & verbis ipsius Im­peratoris. So Augustin.

^a 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 [Page 116]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 ou [...]te of Saint Augustin for maintaining temporal So­ [...]raigns iudicature in ecclesiastical matters, and his in­sinuating that the Pope would vsurp the Emperors au­thority if he had iudged this cause of Caecilianus without [Page 117]his Maiesties commission, it should be demonstrated, that Saint Augustin maintains the quite contrary, and reproaches the Donatists that euen against their own holding the Emperor not to be a competent Iudge of Ecclesiastical differences, they made vse of him in this controuersy; and at the same time found fault with Caecilianus and Felix, ^a for defending themselues before a Secular Iudge? A Certaine man (saith Saint Augustin; meaning one of the Donatists themselues) said a thing which you are not willing to heare, but must be told you, this man said, A Bishop ought not be cleerd by the iudgment of a Proconsul. This the Donatists obiected a­gainst Bishop Felix, because Aelianus by Constantins command had examined the whole matter again, and declared Felix innocent. What doth Saint Augustin an­swer to this obiection? As if forsooth Felix or Caecilianus had sued or desired such a iudgment; quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparauerit. Jt was at the instance of the Donatists, not of the Catholiks, a lay man iudg'd the matter; and supposing the Emperor took vpon him the arbitration or iudgment of it (whether with consent of the parties, or only with permission of Felix and Caecilian, who could not help themselues any other way) supposing, I say, the Emperor took vpon himself the examina­tion of the matter, he was bound in conscience to haue a great care to find out the truth, that innocency might not be oppressed; and the innocent Bishops had no reason to refuse or hinder the relief and remedy they found by that examination. And therfore S. Augustin answers the Donatists obiection, Non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari iudicio purgari; Quasi vero ipse sibi hoc compera­uerit, ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserit, ad cuius curam, de [Page 118]qua rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maximè pertinebat. Arbitrum enim & Iudicem causae traditionis & Schismatis illi eum fecerant, qui ad eum etiam pretes miserant, ad quem posteà prouocarunt, & tamen iuditio eorum acquiescere noluerunt. Out of these words you see Saint Augustin sayes it be­long'd to Constantins care most of all to examin or inquire into that matter, because the Donatists had de­sired him to be Arbiter or iudge of it; and Caecilianus and Felix did not, or rather durst not, except against him; as appears by the Saints words excusing these two for not excepting against that lay Iudge, which the Dona­tists impos'd vpon them; and taxing these for recurring to him.

Wherfore (saith Saint Augustin Ep. 162. ^a quoted by yourself Mr. Walsh) if he ought to be blamed who is de [...]lared by a temporal Iudge, when he desired none such, how much more are they to be blamed, that would needs haue a temporal King to be Iudge of their cause? But if it be no crime to appeal to the Emperor, sure it is no crime to be heard by the Empe­ror. Therfore neither is it any to be heard by him to whom the Emperor did delegat the cause. This is a good argument ad hominem against the Donatists. They also obiected against the Bishop Felix, that one was tortured in the examination of his cause, to wrest the truth from him. Saint Augustin excuses Felix, from being any way bla­meable in that buisness. Nunquid poterat Felix, saith he) contradicere ne tanta diligentia vel seueritate quaereretur, cum eius causam inueniendam cognitor agitaret? Quid enim erat [Page 119]aliud nolle sic quaeri, quam de crimine confiteri? How could Felix hinder the diligence or seuerity of him that inqui­red into that cause? would he not haue confessed him­self guilty, if he had obstructed that examination? Heer you see Mr. Walsh, how S. Augustin blames the Dona­tist Bishops for repairing to a lay Iudge, but excuses the Catholik Bishop Caecilianus and Felix, for defending themselues before a lay Iudge, whom they did not de­sire to be Iudge of that Ecclesiastical cause. There is great difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Many things are lawfully don in a man's defence, when he is violently or vnreasonably assaulted, which are not lawfull when don otherwise.

The same practise of the Donatist Bishops recurring ^a to a secular Iudge of their own accord, and taxing the Catholik Bishops with a crime, for answering and defending themselues when they are recommanded to appeare before the same Iudge, doth Saint Augustin obiect in his 48. Epistle also, which you quote as fauo­ring the quite contrary. Nay Saint Augustin himself (say you pag. 350.) openly sayes and auers, that neither the ‘accusing or appealing Bishops themselues were to be reprehended on this account, that they drew or brought the affairs or causes of, or accusations against other Bishops, to a secular Iudicatory. For thus he writes Ep. 48. Si autem sicut falsò arbitramini, verè crimi­nosum Caecilianum, iudicandum terrents potestatibus tradiderant quid obij [...]itis quod vestrorum praesumptio primitus fecit (he speaks to the later Donatists) quod eos non argueri­mus (sayes he) quia fecerunt; si non animo inuido & noxio, sed emendandi & corrigendi voluntate fecissent. Therfore Saint Augustin sayes that where and when the dispute, concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesi­asticks, [Page 120]to demand the iudgment or sentence, and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes, is not repre­hensible, if the accusers proceed not in such (or indeed any other) application, out of enuy or malice. Thus you.’

Is it the part of a Christian writer, Mr. Walsh, to impose vpon his Readers such falshoods as you do, and then vpon that great Doctor of the Church Saint Au­gustin? This great Doctor writ that Epistle 48. to proue it was lawfull for Churchmen to implore the protection and help of secular Princes, and the execu­tion of their lawes against heretiks and schismatiks (but not their Iudicature) as is euident by the text. And because Rogatus and other Donatists, reprehended the Saint for changing his former opinion into this which he now defended, he retorts their arguments, and puts them in mind of the ancient Donatists practises against Caecilian; shewing how inconsequently and absurdly they argued against the punishment of conuicted here­tical Bishops by secular lawes, whereas themselues made the Secular Soueraigns Iudges of Caecilianus and Felix, Catholik and innocent Bishops. This being the whole drift of S. Augustin in that epistle, you quote som words of it, which, euen as you order them, make against you. For euen in them the Saint taxes the ancient Do­natists with presumption, for accusing Caetilianus (though he were criminal) before a Secular Iudge; and you pretend, Saint Augustin only reprehended their enuy and malitious intention in accusing him, but not the accusation itself If you had don your Reader the fauor, and Saint Augustin the iustice, to quote his words but foure lines after those, you would haue cleer'd the whole matter, and not haue forc't me to call you a shameless Impostor. What think you of these words of S. Augustins Mr. Walsk? (Ibid.) Illos autem magis hine [Page 121]arguimus, qui apud Imperatorem vltrò Caecilianum accusaue­runt, quem prius apud Collegas trransmarinos conuincere de­buerunt, ipso autem Imperatore longè ordinatius agente, vt Episcoporum causam ad se delatam, ad Episcopos mitteret) ne victi pacem cum fratribus habere noluerunt; sed rursus ad eun­dem Imperatorem venerunt, rursus non Caecilianum tantum, verum etiam datos sibi Episcopos Iudices apud terrenum Regem accusauerunt. But we reprehend them (the Donatists) the more, that they accused of their own accord before the Emperor Caecilian, whom first they ought to haue conuinc'd before the Collegues beyond the seas (he means Bishops;) the Emperor himself hauing proceeded much more orderly, sending the cause of Bishops which was brought to him, to Bishops;) and yet they (the Donatists Bishops) being cast, would not haue peace with their brethren, but came again to the same Emperor, and again accused before the earthly King not only Caecilian, but also those Bishops which had bin appointed their Iudges.

^a You haue not hitherto Mr. Walsh, produced any argument against the doctrin and practise of the Ca­tholik Church, which hath not bin retorted against, and applyed to yourself. This also is of the same nature. You censure and condemn your titular Archbishop of Dublin (as the Donatists did Caecilian) for defending himself against that petition and accusation of yours, which you presented to his temporal Soueraign. And because vpon that occasion, som Inquiry was made into your own, and your Remonstrant brethrens ac­tions, and som therof appeare to be Treasonable, you complain of the said Archbishop, as if he had sought to take away Churchmens liues by a secular power; wheras, if the truth were knowen, he hindered the witnesses to giue in euidence against you, because they were Priests, and could not lawfull concurr to the death you deseru'd. But if by your own prosecuting [Page 120] [...] [Page 121] [...] [Page 122]him, your crimes vere casualy discouered, and publish­ed by others, he was no more oblig'd to saue you from the gallows, than Bishop Felix was to saue the Donatist from the rack. Notwithstanding this danger you were, and are still in, of hanging, you are still as obstinat in persecuting that Prelat, and in importuning the King and Parliament with false and forged accusations against him, as the Donatists were against Archbishop Caecilian. You criminat him in print, after that your petition and accusations had bin cast out of the Conncel of Ireland, as false; and he dismist as innocent. But you print not a word to cleer yourself of the Murthers and Treasons layd to your own charge; not by him, but by many others, who say they will make them out whensoeuer commanded. The vindication of yourself from these aspersions you remit to your Latina Hibernica, or latin Irish volum, consisting for the most part of ridiculous impertinent speaches of your own; as if it were not to purpose, or there were no room, to insert a confuta­tion of calumnies, which endanger your life, and haue ruin'd your reputation; or as if english men could not be conuinc't of your innocency as well in english, as in latin or Irish; for your Latina Hibernica must be writ in one of these languages.

^a Well, now you haue don (say you) with Constantin, only this you will add in relation to that his famous saying, wherin he desir'd the Bishops to referr all their accusations ‘to the great Iudge of all, Christ our Sauior himself on the final day, and to vse no other means of punishing, constraining, or forcing one the other by their own authority, and at least in such things as properly concern'd the execution of their Episcopal office to­wards their respectiue flocks:’ in relation I say to this [Page 123]part of that saying, or the meaning of Constantin, I, will add (say you) that Constantin might haue heard, of others, or perhaps of himself learnd and read in, Saint Cyprian's works (for Cyprian was before his dayes), what euen this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself, said to this purpofe openly in a great Councell of his, African Bishops, (of all whom as being himself the, Archbishop of Carthage, he was Primat;) Neque enim, (sayes he in Conc. Afric. de Haeret. baptis.) quisquam, nostrum Epis [...]opumse esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico, terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adegit: quando, habeat omm [...] Episcopus prolicentia libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium, tanquam iudicartab alio non possit, cum, nec ipse possit alterum indicare; sed expectemus vniuersi indi ium, Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui vnus & solus habet potestatem, & praeponendi nos in Ecclisiae suae gubernatione de actu nostro, indicandi. So this blessed Cyprian, intending and signifi­ing (if I be not very much deceiued) the parity of, Bishops amongst themselues, or independence from, the iudicial authority, or authoritatiue iudgment of, one an other (if we regard only the immediat law of, God) and therfore exhorting them all not to iudge, one an other by any such pretended authority, but to, leaue all their differences and dissuasions whatsoeuer, (about seueral or distinct wayes of discipline, or of, the gouernment or spiritual direction of their respec [...], ture flocks) to the iudgment of our Lord JESVS, Christ, who (sayes he) is the onely and sole he, that, hath power both to prepone vs in the gouernment of, the Church, and to iudg [...] of our act—Which final, and peaceable aduice of Saint Cyprian to the Bishops, of that aboue mention'd African Synod, Constantin, the great may be thought to haue alluded vnto in, his aduice also (being it is so like) giuen to those, other Bishops of the Nicen Councell. But whether, [Page 124] ‘certainly it be so or not, it matters not much heer, or any more at all than to shew vpon what ground Cons­tautin might haue aduised the Bishops to peace a­mongst themselues; and for pure ecclesiastical diffe­rences in point of meer disciplin, or reformation of manners, or of the liues or conuersation of the Bishops themselues in peace 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 you haue had these [Page 125]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) [Page 126]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 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, [Page 127]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; [Page 128]which (or the equiualent) are necessary to express the caracter receiued by the form; and which were wanting in the old form. ^a This and much more you might haue seen in the Catholik writers obiections, Answers and replyes to Mason Btamhall, Heylin, and other Pro­testant writers. And if you haue seen them, you ought to be ashamed of being more obstinat than the Pro­testant Bishops themselues, who (by the amendment of their old Form) confess it was defectiue, and that a new Form was necessary; otherwise they would neuer haue alter'd the old in so material a point, after an hundred years dispute. But seing you are satisfied with the protestant Episcopacy, and belieue the oath of Supremacy to be so lawfull, as to vpraid Roman Ca­tholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking it, I see not how you could scruple accepting of a protestant Bishoprick in your own Countrey; and therfore I can hardly beliue any such thing was euer offerd you. But if euer it will be offerd you, its twenty to one you will be desired first to cleer yourself, and wash off that stain of innocent English bloud, wherwith you are asperst, and reputed irregular.

But to return to Constantin and Cyprian, I can assure you, that you are very much deceiued (or at least you design to deceiue others) in the interpretation you giue of their words. Its generaly belieued that S. Augustin vnderstood Saint Cyprians works and words better than you do, Mr. Walsh. Now Saint Augustin after setting down lib. 3. de Baptisino cap. 3. those words of Saint Cyprian which you quote for the equa­lity [Page 129]of Bishops, as if none of them ought to be iudged by an other, but only by God &c. Sayes, that S. Cy­prian meant this of Controuersies, wherin the Church hath not declared or defined the truth as yet in debate, Opinor (saith he) in his quaestionibus quae nondum eliquatissima perspectione discussae sunt, &c. Jn such questions t'is very certain that not only Bishops in Prouincial and Gene-Councils, but that euery priuat Doctor in the Schools, may speake freely, and not be forc't to any side or sen­tence; and this is all that S. Cyprian meant, if S. Au­gustin be not very much deceiued. S. Cyprian was also in the right, in telling his African Bishops, that neither himself, nor any of them, was Episcopus Episcopo­rum, Bishop of Bishops. That is a title giuen only to the Bishop of Rome, and hath bin giuen by a Primat of Afrik, and Saint Cyprians successor (Stephen) in his letter to Pope Damasus; in a letter, I say, writ to him in the name of three African Councils; Beatissimo Domino, & Apostolico culmine sublimato, S. Patri Patrum, Damaso Papae &c. Father of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops ^a, signify the same thing in those Circumstances: and himself declares it, saying in the same Epistle, & summo omnium Praesulum Praesuli. That the Bishop of Rome had autho­rity and iurisdiction ouer other Bishops, independently of any general Councils, or their Canons (and conse­quently had this authority from God immediatly) is confess'd by S. Cyprian, who liued before any of the four first general Councils; and yet desired Stephen Pope (lib. 3. Ep. 13.) to depose the Bishop of Arles, and put an other in his see.

Now to end with your Idea of the Church. It is ob­serued in the liues of such Saints as are Fundators or Reformers of Regular Orders, that God did reueale to [Page 130]them, or giue them an Idea of their Congregations. Was it God or the Deuil gaue you the Idea of your re­formation? yourself is much pleased with it; but the Catholiks to whom you communicate and dedicate it, haue no reason to be pleased with it. For, it is a wild wicked fancy of independency: an vnreasonable liberty without subordination or discipline: A company of dissolute fellows without feare of correction: A com­monwealth of Libertins without any coerciue power to keep them in awe, or in order. How can you ima­gin Mr. Walsh, that Christ, being infinit wisdom, would institute a Commonwealth of frail men, or a Church and not inuest the Gouernors therof (who are the Clergy) with any coerciue power to punish and correct such frailties of their sheep or subiects, as he foresaw would be committed, and corrupt others? This is a pretty Idea of your Church, but not of Christs. An Idea your Remonstrants did practise whilst you were in power, and gouernd them, but too scandalous to continue.

ANIMADVERSION 12. Of the Emperors succeeding Constantin the Great.

TO proceed therfore from Constantin to more instances of matter of Fact in other Emperors and Kings who suc­ceeded him (saith Friar Walsh pag. 345. & seq.) Constantius (Constantins son) offers himself first. For this Constantius would haue, and accordingly had the cri­minal [Page 131] ‘cause of Stephanus the Patriatch or Bishop of Antioch, as being accused (de vi. publica, & lege Cornelia de Sicarijs) of murther, to be tryed in a secu­lar Indicatory, and before himself in the Pallace; and not by any means in the Church &c. Neither is it material to obiect heer, that Constantius was an Arrian, for the Arian Bishops stood as much for the immu­nities of the Church and Church men, and so did the Arrian Princes aduised by them, as any Catholiks, when the crime obiected was not diuersity in Religion.’

To proue that Catholik Emperors iudged the causes and persons of Catholik Bishops in their lay Courts, you quote the case of Stephen the Arrian Bish­op of Antioch, punish'd by Constantius the Arrian Emperor. And yet Theodoret, whom you cite for the murther (as you say) committed by Stephen (though Saint Athanasius speaks not of murther) tells you, ac­cording to your own translation of his words, that Stephen pleaded against the Emperor, Clerks ought not be whipt or wounded, At cum Stephanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret, affirmaretque, plagas non esse infligendas Clericis. I will tell you the story as S. Athanasius ^a re­counts it, and you may apply it to yourself and other heretiks, whose custom it is, and has alwayes bin, to discredit and defame their Catholik Confuters, when they can not answer their arguments. This Stephen you speake of, hauing bin with other Arrian Bishops con­demn'd and deposed as an heretik, ^b in the Catholik Council of Sardica, persecuted most barbarously those who had condemn'd him and the rest; he layd spies and Catchpols for them in all sea ports and inland Towns, when they returned from that Synod; iust as you did in Dublin and other Towns for the poor old Archbishop Burk of Tuam, Father Farcell, Tully, Moor, add all who [Page 132]were against your Remonstrance. Amongst others, he persecuted the two Bishops (Vincent and Euphrates) who had bin sent by the holy Synod to giue an account to the Emperor of their proceedings. And Stephen not finding any crime against them, he and som of his Priests hired or persuaded a Harlot to accuse Euphrates, as if he had artempted to be dishonest with her; but she not hauing bin fully instructed, or not following punctualy his instructions, the fraud of Ste­phen and his Priests was discouered, and himself deposed by the Arian Bishops, by command of the Arian Em­peror; who began then to suspect that a religion main­tain'd by such villanies, could not be good. How Ste­phen's case (recounted either after your own way, or that of Saint Athanasius) can be for your purpose, I do nor perceiue; for, we Catholiks not only confess, but desire, that such declared and condemnd heretiks as Stephen and you, be corrected and punish'd by the secular power, though you should plead the priuileges of Churchmen. You haue forfeited all such exemp­tions as soon as you declare yourselues heretiks.

But you tell us an other pretty story, how S. Atha­nesius ‘ Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constanti­nople, being deposed from their sees by other Bishops, and hauing their refuge to the Emperor Constance in the west, he at their instance and earnest petition, and euen in a cause merly ecclesiastical, but for the relief of in­nocency oppressed wrongfully, sent letters to his bro­ther Constantius wherin (as Socrates writes lib. 2. c. 12. and Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 9.) he signifies his pleasure, that three Bishops be sent from the east, to giue him an account of the causes, why Athanasius and Paulus had bin deposed &c. In which procedure of Constance, I belieue our very Antagonists will not haue the confidence to say there was any vsurpation; being [Page 133]that such religious Orthodox Bishops as this Paul and Athanasius, and so rigidly obseruant as they of ecclesiastical discipline, were his Authors and Petitio­ners to reassume the iudgment of themselues, albeit in a cause purely ecclesiastical, or which onely, or at least chiefly concern'd a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bishops from their Episcopal sees, pronunced against them by a Council of other Bishops. But whether our said Antagonists will (or no) pretend therin any vsurpation, I am sure the matter of fact is true; as I am sure also that euen natural reason itself will force them to confess there was a supream right in [...]onstans to relieue by all due means, oppressed inno­cency; and that there was no other way so ready, iust, and equitable as this which he took.’

^a I haue in other occasions aduiled you Mr. Walsh; neuer to bring stories which make against yourself; but I see you are resolued to continue that course. How­euer I will now aduise you, that when you quote such passages, let them not be those which are most obuious, and of persons so generally known, that its impossible to conceal your imposture. Is there any thing more known or celebrated in the ecclesiastical History, than Saint Athanasius his disputes and differences with the Arians? Why then are you so vnwary in your wicked way of corrupting Authors, and abusing Readers, as to say, that S. Athanasius and Paul were earnest Suitors and Petitioners to the Emperor Constance to reassume the iudgment of themselues, albeit in a cause purely ecclesiastical? Doth Socrates or Sozomen say this? Doth any writer, but your lying self, say it? Would any but so dull and sensless a man as you, print it? To what purpose should those two Patriarks of the East, petition the Emperor of the west to reassume the iudgment of a [Page 134]cause or fact that had no relation to his Dominions or iurisdiction? Do not you know that this Emperors iurisdiction was limited by the Alps; and that Epypt and Asia was vnder that of Constantius his brother; How com you then to say that Athanasius Patriark of Alexandria in Egypt, and Paul Patriark of Constanti­nople, were earnest Petitioners to an Emperor only of the west part of Europe, for reassuming the iudgment of a cause depending in Constantinople and Egypt? That out of his zeal he writ to his Brother Constan­tius, and threatned to make warr against him, if he did not let those Patriarks return and gouern their sees, we confess; but that these two holy men euer petitioned to him to reassume the iudgment of that matter (which only can make for your purpose) is one of your ac­customed fictions and impostures. Would not they be Rebells against their lawfull Soueraign (according to your own principles) if they had don so? Hath the passion you haue to establish your heresies, so blinded you, and blotted out of your soul all truth and com­mon sense, that you can not see your own contradic­tions? You do not tell your Reader that those two Patriarks were restored to their sees by the Catholik Councel of Sardica, and that they were deposed by an Arian Conuenticle. You only say they were deposed by other Bishops. What Bishops? Do you incline to Arianism also? make you no difference between Bish­ops and Bishops? Catholiks and Arians? Jf Athana­sius and Paul had bin deposed by such a Catholik aecu­menical Council as that of Sardica, which restored them to their sees, they had bin as iustly banisht by the Em­peror, as you may be by any Christian Soueraign, after you haue bin excommunicated by your Superiors, and declared an heretik by yourself in print.

You haue an admirable wit and faculty Mr. Walsh; in arguing against yourself. To proue that Emperors [Page 135]and temporal Soueraigns haue a power inherent in them to make ecclesiastical lawes, and that de facto they did punish Church men by their own sole authority, you quote examples of Bishops punished and banished by them, after they had bin deposed and degraded by the Pope and Councils How many times hath Belar­min told Caluin, and others from whom you borow all your obiections (but as they also do you conceal his answers) that temporal Soueraigns not only may, but are bound in conscience to protect the Church by punishing according to law, such as are declared by it heretiks, deposed from their Bishopriks, or degraded? You argue against yourself, when (pag. 360.) you quote S. Leo the Popes words Ep. 81. to Leo the Em­peror, wherin he begs of him to banish from Cons­tantinople those of the Clergy which fauored heresy, seing Anatolius the Bishop of that see, was remiss in do­ing that his duty; Vouchsafe (saith the Pope) for your Faiths sake, to do this fauor to the Church, or to apply this re­medy to it: you argue against yourself Mr. Walsh, when you quote the words of the Pope Simplitius Ep. 9.11. beseeching the Emperor Zeno, Vt quod per nos Ecclesiae serio postulat imò quod ipsi specialius supplicamus, Petrum Ale­xandrinae Ecclesiae Peruersorem ad exteriora tranferri pijssima praereptione inbeatis. Suppose Mr. Walsh, the Pope or the General of your Order should write to the King or England these very same words, The Church by me, doth seriously desire, and I more particularly 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 [Page 136]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 Ba [...]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? Tis 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 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 i [...]d [...]iary power in Ecclesiastical matters, or so against his own Bishop; nor that he proceeded so against him, out of, or by a tyrannical [Page 137]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 orb [...]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 f [...]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 [Page 138]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, [Page 139]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 [Page 140]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 co [...]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 sinn [...]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 [Page 141]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 [Page 142]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. Its 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 [...]ay Soueraigns iudicature or supremacy in Ecclesi­astical affairs, Its 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. [Page 143]Walsh, would you haue the Pope speake nonsense like 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 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, [Page 144]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 Bèlarmín 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 [Page 145]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 [Page 146]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, your dress, retinue, and equipage? Was not euery Countrey Clown or swain that saw it, scandalized? Did not a certain Lady obiect to you, that S. Francis neuer wore such cloathes, or trauell'd so; much less persecuted Priests? You obiect against F. Netteruille in your book, that he wore a sword in Dublin an. 1666. If he did, I belieue it was to disguise his caracter, and out of respect to the gouernment; and I am sure it was no syluer [Page 147]sword, like yours. But you needed no disguise. You were and are still a priuiledged person, because you sent the poor Priests to prison, and when you could giue no legal cause for it, you said, They were Prisoners of state. But that circumstance of Father Netteruille putting his hand to his sword, and saying he would neuer take it from his side, vntill he saw the french King, is not cre­dible, though you auerr it very positiuely. Jt would in­commode him very much in his long iourney; and none would be more surprised at a religious mans wea­ring a sword in France, than the French King; neither would such an vnnecessary disguise be the way for F. Netterinlle to make his Court to him.

But the Deuil will not in the last hour inueigh so much against you for your sword, or the fineness of your dress, as for the foulness of your soul, your perse­cution, your treasons, and your heresies. These are damnable, whether in a Bishop, Prince, or Friar. Your pretended Procuratorship for the Irish Clergy (which is the only excuse you pretend for your actings) can not warrant such crimes. Will you say at the hour of your death to Satan, when he charges you with your irregularities, that you acted not as a Friar, but as Pro­curator of those few Clergymen who commission'd you, and you confess my Lord of Ormond check't you soundly for speaking in their behalf? will you an­swer the Deuil when he charges you with your extor­ting the Castle of Kilkenny from the Kings party, to deliuer it to the Nuncius, that you committed not that treason as Friar Walsh, but as Procurator Walsh? He will reply, and proue you did it as Friar Walsh, and in your Franciscan habit, by virtue of an Excommunica­tion written and fixt by your own hand. Will you pre­tend to the Deuil, that you ioyn'd with D. Enos in his infamous libel against the peace of 46, as Procurator [Page 148]Walsh, when you ruin'd the Kings interest, his Lieu­tenants credit, and the Irish Nation? He will grant, you acted as Procurator, but as the Deuils Procurator; and will shew your approbation of the libel in print in the first page therof; and besides will proue the trust the Nuntius reposed in you, and how he ioyn'd you in a Comittee, at that very time with the same D. Enos, by your own words pag. 614. of your great History, whe­re you confess, that by command from the Nuntius, a Small Comittee of three was appointed, viz. the Bishop of Ferns, Walter Enos D. of Diuinity Author of the book against the Peace of 1646.) and yourself, to consider of, and draw in writing a Formulary of precept and Censures, to command all the Roman Clergy, Secular and Regular out of the English Quarters But this you opposed, and quasht, you say. Why did not you oppose and quash also (seing you were in such trust and power) a greater mischief, the Formulary and excommunication yourself drew and writ for wresting the Castle of Kilkenny out of the Kings hands? and your own approbation of D. Enos his libel? Will you pretend you acted as Procurator Walsh, and not as Friar Walsh, when you struck vp with your Impostor Com­missary (as your self terms him) to cheate the King and his Subiects of Money by a forged Commission of the Pope? and when your Remonstrant brethren went vp and down the Countrey imposing and raising a Tax and summs of money, wherwith you and they made good cheere, and were so often merry at the sign of the Harp and Croun in Oxmontown? Did you draw vp your Impostor Commissioners Instructions to his Vi­sitators and Collectors (who were your Remonstrants) as Friar Walsh, or as Procurator Walsh? This and much more will the Deuil obiect against you. What will you answer? You must confess that in all these practises you were not Procurator for the Irish Clergy, but that you were the Deuils Procurator.

You return to the Emperor Charles the 5. and (pag. 265.) must tell the Defenders of Belarmin, that Spondanus in his continuation of Baronius his Annals and an. 1545. sayes, Charles did summon the aforesaid Hermannus of Colen to the Diet of Worms at the instance of the Cler­gy and Vniuerfity of Colen, for introducing heresy into it by the aduice of Buter; and therfore (say you) this Em­peror summond that Archbishop, euen as an Archbishop. Why so Mr. Walsh? Might not the Emperor summon him as an Elector, or as a temporal Prince, for introducing heresy into the Empire, or into an Imperial Town? Can not a temporal Prince be guilty of such a fault as well as a Prelat? But if you will needs haue Charles the 5. to be an Infringer of the Ecclesiastical immunities, our answer is, that he might do so de facto, but not de iure; and that therin he offended God very grieuously. Som say his renuntiation of the Empire, and his Do­minions, proceeded from the particular sense of that sin (if he was guilty of it) and that the scruple of the Bishops of Segouia's death made him bury himself aliue in a litle Cell of the Monastery of Sancta Iusta. Had the Iudge who executed that cruelty bin so penitent as the Emperor, he might haue bin as happy. But perhaps he exceeded his Commission, because I know not of any other proof that the Emperor consented to the Bishops murther, but that he neuer question'd the murtherer. The story is this, the Bishop of Segouia, a popular Prelat in Spain, hauing bin almost as actiue in the rebellion of the Commoners of that Kingdom against Charles the 5. as you Mr. Walsh in the reiecti­on of the Irish peace of 1646. vnder the pretence of a visit (because it was difficult to put him to death pu­blikly) was strangled in his own Pallace and Chamber by Iudge Ronquillo, deputed by the Emperor to inquire after, and punish the Heads of that Rebellion. This [Page 150]clandestin execution, and open breach of Ecclesiastical immunity, occasion'd the vsual Censures of the Church against Ronquillo, who (perhaps being of your opinion, Mr. Walsh, in this matter) took litle notice of the Censures; but in his last sickness he begd the fauor of King Philip the second of Spain, to honor him with his presence, because he had som thing to communicat to his Majesty of great importance for his seruice. The King was pleased to grant him his request. His business was to tell him, that he had serued his Father Charles 5. very faithfully, in putting the Bishop of Segouia to Death with so litle ceremony; therfore to stop his Ad­uersaries obloquies against that action, he beseecht his Majesty to own and iustify the Act; and then he would dye contented. The King answer'd it was don in his Father's reign, and that he might shew his Fathers Or­ders, if he gaue him any to do it; and so aduising him to make his peace with God, the King left him; and Ronouillo dyed, and was buried in the Church of a reli­gious Conuent in Madrid.

^a What now followes of the Story will seem incre­dible to such as do not belieue the real presence and Transubstantiation; but I do not heare that you Mr. Walsh, deny either as yet. Whether your opposing the lawfullness of the Ecclesiastical Immunities will incline you to doubt of this matter of fact, generally belieued, and frequently printed in Spain, without the least contradiction, I can not tell; but I am sure you can haue no reason to question a thing confirm'd by the sight and testimony of a numerous Community of religious, who liued by burying the dead; and ther­fore against whose interest it was, to publish what hap­pen'd in their own Church, and to one of their Bene­factors. Som of these religious were liuing when you [Page 151]were in Spain, and repeated to as many as desired it of them, what I shall now relate.

That very night wherin Ronquillo's body was buried in their Church, about midnight one rung the Porteria Bell, and rapt so furiously at the door of the Conuent, that the Porter reprehended the extrauagancy and im­patience: but asking what the matter was, and who they were; (for he saw two) they answer'd they were Ministers of Gods iustice, which they came to execute in that house by the Diuine Majesties command; they bid him open the door immediatly, otherwise they would find a way to do it themselues. The Porter gaue an account to the Superior of what he had seen and heard; the Superior assembled all the Fathers, who were (at the vsual houre) preparing to sing Matins in the quire; they all, much frighted with the Message and the noise, which still continued at the door, resolued to go in procession thither, to examin the matter, euery Friar confessing, and preparing himself for death, not knowing but that those Messingers might be sent for himself. The door being opend, the Superior askt the two persons, who they were and what was their busi­ness? They answer'd, we are Gods Ministers of iustice, and come to execute his command. The Superior told them, that Conuent was Gods house, and therfore it was fit to obey his Orders. Then the fellows bid the Fathers go to the Church, where the blessed Sacra­ment had bin taken out of the Sacrarium and in the Ciborium set vpon the Altar; they followed the Fathers, and when they came to the Church, made a low bow towards the blessed Sacrament, and bid the Fathers go towards the graue of Ronquillo, who had bin buried that euening: One of the two, touching the great Marble stone that lay vpon the graue, remoued the same without any difficulty; the other took vp Ron­quillo's [Page 152]body, and bid one of the Fathers bring the Ci­borium from the Altar to receiue in it the blessed Sacra­ment, which that wretch had vnworthily receiued be­fore he dyed; and the Friar holding it before the mouth of the Corps, he that took Ronquillo out of the graue, struck him on the back, and the particle fell into the Ciborium, without any coaruption, or change of the species. Then both those Ministers of Gods iustice told the Fathers, they were sent by his Diuine Majesty to carry that body into hell, where the soul expected it; and sudenly they and the body vanisht. All attributed this manifestation of Gods iudgment, to Ronquillo's breach of the Ecclesiastical immunity, and to his contempt of the Censures therupon ensuing. Let this example be a warning for you Mr. Walsh; if God wrought such a Miracle as this, to discountenance your doctrin, against a rash act of a lay Iudge, wherunto he was tempted by feare perhaps of loosing his employ­ment; or for being too forward in his Princes seruice, what iudgments ought not you (a Churchman and a Friar) to feare, euen in this world, for willfully main­taining that temporal Soueraigns do sin, and dethrone themselues if they grant or make good to the Clergy those priuileges and monuments of piety, wherby Prin­ces are iustly stiled Protectors and nursing Fathers of Gods Church; and wherin consists the greatests glory of their renowned Ancestors?

I haue don Mr. Walsh, and beg your pardon for the harshness of my language, though in a cause and cir­cumstances wherin it would be a crime to be more ciuil to such an Aduersary as you. I defend the doctrin of the Church, together with the right of temporal Soue­raigns, and the dignity of Bishops against the virulent passion and bitter pen of a barbarous Friar; and ther­fore it would be as ridiculous to treat you with cere­mony [Page 153]in this occasion, as it would be blameable in any other, not to giue you the respect due to a gentleman. You say you are one, I belieue, and partly know you are: but if you were not, I should honor your habit more than your extraction. Jt is a sad misfortune, that I must not regard either, and that the same habit which might iustly challenge respect for him that weares it, must be made your greatest reproach, and iustify the contempt of your person. The obligations of a gentleman, and of a Seraphik Regular, which you haue so notoriously violated, makes me vse violence against my nature and inclination, whensoeuer I am seuere vpon you. I haue a great affection for your person Mr. Walsh, and am sory I can not as yet express it in other tearms. As I am a defender of the Church, and you an Aduersary of the same, I can not conceal the wayes wherby you abuse the illiterat sort of people, and must in plain english say, you are a Cheat. But if you and I euer meet, and discourse as priuat persons, with­out relation to our Churches, you shall find me as ci­uil an Admirer of those few good qualities you yet re­tain, as I now am a publik Censurer of your errors. We are Countreymen, we are neighbors Children, we are old acquaintance, we haue bin bred together, all our Ancestors haue bin Roman Catholiks, our Relations are still so, and you pretend to be and continue one. Why then should we fall out irreconciliably? Let vs therfore be friends; but first you must be reconciled to the Church, and to the Superiors of your Order. I haue no particular pike to yourself, all my quarell is against your book, and I belieue few writers will be more moderat, than I against your opinions, when any takes the pains to consider them.

All I can say to excuse you is, that you writ as you thought, or rather as you imagin'd. Yow know the [Page 154]best wits may be misled by extrauagant fancies. Imagi­natio laesa is a strange thing, Mr. Walsh. I haue known a Professor of moral Diuinity, much esteemed for his learned and iudicious resolutions of cases of conscience; and yet this man was fully persuaded he was Don Se­bastian the King of Portugals son, and conuersed with his old Father (inuisibly) euery day. Your disease Mr. Walsh is Imaginatio laesa, you fancy yourself to be a very learned man; you pitty our ignorance, and are resolued to reform the Roman Catholik Church, so horridly de­fac't with errours euer since Pope Gregory the 7. I will endeauour to correct this imagination of yours, by letting you see, that you are not right; that is, I will proue by one of Saint Augustins arguments (in the following Exhortation) that you are absolutely mad. This is the only way to cure you, and to reconcile you to God, and his Church. I pray read these Animad­uersions in one of your lucid interuals, and I hope (with the assistance of God) it will dispose you to re­pent and retract your follies.