THE FRIAR DISCIPLINED OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON FRIAR PETER WALSH HIS NEW REMONSTRANT RELIGION The articles whereof are to be seen in the following page.  
TAKEN OUT OF HIS HISTORY AND VINDICATION OF THE LOYAL FORMULARY  Verber averunt me, sed non dolui, traxerunt me, & Ego non sensi. Proverb. 23.35. 
THE AUTHOR ROBERT WILSON.  
PRINTED AT GANT 1674.  
Permissu Superiorum.   

The 12. Articles of Friar PETER WALSH his new Remonstrant Religion.  
1. THAT Bishops and Clergymen 
a Hist. 1. part. Sect. 33. pag. 79.  (as such) can not in conscience contribute by money or any corporal means to help or restore their lawful Sovereigns against the attempts or usurpation of Rebels.  
2. 
b 1. part of the first Treatise pag. 417. fin.  That supreme temporal Princes could not, can not in conscience grant to the Clergy (their subjects) the immunities and exemptions which the Church hath received from them.  
3. 
c Ibid.  That no spiritual power (as such) can inflict any corporal punishment.  
4. 
d Pag. 429.  That God may work miracles to testify the Sanctity and glory of one, who dies for maintaining a falsehood in a controverted point of Religion.  
5. 
e Ibid.  That therefore S. Thomas of Canterbury may be inuoked as a Saint, though he suffered for maintaining a falsehood.  
6. 
f In the Pref. pag 40. Pref. pag. 49.  That temporal sovereigns may lawfully make laws in ecclesiastical matters, even of Faith, by their own sole authority.  
7. 
g pag. 16. of the Dedic.  That the Roman catholics sin in not taking the english oath of supremacy.  
8. 
h Dedic. pag. 20 Hence follows that all the General Counsels of the Catholic Church for many hundred years were composed of Traitors or perjured persons.  That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world, for as many hundred years as they have taken the usual oath at their Consecration, have been, and are now either Traitors to their temporal Sovereigns, or perjured to the Pope.  
9 
i Pag. 75.  That learned Roman Catholik Authors hold General Counsels confirmed by the Pope, are not infallible in defining matters of Faith, or doctrine.  
10. 
k Pag. 79.  That neither Pope, nor Bishop, nor the General of an Order, can in conscience inflict any corporal punishment upon an irregular Friar for misdemeanours, or heresies.  
11. 
l Pag. 354. & 355.  That all Bishops are of equal authority by the immediate law of God; and that only JESUS CHRIST can, take cognisance of their faults.  
12. 
m Decic. p. 13.  That the Roman Catholic Church hath followed enormous errors, ever since Pope Gregory the 7.  

THE CONCLUSION.  
That honest men (for discovering Friar welsh his cheats, and opposing these his erroneous Tenets) are Traitors to the King, and Ennemies to my Lord Duke of Ormond.    

TO HIS GRACE JAMES DUKE OF ORMOND etc.  
YOUR grace will be surprised to see F●●ar PETER WALSH (the great Remonstrator and Reformer of our Irish Loyalty) charged with treasonable principles copied out of the tedious History he printed of his own speeches and contests. But if this charge be made out against him, doubtless your grace will neither protect, nor pity a Friar (though severely disciplined) for imposing upon Christians (under the notion of Allegiance) Tenants inconsistent with loyalty, or Monarchical government.  
That your Grace forgave him his former faults (in particular that great one of printing and preaching against the peace of 46. and the royal authority, wherewith you were then invested) is an argument of your Christianity, and a performance of one article of that peace; That you afterwards made use of him (for reasons of state) notwithstanding the experience you had of his treasons, showeth your wisdom, but is no proof of his honesty. As it would be great presumption in me to examine why a minister of state did employ such a Friar so I hope it is no want of respect to your Grace to let you and the world see, that his late principles are as treasonable as his practices; and seeing its very ordinary in statesmen to punish the crimes of malefactors, when they are no more useful, I may rationaly conclude your Grace will not commend or reward Peter Walsh for publishing a book stuffed with errors, no less dangerous to the state, then damnable to the soul.  
My Lord, Peter Walsh his conduct and errors have rendered him so ridiculous and odious, that he can not be any more useful to your Grace or to the government. And though he still endeavours by nonsensical Pamphlets to make himself be thought a fit instrument to promote the Protestant Reformation, inculcating (among other absurdities) that the Roman Catholik Church of these last 600. years hath erred notoriously in the doctrine of loyalty due to temporal Sovereigns, and that all the Bishops thereof have been either Traitors to their Sovereigns, or perjured to the Pope by taking the usual oath (hitherto never excepted against) at their Consecration, yet your Grace will be convinced (if you please to read this short Treatise) that this Friar's rash assertion is not only groundless, but injurious even to Protestants, and in particular to your Grace, whose Illustrious family hath given to the Catholic Church loyal and holy Prelates, as well as great Commanders of Armies, and Governors of Kingdoms to the english Monarchy. And though Ireland had the misfortune of a meeting of Bishops at jamestown, from whom the distraction of the times drew a Declaration and Excommunication, not approue●d of by the Supreme Pastor, or any other Catholic Bishops, and as good as condemned even by themselves in the subsequent Assembly of Loghreagh 7. Dec. 1650. Yet certain it is, and partly known to your Grace, that Doctor Enos his libel against your Grace and the peace of 46. together with Peter Walsh his printed approbation of the said libel, and the Nuntius his Excommunication, (writ and fixed with Peter welsh his own hand upon the gates of your Castle of Kilkenny) did greater mischief, and obstructed more your noble design of preserving (by a seasonable peace in the year 46.) the late King and his Kingdom of Ireland from ruin, than the Bishop's Declaration, and Excommunication dated at jamestown could do; this being issued an. 1650. after the King had been murdered, Ireland lost, and past hopes of recovery, though Peter Walsh (to remove the blame from himself) lays it altogether on those Prelates, and writes an absurd History of his own vain endeavours to revive a murdered King, to keep united a divided Nation, and to preserve a destroyed Kingdom.  
This book my Lord is dedicated to your Grace in hopes you will be pleased to peruse it and thereby see the most  of the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy was not so guilty of rebellion and the ruin of their country as Peter Walsh, nor his principles so sound as at first sight they seemed to be. I am with all reality and respect.  
Your Grace's most humble & obedient Servant N.N.   

THE PREFACE.  
I PRESENT to thy view Christian Reader, a disciplined (though I fear incorrigible) Friar. Thou hast seen him perhaps in a finer, but never in a more proper dress. Nothing becomes so well an Apostate Friar, as stripped stuff, I mean, sound Lashes, seasonably and charitably laid on. Friar Walsh his decaying favour and age make it credible to some, that these my Animadversions, may work his conversion, I wish they do, I am sure they are published with no other intention. I beseech thee not to judge of my education or temper by the roughness of my language in answer to a foulmouthed Author, that makes the two late greatest writers of the Church (Cardinal Baron●us and Bellarmin) whose holy lives have put them in the list of those who are to be first canonised, shameless Impostors; and all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world (for many ages) Traitors and perjured persons I am forced to answer this Fool according to his folly, as the scripture bids me, and in his own language. Therefore I am warranted to scold and scourge him into his habit and Convent. Yet I do it as gently as his insolency permits, and as charitably as is consistent with my vindicating the innocence of those he traduceth. I meddle not with his personal frailties, I only take notice of his public treasons, which he fathers upon honest men; and, in my conscience, all the harm I wish him, is, that he become one.  
It is natural enough to desire to know, how a religious man came to be so madly extravagant? when excess of ambition, little wit, and a mediocrity of reading meet in one subject, we may expect to find in his writings abundance of nonsense, many novelties, but no true notions. Peter Wal●h his ambition of a Mitre was so excessive 30. years ago, that to obtain it be turned the greatest Rebel and Nuntionist of the Irish nation: and had a greater hand in the rejection of the peace of 46. (and by consequence in the destruction of the late King, and his people) than any man living, or all the Clergy, which he accuseth for it. The repulse he then met with, after his eminent services to the Nuntio, and Treasons against the King, deprived him of that little wit he had; and ever since he hath been scribbling and printing of libels, and troubling the world with an odd kind of raw indigested heresies, stolen from the worst of Authors, but so unconnected, and absurdly applied by his dull pen, that though you may see he hath read some books, yet you will easily perceive he understood very few; and such as he understood, he wrested to a wrong sense. No marvel therefore if his notions be false, his discourses consuse, his arguments weak, and his contradictions so frequent, that to confute him, you need go no further than his own writings. He is so transported with passion against the Church of Rome, and those two great pillars thereof Belarmin, and Baronius, that he treats and terms them no better than men hired by the Roman Court to Sacrifice all the world to the Pope's ambition. The rage he is in for not finding out arguments to make this, and his other calumnies credible, is so extraordinary, that he forgets what he said in the foregoing page, or line, and through his whole work never remembers to speak consequently in any one particular. But to the end you may be convinced I do not injure him, I will instance (even in this Preface) one or two of his contradictions in the very main point he pretends to prove, and clear most exactly, as being that whereupon he grounds his new religion.  
One of his chief errors is, 
* Peter Walsh in his History and Vind. pag. 417 in fine.  That supreme secular Princes neither could nor can grant any exemption from their own supreme civil coercive power, to the Clergy or Clerks their subjects, living within their Dominions, and remaining subjects to them, because this forsooth, implies a plain contradiction. Upon this paradox he raises a new Church, or Reformation, and despairs not to draw Princes from their own, and their Ancestors piety, by inculcating to them, it is an essential part of their temporal sovereignty and Prerogative to have a Spiritual supremacy, but so absurdly limited, that he thinks it their greatest security, to have their hands tied (by the law of nature, and God's word) from honouring the Divine Majesty, and his Church, with an exemption to its Ministers from supreme secular Courts. He is opposed in this foolish Tenet both by Protestants and Catholics; for we all agree in this, that God can not (at least did not) command temporal Sovereigns, not to oblige and honour (for his sake) the spiritual Ministry by exempting them from the supreme coercive power of the secular magistrate; seeing that for the peace of the commonwealth, the safety of Princes, and punishment of Malefactors, it is abundantly sufficient, that delinquent Clergymen be proceeded against by ecclesiastical judges.  
Let us now see how palpably he contradicts himself, and wearies his Reader in this absurd and fundamental Thesis of his vast volume, and new Religion. Every Catholic as well as himself objects against it the Martyrdom and Miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury; it being evident out of all Histories, both sacred and profane; that S. Thomas suffered, was canonised and declared a Martyr, for defending the immunities of the Church, and particularly that of Churchmen from the coercive supreme power of secular Courts. The Friar grants S. Thomas his Sanctity, Miracles and Martyrdom, but says he suffered, and God wrought all those Miracles, not because he did or could in conscience pretend that Church men were exempted from the supreme coercive power of the Secular Magistrate, but because he maintained the temporal and municipal laws of England then in force, by which, Clerks or Churchmen were so exempted from the secular supreme Courts. Here is one contradiction. If there were municipal laws in force then in England, which warranted S. Thomas his proceed for the immunity of the Church and Clergymen from the King's supreme secular coercive power, or Courts, and Churchmen had a true right to those exemptions (as Friar Walsh confesseth from page 414. to page 418. of his History (quoting the laws themselves) how can he without contradiction say, that Princes and Parliaments did not, nay could not make such laws, or grant such exemptions to Clergymen. How can he pretend such immunities or exemptions are contrary to the law of nature and the word of God?  
He solues this difficulty with an other contradiction. For, after granting there were such laws exempting Churchmen, made by the Kings and Parliaments, he says (pag. 422.) that S. Thomas at the instance, and with the concurrence of all the other Bishops, condescended to the Repeal of those temporal laws, which favoured the Clergy's exemption. But then how was he a Saint, or Martyr for defending the laws that had been repealed? The answer to this is at hand saith Walsh, very facile and clear. S. Thomas (saith he in the same page 422.) though he swore to consent to the repeal of the law's exempting the Clergy from the supreme coercive power, yet Swearing alone was not enough, without further signing and sealing, as it seems the custom than was of the Bishops and Peers in making of laws; nor all three together, without a free consent in those, or of those who swore so, or signed and sealed so; and that there was no free consent, but a forced one, by threats of imprisonment, banishment, death, appears etc. This answer may pass, if it be true; but immediately he confesseth its not credible that the substance and validity of a law, should depend upon such formalities and individual circumstances of every particular man, seeing the mayor vote in Parliament made the law. For, after that he had maintained positively in twelve pages the aforesaid answer, he suddenly falls off from it in the 434. of his tedious volume, and says. It is not so clear in all respects that those 16 heads of customs (which S. Thomas opposed as being against the immunities of the Church) passed not legaly, and before the Saints death, into a just municipal law of the land, or of England. For it may be said first, and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several Historians, who writ of purpose of those days and matters, that they all (Bishops) freely consented. And secondly it may be said, that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament, having the consent Royal, whether one Bishop, or more, or even all the Bishop's dissent. And thirdly yet it may be said, that all laws most commonly, or at least too often may be called in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince.  
Notwithstanding this third or fourth contradiction, and recantation of his answer, building Saint Thomas of Canterbury's Sanctity upon his suffering for maintaining the temporal laws of the land in favour of the Clergy's immunities, notwithstanding, I say, he confesses there were no such temporal laws then in England, (because they had been repealed by Acts of Parliament, with concurrence of Saint Thomas himself, and the other Bishops) yet he advices his Readers (pag 435.) to fix rather upon this answer, (both contradicted and adhered to by himself) than on the others, no less absurd, which he gives. By this you may guests how solidly grounded his religion is.  
But then he supplies the fifth contradiction and weakeness of all his Answers, by a notable and acute general rule, which he sets down in the beginning of the page 435. in these words. sixth and last reason. That we must rather give any Answer, that inuolues not heresy or manifest error in the Catholic saith, or natural reason obvious to every man, than allow or justify the particular actions or contests, or doctrine of any one Bishop or Pope, how great or holy soever otherwise; or even of many such, or of all their Partakers in such, against both holy scripture, plain enough in the case etc.  
This sure, if well applied, I confess may justify this very absurd answer but me thinks answers which involve contradictions, ought not to be comprehended in that universal (any answer) which may be given to such pressing arguments against the Friars new Religion, as this of S. Thomas his Martyrdom, sanctity and Miracles. For, though an answer did not involve heresy or manifest error in the Catholic faith, yet if it inuolues nonsense, or a plain contradiction, it inuolues an error against natural reason obvious to every man, (except Peter Walsh) and therefore it ought not be taken for a good answer; it's much better (in my opinion) to allow or justify the particular actions or contests, or doctrine of one holy and learned Bishop, or Pope, and of all their partakers, which in our case is the whole Roman Catholik Church, ever since S. Thomas his Martyrdom) than the fancies of a dull ignorant Friar, that contradicts his own answers so frequently; a Friar that ran mad for not obtaining a Bishoprik; for which he sacrificed in the year 1646. the loyalty due to his King, the respect due to his Lieutenant, and the love due to his Country, which he involved in Blood by printing and preaching against the government, against a very advantageous peace, against the public faith and the obligation of maintaining it.  
As for his maintaining the miracles and sanctity of S. Thomas of Canterbury, it proceeds not either from devotion to the Saint, or any reverence he hath for the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church (of these last 600. years) seeing he says it hath maintained and practised since Gregory 7. those enormous errors, which he now would fain reform; and by consequence, its honouring S. Thomas for a Saint, may be also an error in his opinion. How then comes the Friar to be so devout to S. Thomas, as to say he was no Traitor. You must know, great part of his design in writing this vast volume, was, to make his Court to my Lord Duke of Ormond, whose family owes and owns its great Estate in Jreland to the scruple King Henry 2. had for persecuting the Saint and his relations, whereof one of the nearest was my Lord Duke of Ormonds' Ancestor; to whom King Henry 2. gave great privileges and Lands in Jreland, to expiate what fault he had in the murder of so innocent and holy a Prelate. But if Peter Walsh had known my Lord Duke of Ormond as well as his nearest Relations do, he would never contradict himself so manifestly and frequently for making Thomas Becket a Saint out of a compliment to my Lord Duke, whose justice and integrity is so eminent, that his favour is not to be gained by courting him in his relations; as divers noblemen and gentlemen can witness, who in hopes of being restored to their Estates by marrying his Nieces, got nothing by the bargain, but the honour of being allied to so illustrious a family. So that You see Friar Walsh is as much mistaken in his Courtship, as in his doctrine.  
Many perhaps will judge these my Animadversions superfluous, 1. because Friar Walsh his book sufficiently declares its own absurdities. 2. It's bulk is so great, the stile so unpolished, the parenthesis of his own praises so long, so false, and so impertinent, that few will trouble themselves with reading a History so little importing the public, so injurious to particular persons, and so false, ridiculous, and tedious in itself. But because Peter Walsh is a likely man to fancy that others take as much pleasure in reading his book, as himself doth, I shall endeavour to disabuse him, and do the public that service, as to put this vain Friar out of conceit with himself and his work. If this may be effected (which I confess is very difficult) it will be a great ease to the public and to the Press, which he threatens with a second Tome of the same dull dirty stuff. Jadmire more the patience of many worthy and witty men, which this pitiful Friar hath endeavoured to disgrace with lies, than I do the applauded works, which some of them have printed to assert the truth of Faith. Perhaps they do not think him worth their confuting. Though I am not particularly concerned, yet seeing his book hath so much barbarous railing, and heretical nonsense, that it is a nuisance to civility as well as to Christianity, I will shake his fundamental principles, to the end the world may not be further abused by them, nor by the stories of a virulent pen, that vents nothing but heresies against the Church, rebellion against Sovereigns, envy against his superiors, malice against his equals, calumnies against his adversaries, and commendations of himself.   

THE FRIAR DISCIPLINED OR ANIMADVERSIONS ON FRIAR PETER WALSH HIS NEW REMONSTRANT RELIGION.  
MR. WALSH,  
I DECLARE to you, and all the world, that my exceptions against your Religion and Romonstrance, are not against the supreme temporal power of Sovereign Princes, which I do believe and shall assert as much as any Catholic Divine. My exceptions are against not only a Spiritual supremacy you attribute to Kings, and deny to the Bishop of Rome but also against many new unheard of errors; and in first place, against that rash and heretical Tenet of yours, viz. 
* Friar Walsh in his Dedicatory to the Catholics of the three Kingdoms pag. 13.  That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world are either Traitors to their Kings, or perjured to the Pope, because they take before their consecration an Oath which hath been taken in the Church many hundred years by all Bishops. Item, That for the space of these 600. years past, the Popes and writers of the Roman Catholic Church (for the most part) 
a Idem Ibid.  have maintained enormous principles and practices, which have been cried down continually by most zealous and godly Prelates, and Doctors, as not only false, wicked, impious, lxretical, , but as absolutely tyrannical, and destructive of all Government, laws, property, peace etc. 2. That since the owning of such intolerable maxims, and wicked actions, or the not disowning them, are not amongst the marks of a Roman Catholik in general, but only 
b Idem pag. 14.  of a certain sect or faction, whom some calls Papalins, others Puritan Papists, and others Popish Recusants, the Protestants could not but observe, how since the Oath of supremacy (though framed only by Roman Catholic Bishops, Abots, and Doctors, of the english nation, and defended by the principal of the same) occasioned the first separation or schism amongst the subjects of England and Ireland, the far greater part of such as continued in the Communion of the Roman Church, did seem also to adhere to the foresaid dangerous doctrines and practices (i. e. to all the pretences and actings of the Roman Court, for as much as they generaly refused to disown them, either by that Oath of supremacy, or by other.  
That it is unreasonable to think, and incredible to believe, 
c Pag. 14. n. 10.  that so many judicious Princes, Parliaments, and convocations, who had themselves gone so far, and ventured so much, as they did, only because they would not suffer themselves, or the Protestant people governed by them, to be imposed on against their own reason, in matters of Divine belief, Rites etc. should at the same time be so concerned to impose on others in the like,— as to enact laws of so many grievous punishments, yea of death itself, in some cases etc.  
That we have no cause to wonder at the Protestants 
a Pap. 16. n. 10.  jealousy of us, when they see all the three several Tests, hitherto made use of for trying the judgement or affection of Roman catholics in these Kingdoms, in relation to the Papal pretences of one side, and the royal rights of the other, I mean the Oath of supremacy first, the Oath of Allegiance next, and last of all that which I call the Loyal Formulary, or the Irish Remonstrance of the year 1661. even all three one after another to have been with so much rashness and wilfulness, and so much vehemency, and obstinacy declined, opposed, traduced, and rejected amongst them: albeit no other authority or power, not even by the Oath of supremacy itself, be attributed to the King, save only civil, or that of the sword: nor any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power be denied therein to the Pope, save only that which the general Council of Ephesus under Theodosius the younger, in the case of the Cyprian Bishops, and the next Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon under the good Emperor Martianus, in the case of Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the 217. Bishops of Africa (whereof Saint Augustin was one) both in their Canons and letters too, in the case of Apiarius, denied unto the Roman Bishops of their time. See the same Friar pag. 24. & 25. 1. part. of the first Treatise: saying that the sense where in the sons of the Church of England take the Oath of supremacy, is very Catholik●: and that they allow a politic (not spiritual) headship to the King; and that, only in temporal causes or matters, not in spiritual; not even in those which are by  denomination only called Ecclesiastical, or spiritual If this be so, Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas Moor, and all the learned english men who suffered for refusing the Oath were great fools: and were ignorant both in the english language and in Divinity. But if this be so Mr. Walsh, why is it not declared by public authority? can you be so stupid and barbarous, as to think, that the King and Parliament of England would be so unmerciful as to permit so much noble and honest blood to be spilt upon a mistake, so easily rectified, if they or the Church of England understand the Oath of supremacy, as you say they do.  
In the 19 page of your Dedicatory, you set down the Oath which all Bishops and Archbishops take before their Consecration or Pallium, and though it be very ancient and accepted of by all not only Prelates, but Princes; yet you say pag. 20. they who take it, Must be perjured to the Pope if they prove faithful to the King. Whether so or no to God? judge you. I am sure if they were not Traitors in taking the foresaid Oath to his Holiness, they were at least Renouncers of their Allegiance to his Majesty, and of their obedience also to the Catholic Church.  
And because you could not but foresee that Catholics and rational men would not be their own Guides in a matter of so great importance, as the determining the rights of Popes and Princes; nor so rash, as to judge the whole Catholic Church, or all the Bishops, thereof, were Traitors, Tyrants, Cheats, Usurpers, and Heretics; you endeavour to divert the Catholic Laity from their duty of consulting the sea Apostolic in this main point of Religion, by endeavouring to raise in the same Laity a diffidence of all who advice so pious and prudent an address; you telling the Catholics of the three Kingdoms pag. 22. n. 18. of your Dedicatory? That in the last place, having your eyes thus prepared, all these things being considered, you may clearly see through that other sly artifice of those self same interested man, whereby they would persuade at least to so much filial reverence to the great Father of Christendom, as to acquaint him first which your present condition; send him a Copy of the public instrument you intent to fix upon, with the reasons also inducing you thereunto; pray his approbation thereof in order to your signing it; and then expect a while his paternal advice and benediction, before you make any further progress.  
You may at the very first hearing of this proposal plainly discover, (say you) their design to be no other, than by such indiscreet means of cunning delays under pretence of filial reverence forsooth, to hinder you for ever from professing (at least to any purpose, 
* Ibid. pag. 22.  i. e. in a sufficient manner, or by any sufficient Formulary, that loyal obedience you own to his Majesty, and to the laws of your Country in all affairs of mere temporal concern. This you can not but judge to be their drift, unless per adventure you think them to be realy so frantic as to persuade themselves, that from, julius Cesar, or his successor Octavian, after the one or the other had by arms and slaughter tyrannicaly seized the Commonwealth, any one could expect a free and voluntary restitution of the people to their ancient liberty; or (which is it I mean, and is the more unlikely of the two) That from Clement the tenth, now sitting in the Chair at Rome, or from his next, or from any other successor, now after six hundred years of continual usurpation in matters of highest nature, and now also after the lives of about fourscore Popes, one succeeding an other, since Hildebrand, or Gregory 7. his papacy, and since the deposition of the Emperor Henry 4. by him, in the year of Christ 1077. any one should expect by a paper petition, or paper Address, to obtain the restoring or manumitting of the Christian world, Kingdoms, states, and Churches, to their native Rights and freedom; or that indeed it could be other than ridiculous folly and madness to expect this?  
I have quoted your own words Mr. Walsh, to the end all indifferent persons may see I do not insure you in the account I give of your religion and doctrine; which I intent to confute, reducing is to your twelve fundamental Tenets. In this first Animadversion I will treat of two. See Friar Walsh his twelve Tenets or articles in the 6. Animadversion. 1. That the Oath of Supremacy hath been rashly and obstinately declined, opposed, and traduced by Roman catholics; because it attributes to the King only civil authority and power, and denies to the Pope no spiritual or Ecclesiastical, save only that which the two general Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as also that of Africa of 217 Bishops (whereof S. Augustin was one) denied to the Bishops of Rome. 2. That the Popes and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church for these last 600. years, have taught and practised enormous principles, which godly men have continually cried down, as wicked, impious, heretical and tyrannical: and that the usual Oath (which all Catholic Bishops have taken at their consecration for many hundred years) is not consistent with the loyalty all Christians own to their temporal Sovereigns.  

ANIMADVERSION I. Whether the Oath of supremacy attributes only civil authority to the King, and denies no spiritual, or Ecclesiastical power or authority to the Pope?  
THE best way to decide this controversy, 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 supreme Governor, of this Realm, and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries, as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal: and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, state or Potentate, hath or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities etc. so help me God, and the contents of this Book.  
Mr. Walsh, give me leave to ask you, whether you ever read this Oath, and if you did, whether you are sure you understand English, or whether better than Englishmen do? for, the common opinion is, that every nation understands its own language better than strangers. Mr. Walsh, all Englishmen understand by the word spiritual, a quite different thing from temporal, as you may see in Thomas Thomasius his Dictionary. If this be so, I fear you will hardly persuade Englishmen, that they do not understand english, at least as well as you, or any other Irish man. Now to the point. Doth not the Oath in clear terms aver, that the King is the only supreme Governor 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? If not, how can you prove or pretend that no spiritual authority, or power is given the King, or denied the Pope by this Oath of Supremacy? I pray observe; if the King be the only supreme Governor 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 foreign Prince Person, or Prelate hath, or aught to have, any Ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction, power, Superiority, pre-eminence, or authority within his Majesty's Kingdoms, how can the Pope have any spiritual power or authority in the same?  
I doubt very much, whether your marginal note directing to I know not what admonition after the Injunctions of 
* Pag. 16. of his Dedicatory to the Catholics.  Q. Elizabeth, and upon the 37. article of the Church of England will bring you or the oath off so clearly as you fancy. By that Admonition after the injunctions 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 ministering the Sacraments. Suppose this interpretation (which came, I must tell you, some what too late) were not known to be a pitiful shift, to stop the mouths of those who laughed at the weakness of the Bishops in allowing, and at the vanity of the Queen in assuming the spiritual supremacy of the Church; suppose, I say, the Queen could not ordain Priests and Bishops, because herself was neither Priest nor Bishop; doth that hinder from having in herself, and giving to others spiritual iurifdiction to ordain and minister the Sacraments? what think you of lay Princes, and persons, that are Bishops elect? Have they not spiritual jurisdiction, and can they not give it to others? Though Q. Elizabeth was incapable of such spiritual jurisdiction, because she was a woman, yet her successors can not be excepted against upon that score. But speak seriously, Mr. Walsh, do you think it was in the power of those, who explained the Oath of supremacy (if any did explain it) to alter the common known signification of words, and give 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 Divine. How could you therefore imagine, the Convocation, or even the Parliament of England, did or can alter the signification of words in an Oath, wherein a man professeth his Religion, or an important point thereof? Can any power upon earth declare this form of baptism, valid; I Baptism thee in the name of the mother and sister, and Brother, by pretending forsooth, that by an Admonition of the Convocation, or any earthly authority, the word Mother signifies Father; sister son; Brother Holy Ghost? Do you fancy, Mr. Walsh, that any judicious protestant, or any Parliament man in England, will believe you, if you should tell him, that his child is well-baptised by such a form, and explanation?  
If you will read the Statutes 1. Eliz. 1. & 8. Eliz 1. You will find that the Kings of England's supremacy, is so spiritual and sublime, that there needs no changing the signification of the word spiritual into temporal, and that a King of England (if he should think fit) may, according to the principles of the Protesta●e religion, establihed by the laws of the land, give power by letters patents, to any of his lay subjects 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 give by their letters patents power to any of their lay subjects to consecrat Bishops and Priests, is very clear in the aforesaid statutes. For, by two of them, there is given to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs, and Successors etc. full power and authority by letters patents under the great seal of England, from time to time to assign, name and authorize such person or persons at she and they shall think meet and convenient, to exercise, use, enjoy, and execute under her Highness all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, or jurisdiction, within this Realm, or any other her Majesty's Dominions or Countries. Now Priesthood being nothing but a spiritual power to consecrat Christ's body and blood, and forgive sins; and Episcopacy including besides the same, a spiritual power to consecrat and ordain Priests and Bishops, who can doubt but that by virtue of these words and Statutes, the Queen might, and her successors may, by their letters patents and great seal, give power to any of their lay subjects to make a protestant Bishop or Priest; seeing by those letters patents any person that is a subject, receiveth full power to exercise, use, execute, enjoy etc. all manner of jurisdictions, preeminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, etc.  
This is no vain speculation Mr. Walsh, but a known practice grounded upon the 25. article of 39 of the english Protestant Religion: it being declared thereby, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by consequence no imposition of Episcopal hands) hath been ordained of God for any of these five commonly called Sacraments, whereof holy Orders or Episcopal consecration is one. And therefore it's no marvel the Parliament declared 8. Eliz. 1. that the first protestant Bishops were & should be true Bishops, though it could not be proved that any Bishops ever laid hands upon them. The Story is known. In the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign it was questioned, whether the Protestant Bishops were true or real Bishops; the Catholic Bishops who refused to consecrat any of them, maintained, they were not, because they had not any protestant, who was a true Bishop to consecrat them, having nothing to show for the Episcopal character but the Queen's letters parents; and therefore the Catholic writers provoked them (in print) to name the Bishop, who ordained or consecrated them (as themselves pretended) but five or six years before. This appears in 
* D Stapleton in his Counter blast against Horn fol. 79. & 301. and in his return of untruths gaianst jewel, fol. 130.  D. Stapleton, Dr. Harding, and other books against jewel edit 1565. & 1563. fol. 57 & 59 All the world perceiving at that time, how none of the two protestant writers, who undertaken to answer, (jewel and Horn) could name any, that consecrated Parker (of whose consecration depended that of all the rest) nor produce any Registers thereof (as Harding in express terms demanded) it was thought necessary (for supplying this shameful silence, and repressing the insolency of the popish Adversaries) to declare the ground wherupon the protestants claimed to be true Bishops, and to be both legaly and validly consecrated. Then was made the Statut 8. Elizab. 1. which gins, Forasmuch as divers questions by overmuch boldness of speech and talk— hath lately grown upon the making and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm etc. And though D. Bramhall late Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, and others in their books, do endeavour to divert the protestant laity from reflecting upon the consequences, which evidently follow from this Act of Parliament, as favouring more the King's supremacy and spiritual jurisdiction, than true Episcopacy; and pretend, that this Statut doth not give his Majesty power to make Priests and Bishops by letters patents; and that even Harding and Stapleion excepted not against the validity, but against the legality of the first protestant Bishop's consecration, and character; yet the words of this Statut, as also of those Catholic Authors, admit of no such interpretation. The Statutes words are very clear, so are those of the Catholic writers, whose design was not to prove, that Parker, jewel, Horn etc. 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 Queen's letters patents issued forth to the person or persons; whether Bishops or not, that matters nothing, as clearly appears in the Statutes 1. Eliz. 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. And therefore D. Harding tells jewel, he doubts not but that he may show him the Queen's letters patents for his Episcopacy; and by consequence that he was a protestant Bishop; adding withal, that he was no true Bishop; because (says he) the Queen may give the lands, but not the character of a Bishop.  
To prove then that they were both legaly and vasidly protestant Bishops, the Parliament (insisting upon the purest protestant principles) thought it sufficient to declare, and make out that they were consecrated by virtue of the Queen's letters patents, and by some of h●r Majesty's subjects; whether lay, or ecclesiastics, was not thought material; by any person, or persons, are the words of the Act; and the title of the same, (which declares the substance and scope thereof) is, All acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the consecrating investing &c. of any Archbishop, or Bishop, shall be good.  
The making of Bishops, and giving them spiritual jurisdiction only by the King's letters patents, was the primitive doctrine and spirit of the english Reformation, as appears by an Act of Parliament an. 1. Eduard. 6. entitled, an Act for the election of Bishops, and what scales and styles they, and other spiritual persons, exercising jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, shall use. In which Act (saith D. Heylin the famous prelatik protestant writer) it is ordained that Bishops should be made by the King's letters patents, and not by the election of the Dean and Chapters; and that all their processes and writings should be made in the King's name, only with the Bishops Teste added to, and sealed with his seal etc. it was plain and evident (saith the aforesaid Doctor) that the intent of the Contrivers was, by degrees to weaken the authority of the Episcopal Order, by forcing them from their strong hold of Divine institution, and making them no other than the King's Ministers only; his Ecclesiastical Sheriffs, as a man might say. I believe a man may say so still, according to the Statutes 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 owns none in the Bishops, burr that which they receive from his Majesty; and themselves own it in their Act or Oath of homage, that they receive all their jurisdiction, as well spiritual and ecclesiastical, as temporal, wholly and solely from the King. Are not you a little out of countenance, Mr. Walsh, to see your confident assertion so manifestly contradicted by the Oath itself, by the Statutes, by D. Heylin, and the Bishops themselves?   

A NIMADVERSION 2. Whether the general Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as also the Provincial of Africa 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 come you to quote for the lawfulness of the Eglish Oath of Supremacy, the general Counsels of Ephesus, and Chaltedon, as also the Provincial of Africa, with S. Augustin? was not Nestorius and his heresy, as also that of Pelagius, condemned in that Council of Ephesus by Pope Celestinus spiritual authority, residing in his Legate Cyrillus of Alexandria? Doth not S. Prosper say, that all the Eastern Churches were purged of two plagues by Celestinus, when the most glorious defender of the Catholic Faith Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria was helped by the Apostolic sword? Did the Emperor Theodosius the younger, pretend to any spiritual jurisdiction, or authority in that Council? He sent indeed his Domestik Candidianus to it, not to act therein (as the Emperor himself writes to the Synod) but with an express caution and condition, that he should not have any thing to do with matters of Faith; (because saith he) it is not lawful for one that is not a Bishop, to intermeddle in Ecclesiastical business, or consultations. Why then was Candidianus sent by Theodosius the Emperor? Mark well, Mr. Walsh, the reason. That he might remove buisy Monks, and others from Ephesus; because it is not lawful (saith he) for such people to hinder by any tumult the examination of holy Tenets etc. I fear most men will be apt to judge that you are more concerned in these words and reason of Theodosius, than you are ware of. 'tis a wicked world, Mr. Walsh, we can not bridle ill tongues; men will talk idly, let us be never 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, it's recalled 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 ecclesiastics the benefit of the peace of 48. whereof the principal article or end was freedom of conscience, and that 
a 
 saltem procuret nobis eas conditiones, favores, & gratias quae in articulis Pacis & Reconciliationis, An. 1648. compositae, ratae. & confirmatae inter Excell●ntissimum Dominum Marchionem Ormoniae & Confederatos Catholicos, pactae & promissae nobis fuerunt. These are words of the Commission given to Friar Walsh by those few that employed him, as you may see pag. 5. of his r. part. 1. Treatise.  
The same Friar sets down pag. 49. of his Appendix in the 8. article of the peace 1648. this enfuing Oath as the only to be exacted of catholics.  
I. A. B. do truly acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Sovereign Lord King Charles, is lawful and rightful King of this Realm, and of other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries, and I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and successors; and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his, or their Crown and Dignity; and do my best endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his 〈◊〉 and successors, or to the Lord Deputy, or other his Majesty's Chief Governor, or Go●ernors for the time being, all Treasons, or Traitorous Conpi●acies, which I shall know; or hear to be intended against his Majesty, or any of them; and I do make this Recognition and a knowledgment hearty, willingly, and truly upon the true Fa●●h of a Christian. So help me God, etc.   the Roman catholics should not be required to take any oaths 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 worse than the buisy Monks of Ephesus. At least you are very unfortunate in your allegations of Counsels: they always seem to make against yourself. You bring against the Pope's spiritual supremacy the example of the Emperor Martianus, in the case of Anatolius, and make the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon the ground of your objection; whereas you know in your conscience (if you know or read any thing) that there are admitted but 27. Canons of the Council of Chalcedon; and Theodoret, who was present at it, testifieth there were no more; the clandestine Decree, which Anatolius and some Greeks made and foisted into the Canons, is rejected as ridiculous, and forged; as you may see at large in learned Cardinal Perons' answer to King james 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 it's much to my purpose (and I hope it will be for your profit) to mind you how the Emperor Martianus, after that the Catholic Faith had been confirmed by the Bishop's subscriptions, did propose somethings in favour thereof to the Fathers; thinking it decent (saith he) to have them rather formed or regularly framed, by their Decree, than by his own Imperial law. And the first point of the intended Reformation was, that to hinder heresies and the disorders of irregular Monks, which of late had so disturbed and infected the Church of God, it might be decreed, that they should be subject to the Bishops, and not meddle with Ecclesiastical or civil affairs, but serve 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 resolved to lay yourself and them open to your Adversaries. Did not I but just now advice you, as your best friend, not to meddle with ecclesiastical affairs, which are above your capacity, and learning; especially these general Counsels? You see what this of Chalcedon 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 Council of Chalcedon? Did you not know how severe it is against such men as you are reputed to be? I wish with all my heart you had never come out of your Convent, and that you were retired in your cell. For God's sake quote no more general Counsels; they are very opposite to your ways and doctrine. This of Chalcedon consisting of 630. Bishops at least, owned S. Leo Pope for Head of the universal Church; and in his name and by his authority Dioscorus was condemned and deposed. See Leo his epistle (47.) to the Council, sent by his Legates to reside therein, saying, In these Brethren a Paschasinus and Lucentius Bishops, Boniface and Basil Priests, directed to you by the Apostolical see your Fraternities may believe that I preside in your Synod. And the Synod answers, Truly you did preside as Head to the Members. And the Legates sentence against Dioscorus was, Sanctissimus ac Beatissimus Papa, 
a The most holy and blessed Pope Leo, Head of the universal Church, by us his Legates, with consent of the holy Synod, being endowed with Peter the Apostles dignity, who is the foundation and rock of the faith, and called Porter of the heavenly Kingdom, hath deprived Dioscorus of Episcopal dignity, and of all priestly functions.  Caput uninersalis Ecclesiae, Leo, per nos Legatos suos, S. Synodo consentiente, Petri Apostoli praeditus dignitate, qui Ecclesiae fundamentum, & petra Fidei, & coelestis regni janitor nuncupatur, Episcopali dignitate Dioscorum nudavit, & ab omni Sacerdotali opere fecit extorrem. Mr. Walsh, doth the Oath of Supremacy allow the Pope to be Head of the universal Church, or allow him so much spiritual jurisdiction as this Council of Chalcedon? If not, why do you quote it to that purpose?  
Perhaps you may have better luck with Provincial Counsels. Let us see. You allege S. Augustin and 217. Bishops of Africa 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 clearly answered that objection which you borrowed from Caluin, as you do most others (in your tedious volume) from heretics; and Baronius in the very year and place quoted by you (though you conceal it) proves that S. Augustin and the Bishops of Africa owned the Pope's Supremacy, and spiritual authority over them, instancing the case of Antony Bishop Fussalensis of Numidia, deposed from his Episcopal administration and revenue by the Bishops of that Province. He, obtaining a letter of his pretended innocency from his Primate to Pope Boniface, appealed, to his Holiness. Boniface dying, his successor Celestinus favoured Antony, yet with this caution, and Proviso in his letters, if the matter of fact was true, and Antony his narration not subreptitious. Antony boasted much of this savour, and writ to his friends, that the Pope not only gave sentence for him, but also would command the same to be executed by his Executors with military power. Whereupon S. Augustin writ a letter to the Pope, informing him of the truth, and desired him to give sentence for the people of Antony's Diocese (which was the other party) because the right was on their side; and not to think upon that violent way, wherewith Antony threatened the poor people. Permit not (saith the Saint) these things to be done, I beseech thee, per Christi sanguinem, by the blood of Christ, by the memory of Peter the Apostle, who admonished the Prelates of Christian people, not to domineer violently amongst the brethren. Here 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 coercive power for executing his sentence in Africa; though indeed they advice him not to make use of it in that case; so did Ireneus advice S. Victor the Pope, not to excommunicate the Asian Churches, albeit he doubted not of his power to excommunicate 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 entreat you Mr. Walsh, per Christi Sanguinem, not to betray your ignorance so manifestly, not to expose yourself to the Censure and laughter of all who read Counsels or Fathers. Had it not been much better for you, not to have intermeddled with these matters, whereof you understand so little, than to be looked upon as a vain ignorant heretic? we your friends can not but be concerned, though we can say but little for you.   

ANIMAD: 3. Whether it be rashness, obstinacy, and a sin in Roman catholics, 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 lawfulness of their being taken by catholics. For, though each of them seem to renounce the Pope's spiritual authority, 
a Pag. 24. 1. part.  yet you tell us, there is no such matter, because Spiritual authority in those oaths Formularies, signifies not Spiritual, but temporal authority. Seeing therefore you are of opinion, that the oath of supremacy may be taken with a good conscience by Roman catholics, and that the whole Roman Catholik Church believes, and tells us the contrary, you have no reason to be angry with Catholics, if they do not rely upon 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, catholics are bound to refuse it; neither can a Franciscan Friar, who reproaches Roman catholics 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 Apostate; and must not take ill, if his writings should be rejected and burnt as heretical.  
Seeing therefore Mr. Walsh, your arguments pretending to prove that the two general Counsels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as well as the Provincial of Africa, taught the doctrine which Roman catholics except against in the oath of Supremacy, are found to be mistakes; what other arguments do you produce to convince catholics of rashness and obstinancy for not taking that oath? None but your own authority; nothing but your saying, that the Roman Catholik Church hath erred rashly and obstinately for these 600. last years, because it admitted not a Spiritual Supremacy in temporal Soveueraigns. Realy Mr. Walsh, I do not believe your sole authority is a sufficient argument to prove the Church hath erred. To prove 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 divest Emperors and Kings of their right of governing 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 use of any malicious ungrounded fictions whatsoever against lustinian the Emperor.— This Justinian was in the later end of his days, an heretic; and took upon him to make laws in matters of Faith; but he died suddenly before he could publish them. Yet before he was an heretic, he made good Edicts in favour of the true Faith; and for this he is commended by Popes and Counsels, as a Catholic; as also because it's said he was reconciled at his death. Now you, Mr. Walsh, say, that the ancient and modern writers knew well enough he was never an heretic, but that they diffame him as an heretic, because his laws in Ecclesiastical matters, even those of Faith, are a perpetual eysore to them, because these laws are a precedent to all other good Princes to govern their own respective 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 believe it unlawful for secular Princes to make ecclesiastical laws by their own sole authority.  
Truly Mr. Walsh, I have endeavoured to know the truth of those two Cardinals, Bellarmin, and Baronius; and do find, they were both, holy humble men, so far from being hired 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 lived and died in the list of the poor Cardinals; both were named Cardinals against their will: both industriously sought to make themselves uncapable of the Popedom. Twenty days did Baronius resist in the Conclave the offers and importunities of the Cardinals his friends, who were able and resolved to make him Pope, until at length he persuaded them to choose Leo 11. Both these Cardinal's virtues are so conspicuous, that many press for their Canonization, and it's believed it will be obtained, God working Miracles to testify that they deserve it. This is the truth, Mr. Walsh, and the world blames you very much for calling such men Hirelings, Impostors etc. What shall your friends say to excuse you when they hear you called an ignorant spiteful heretic, for calumniating such holy men as these? Some who observe your actions, say, you are hired to write these calumnies, and that you have chosen rather so base and mercenary a way to damn yourself and others, than to live quiet, and serve 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 a rate as 200. per an. If this be true, you are unhappy; but God's mercy expects your repentance, for which we your friends can but pray.  
Others think you despair not by your little books, and this great Volume to gain the favour of temporal Soveraings. I can not believe they will (by your persuasion) degenerate from the example of their renowned Predecessors, and particularly from that of Constantin the great, who was so far from making laws for ecclesiastical matters or persons, or meddling with matters of Faith, that his saying and maxim was 
a Rufinus lib. 10. hist. cap. 2. S. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 45.  (speaking to the Bishops) Ves Dij estis a summo Deo constituti, aequum non est, ut homo iudicet Deos; I do not think I say Mr. Walsh, that Christian Princes will degenerate from this example, (applauded by all the world when Christianity was in its primitive purity) to follow that of the Emperor justinian, when he fell from the Faith of Christ. Would it not be rashness both in Sovereigns and Subjects to prefer your bare testimony (who are (to my grief) reported to be the greatest liar and Impostor in the world) before the joint testimony of all orthodox writers, and the practice of the whole Roman Catholik Church, ever since it began to flourish under 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 Salvation of souls, that you 
b Ibidem pag. 43.  enlarged often, and repeated the same things not seldom where you needed not, were your design to write only for the learned, or those of quick apprehension. But seeing those you intended chief to speak unto, were the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, whereof very few are great Clerks, you chose that manner of writing for their sake, that the meanest of them might understand whatever you would be at. I am sorry to hear this Mr. Walsh; will you disgrace your own nation? One of them spoke thus to me of you. How comes none of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland to have as quick an apprehension, and as much learning, as Peter Walsh their Countryman, and one who spent his time more idly 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 dissension, and dividing Roman catholics by his Remonstrance, hath gained him a little credit and countenance in Court, therefore he must be so learned and loyal, as to teach not only the Irish Catholic Clergy, but the whole Catholic Church their duty (as if they were ignorant of it) to God and Cesar? Whence had he all this learning? Did his teaching a year or two Philosophy, and half a year, or thereabouts Divinity in Kilkenny, to half a dozen Scholars, make him an Ecumenical master, and adorn him with so extraordinary knowledge, both Divine 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 upon his, and your own Countrymen, that I durst not excuse you; and indeed you spoke inconsiderately; for it's well known to most of the famous Universities of Europe, that as Irish men have been anciently their first Founders, so they have been of late their chiefest Professors and greatest Ornament. Yourself might have known, or at least heard of Richard Wadding the Augustin in Conimbria, of james Arthur the Dominican in Alcala, Salamanca, and Conimbria; of Holiwood in Milan, 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, Cavel, Lombard, and Luke Waddin, in Rome. Of the jesuit Thomas Talbot (alias the Leon) in Granada, the Oracle of all Spain, not only for his profoundness in Divinity, but also for the vast extent of his knowledge in other sciences and languages. You might have known the eminent Doctor of Bologna, Riredan of Tolosa, not to speak of other famous Physicians, who though not Professors, yet Practioners so far above the common sort, as Fenell Fogotty, O Meara etc. That they may be recorded to posterity for patterns of safe and successful prescriptions as others are for printed books. These and others, though all dead (the two last only excepted) yet are a fresh and everlasting evidence 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 living, and many of the inferior Clergy (especially Regulars) who taught with great applause in foreign and famous Universities both Divinity 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 favour to countenance his doctrine, 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 john Talbots offer, to show, in divers particulars, Friar Redmund Charon's gross inexcusable falsifications in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, and in his lesser libel entitled Loyalty asserted? Why did he not answer the objections 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 doctrine and Remonstrance; but if now after 6. years' study, Walsh his volume of that subject is a nuisance to the Academies, a bundle of errors rak't out of the ashes of  heretical books, how what it possible for him to speak then any thing but heresies and nonsense? This your Country men. What could I answer to this?  
But 'tis worse yet. He gave me the ensuing writing, wherein he undertakes to show, even to yourself, that those of the Irish Clergy you so much undervalue, had, and have still the better of you, not only in wit, but in learning, even in this controversy, after your 6. years' study of this matter. Let us first of all (saith he) state it right. You pretend that the Supremacy of temporal Soveraings, doth not only give them power to make ecclesiastical laws, even 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 infer from the coercive power in the Church of whipping such a fellow as you are, a coercive power to dethrone Princes; as if forsooth they could not sit securely, nor be at ease in their thrones, if you should be disciplined. Mr. Walsh the Sovereignty of Princes is so sacred a thing, that I dare not meddle with it, and am forbid to write of that subject, as all others are; who live 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 jurisdiction can not be questioned for their errors. How then can you infer that if the Church may punish and whip you for heresy, it may also depose Kings for the same? Therefore 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 have from the Pope of governing their Friars) may command Friar Peter Walsh to be whipped against his own will, for misdemeanours?  
BE not angry Mr. Walsh, until you hear me out. It is no disgrace for a Religious man to be corrected by his Provincial or General; neither is it the first time that a Friar hath been whipped, and I am sure none ever deserved it better than you do. But let us see, what can you say for your not being whipped against your will for misdemeanours; we will now suppose there are some and shall be proved time enough: Myself and others of the Irish Clergy objected against this your main Tenet, (viz. that no corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power) the general practice of the whole Catholic Church, and all Religious Orders, which not only put from Mass, and deprive of the suffrages of the faithful, such Apostats, as they excommunicate, but also forbidden them any commerce, and conversation with others, nay command them to be whipped, and impriprisoned, when hands can be laid on them. To this objection you answer (page 79. sec. 33.) thus. I take in the first place their allegation of the Faithful being whipped, and commanded to undergo austere pennances, to be unconclusure: Your reason Mr. Walsh? Because every Ghostly Father may in some cases enjoin his Penitent such punishments; and by virtue of his mere 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 every inferior Priest may in fore confessionali, enjoin his penitent, even a King or Emperor, whatever is judged necessary for his eternal Salvation: and consequently in some cases a deposition of themselves from their whole temporal estates, Kingdoms or Empires, as in that of a tyrannical and manifest usurpation, and of necessary restitution; the true and legal heir surviving, and known, and possible to be admitted without subversion of the state or people; much more where it may be available to the support of both. Yet I hope the Author of this Querie, and reasons for the affirmative, will not say that every such Ghostly Father can proceed to execution, whether their penitents will or not. Or can by force of Arms or other corporal means divest them respectively of their ill gotten goods, Estates, Kingdoms, Empires, though only to put the lawful proprietors in possession thereof.  
Mr. Walsh, the dulness and ignorance which you imputed to the Irish Clergy, must be retorted upon 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 Diocese, or of your General in his Order, as they are Pastors, and judges in foro externo? The one is exercised and extended no further than to absolve and punish privately a penitent, who is his own accuser, and comes with a perfect submission and resignation to any penance or penalty the Confessor shall think fit to give If the penitent comes not with this preparation, there is no power in the Confessor to absolve him, or to give him a penance. But the spiritual power, and authority of the Bishops, and Generals of orders, as such, is not only to absolve privarly one who submits voluntarily, and confesseth his frailties and faults of his own accord; but to punish and correct publicly 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 judge, until their sin and perverseness, be proved by clear evidence of lawful witnesses. So that it is a quite different power from that of a Confessor. If this obstinacy therefore be not checked 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. Therefore they who are to oversee the Church, or flock, and a religious order, and to give a strict account for the souls committed to their charge, must have annexed to their corrective power, not only that of applying spiritual Censures, which upon obstinate and incredulous minds work little or nothing (as appears in yourself Mr. Walsh) but also corporal punishments; that Virga ferrea, whereof David prophecised Psal. 2. That therewith Christ should govern his inheritance, that is, the Church. Dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, & possessionem tuam terminos terrae, Reges eos in virga ferrea. That iron rod wherewith S. Paul threatened the Corinthians, Vultis ut in virga ferrea veniam ad vos? And wherewith he punished the incestuous Corinthian, and delivered him over to Satan, not only by Excommunication, but to be corporaly tormented, as the Expositors commonly understand those words in interitum carnis, 1. Cor. 4. That iron rod, Mr. Walsh, whereof it is said Proverb. 13. Qui par●it virgae, odit filium. He who spares the rod, hates the child. Can you imagine, that Christ our Saviour doth hate his children, or that he would not leave a rod in his Church, to chastie them with corporal punishments, when vice and passion hath rendered 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 moved at spiritual ones? If corporal punishments or torments be proportionable or apt to punish, correct, deter, and amend delinquents in the Commonwealth, why not also in the Church? would Christ have his Church worse governed, or more destitute of proportionable means to govern, 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 convert the most incredulous and obstinate sinners? Can you deny there are many sinners, so incredulous and obstinate, that no spiritual admonitions or Censures do them good. This you can not deny, for it is most evident in yourself; how often have you been admonished, how often excommunicated by your lawful Superiors, for printing heretical, and non sensical books, and for intermeddling 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 therefore your not seeing, or at least not believing, it, demonstrats you are incredulous and obstinate. This supposed, will not you acknowledge that this incredulity and obstinacy of yours (which all the world doth judge to be grounded upon pride, and passion, may be lessened, and reclaimed by shutting you up in a cell, giving 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 upon you, than the spiritual Censures have done; for I doubt not but that God's grace, by means of these helps, would make you reflect upon yourself, and give you understanding to see how ridiculous presumption it is in an inconsiderable half-witted, and not so much as half learned petty friar, to take upon himself to teach the whole, or the most considerable part of the Catholic Church, Faith and Loyalty, as if they had erred in both for these 600. last years, and hath the impudence to print that all the Catholic Bishops now living are either Traitors to their Sovereigns, or perjured to the Pope.  
Now, Mr. Walsh, let's see, which of the two doctrines is destructive to Sovereigns, yours or that of the Catholic Church? You state the case in an usurper, or Rebel against his lawful King. He comes to confession; the Confessarius enjoins him to restore the Kingdom to the right Sovereign. He will not. I hope, say you (pag. 79.) the Author of this Querie will not say, that every such Ghostly Father can proceed to execution whether the penitent will or no: or can by force of Arms, or other corporal means, divest them respectively of their ill gotten goods, Kingdoms, etc. And from this private and penitential power of a Confessarius, you infer, that neither Bishops nor Pope can in conscience serve their Sovereign, as not being allowed by God to proceed by force of Arms, or other corporal means against usurpers and Rebels, though their design be no other than to put the lawful Proprietor in possession.  
Mr Walsh, see how heretical and destructive your doctrine is. Suppose a thing which hath happened, and may happen very often. Suppose, I say, an usurper or Rebel will not go to confession, or if he doth, will not restore the usurped Kingdom or Province to his lawful Sovereign according to his Confessarius his command. Herupon the Bishops of that Kingdom or Province, according to their duty, excommunicate the Tyrant, or Rebel for his public sin, and contumacy in keeping out of his Kingdom the lawful King. He contemns their Censures. Let me ask you this question. Do the Bishop's sin in raising (of their own accord, and as Bishops) an Army against the Tyrant or Rebel, only to put their lawful King in possession? Answer M. Walsh. Do they sin, I say, in doing this duty? would the Pope sin, if (as Pope) he had done the same? would Innocent 10. have sinned, if he helped to raise an Army in defence of the late King, or for the restauration of the present against that usurper Cromuell? would other Pope● have sinned in doing the same, in prosecution of thei● Spiritual Censures (in case these had not served thei● turn) against the Barons, when they excommunicated them for their rebellion against King john, or King Henry the third? Is the whole Catholic Church guilt● of heresy and impiety for maintaining this doctrine Speak out Mr. Walsh, or at least retract for sham● this wicked destructive principle; and accuse not th● Church of God, as asserting in itself a power preiudi●cial to Sovereigns; that power, I say, which hath bi● so often applied, and of its own nature is so appli●ab● to their safety and service. Do not follow Blacklows he retical principles, whom you (page 43. 1. p.) term● learned Priest of the Roman Communion, though much (for most of his books) censured at Rome. They are censured all, and censured as Arch heretical. And one of them (obedience and Government) is censured for this very doctrine of yours; viz. That Subject's sin if they endeavour to restore their disposest and exiled lawful Sovereign. And this Blaklow (after all this) you and the Blakloistes call a learned Catholic Priest. Do you imagine that any Catholic or protestant Sovereign will permit you (or a Chapter and Clergy that hold such an Author to be a Catholic, and of eminent learning) to live in their Dominions, and instruct their Subjects? Retire, retire to your Convent good Father Walsh, obey your Superiors; retract your heretical doctrine so inconsistent with the safety of lawful Sovereigns; submit to the corporal punishment your General will inflict upon you, when you are absolved from so many spiritual Censures, you have incurred; buisy yourself no longer with Church or state affairs, seeing you are not sit for either; and are so ignorant, that pretending to favour the Sovereignty of Princes, you make it unlawful for Bishops to serve 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 Catholic Church hath fallen into heresy, or hatherred enormously, these last 600. years for contradicting Friar Peter Walsh his doctrine of a spiritual supremary in temporal Sovereigns; and whether all the Roman Catholik Bishops of all the world have been for the same 600. years, or as least are in this last Century, either Traitors to their Sovereigns, or perjured to the Pope, for taking the ancient and usual each before Episcopal Consecration?  
IT's evident Mr. Walsh by your own words quoted in the first and second Animadversion, that one of the enormous errors, wherewith you charge the Church of God for these last 600. years, is, that the 80. Popes, the innumerable writers, and all the Bishops thereof, denied to temporal Sovereigns that Supremacy which is attributed in the English oath of Supremacy, and a Legislative power of making laws, in ecclesiastical matters, even of Faith. We have 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 use of any malicious ungrounded fictions whatsoever against Instinian the Emperor etc. by reason his Laws in ecclesiastical matters, even those of Faith, are a perpetual eysore to them; because these Laws are a precedent to all other good Princes, to govern their own respectine Churches in the like manner, without any regard of Bulla Coenae, or of so many other vain allegations of those men, that would make the world believe it unlawful for Secular Princes to make ecclesiastical laws by their own sole authority for the government of the Church, etc.  
To reform therefore this so long erroneus Church, and to restore to Secular Princes that spiritual jurisdiction, which is given them in the oath of Supremacy, or a legislative power of making ecclesiastical laws, even in matters of Faith, by their own sole authority, you Friar Walsh, have found out a Remonstrance, wherein all this power and right is asserted and (as you say) ought to be taken by all loyal Subjects; especially the Bishops, who renounce their allegiance by this ensuing oath to the Pope before their consecration, which you set down in latin and I translate into inglish.  
The Oath whereby (according to Friar Walsh) all Bishops are made Traitors. pag. 19 Dedic.  
IN. Elect of the Church N. from this hour forward will be faithful and obedient to S. Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman Church, and to our Lord Pope N. as also to his Successors. I will not be in counsel, consent or fact, that they may lose life or limb, or be imprisoned, or violent hands laid upon them in any manner or any injury done to them upon any colour whatsoever. The Counsel wherewith they will trust me by themselves, their Nuncios, or letters, I will not reveal to their prejudice. The Roman Papacy, and royalties of Saint Peter I shall help to retain and defend, Saluo meo Ordine, against all men. I will treat honourably the Legate of the see Apostolic, as he passeth by, and returns, and shall help him in his necessities, I shall endeavour to conserve, defend, increase and promote the rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, of our Lord the Pope, and of his Successors. I will not be in counsel, fact, or treaty wherein are plotted any sinister or prejudicial things, against the Lord Pope or the Roman Church. And if I know of any such plots against them, I will endeavour to hinder them to the best of my power, as also discover them as soon as I can, to the Pope himself, or to some other that may give him notice thereof. I shall observe, and cause to be observed to the uttermost of my power, the rules of the holy Fathers, the Decrees, Ordinations, or dispositions, reservations, provisions, and Apostolic Mandates. I shall impugn and prosecute to my power Heretics, Schismatiks and Rebels to our same Lord, or his Successors. I will come to the Synod when I am called, if I be not hindered by a canonical impediment. I will personaly visit limina Apostolorum every three years, and render an account to the Lord our Pope, and his Successors of my pastoral duty, and of all things belonging to the state of my Church, and of the discipline of Clergy and people, and of the souls committed to my charge, and shall humbly receive, and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. If I be lawfully hindered; or detained, I will fulfil all the a foresaid things by one of my Chapter, or ●om other, or others, constituted in Ecclesiastical dignity, or benefice; or for want of such, by some Priest of my Diocese; or for want of such; by some other Priest secular or regular of approved virtue and religion, who shall be fully instructed of all the aforesaid things I will certify likewise of the impediment I have by lawful proofs, which must be sent by the aforesaid M●sser get to some Cardinal to propose it in the Congregation of the holy Courcel. I shall not without consulting the Pope, sch, bestow, pawn, or infeued, or in any wise alienat, even with consent of my Chapter, the possessions which belong to my Table. And if I do alienat any thing, I am content to incur the penalties which are contained in a constitution made to that purpose.  
So help me God, and these holy gospels. Then the Consecrator answers, Deo gratias.  
For my part, Mr. Walsh, I can not find any Treason in this oath, it contrains but such general ties and words as are usual in other oaths of obedience, and are restrained to a spiritual subjection, 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 Sovereign. But you say it's no wonder the Irish Archbishops and Bishops were so disloyal at waterford an. 1646. in rejecting the peace &c. because they took this oath to the Pope, and none of them took the bath of Supremacy or allegiance to the King. We know (Say you page 20. of your Dedicatory speaking of all Bishops) they must be perjured to the Pope, if they prove faithful to the King. Whether so, or no, to God? judge you. I am sure if they were not Traitors in taking the foresaid oath to his Holiness, they were at least Renoun●ers of their allegiance to his Majesty, and of their obedience also to the Catholic Church.  
To accuse all Bishops, and by consequence the Representative 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 lawfulness of Treason, and other enormous errors, even but for one year, is judged by General Counsels, and all Roman catholics, a great heresy. What then shall we say of you, Mr. Walsh who maintains they have been in that desperate condition and heresy these 100L. 
a Dedic. pag. 13.  last years and that they took no notice of the loud cries of many thousands most learned godly Prelates, Priests, and Doctors, besides Laiks, putting all those Popes, and all those traitorous or perjured 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 it's certain they do, and have taken it for many hundred years) how can any part of them be most, learned zealous, and most godly Prelates? Can heretics, Traitors, and impious Bishops be most zealous, and godly men? why did you not name at least one of those godly Prelates, or writers, that cried down the Popes and Bishops as holding impious, heretical and destructive principles ever 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 Charon, and yourself, not so much hired, as intruding yourselves, and pressing state Ministers to hire you, for the same ends. Are these your thousands of most learned, zealous, godly Prelates, Priests and Laiks? Though bad these men be, I do not find that any of them doth assert so clearly the oath of supremacy as you do, or say, that all the Roman Catholik Bishops, who take the usual oath at their consecrations, are Traitors or perjured. What a pretty representative Church you make up of such Bishops? But suppose Mr. Walsh, there had been in every Century these 600. last years, or since Gregory 7. thousands of such as these, or as yourself, that cried down some principles and practices of the Roman Catholic Church as impious and heretical, and all the Bishops thereof as Traitors. What then? All pious and prudent Roman catholics would value such men no more than they do you, or so many cursed Curs barking at the moon and stars. Preston I did not know; some who knew him, say, he repent his folly, and was very much ashamed of having been so egregiously fooled by Archbishop Abbots. Charon I knew, and so did many others, who judged him to be no better than a pleasant Friar, that had no more s'kill in squsing out a doleful tune or Cronan, than science or sincerity in quoting the Authors he wrists in favour of those errors, wherein he agrees with you. Myself have seen him convicted of unexcusable 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 ways, you little man. You have heard I suppose of his reply to one D. Pugh a learned man, as I am told; who questioning Charon for printing contrary doctrines in two books, answered, when he writ one of them, he was in the King of Spain's Dominions; but the other he writ in the King o●●●glands Dominions. This indeed is a sincere confession and declaration of the genius and practice of your new remonstrant Church, and of yourself M. Walsh, in particular, as shall be now proved.   

ANIMADVERSION 6. Of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church. Which principles be treasonable and impious; those of Friar Wal●h, or those of the Roman Catholic Church for these last 600. years?  
MR. Walsh, you charge the Roman Catholik Popes and Bishops ever since Pope Gregory 7. with treasonable and impious principles and practices. Let us compare yours with theirs, that so the truth may appear. You are Pope of this new Remonstrant Church, which you confess, had (even in its prime) but sixty nine Church men in all the world. I believe they are your Cardinals, you have three caps yet to bestow; the Cardinals you know are 72. It's good policy to keep some places vacant. But where are your Bishops and parish Priests? Must your Clergy be composed 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 little 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, whereby you distinguish this blessed flock from that of the Roman Catholic Church, which you call Papalin, puritan papist, popish recusant etc.  
Your 1. principle is, that the english oath of supremacy may br 
a Page 16. of the Dedicatory.  lawfully taken by all Roman catholics; nay that they commit a sin of rashness and obstinacy in refusing it You know Mr. Walsh, all rashness and obstinacy is a sin.  
2. 
a In the Prof. pag. 40. Pref. pag. 49  That temporal Sovereigns may lawfully make laws in ecclesiastical matters, even of Faith, by their own sole authority.  
3. That for these 600. 
b Dedic. page 13.  last years the Roman Catholic Church hath erred enormously, for gainsaying these principles of yours.  
4. 
c Pet. Walsh says pag. 75. And yet I must tell my Adversaries, that such Catholic Divines as hold the absolute fallibility of general Counsels, even I mean in points of faith think they can say enough for themselves etc.  That Roman Catholic Authors hold and maintain, general Counsels are not infallible in defining matters of Faith or doctrine. Do you hold such Authors to be Roman Catholik Mr. Walsh? If you do your are not one yourself.  
5. 
d Pag. 20. Dedic.  That all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world, for as many hundred years as they have taken the usual oath before their consecration, have been, and are now, either Traitors, or perjured persons for taking it. So that for all this time all general Counsels were composed wholly of Traitors, or perjured persons.  
6. That Popes as Popes, and Bishops, as Bishops, 
e H●●ory 1. p. sect. 33. page 79  can not in conscience contribute or concur (by raising Troops, or any other temporal ways) to defend the lives or rights of their lawful sovereigns against Rebels; or endeavour to restore them to their Kingdoms and Dominions, if possessed by usurpers and Tyrants.  
7. That the supreme secular Princes can not grant to Clergy 
f 1. part. of the 1. Treatise pag 417. sin.  men (their subjects) an exemption from the supreme secular judicature, or from their supreme coercive power. Whence must follow, that all Christian Princes, have sinned in doing so, and the whole Catholic Church erred in commanding their piety for granting those immunities.  
8. That 
a Page 79, cit.  no spiritual power, as such, can inflict upon any score a corporal punishment for any misdemeanours whatsoever, 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 little. Whence follows that neither as spiritual, nor as temporal Heads they can punish heretics. This is good news for you and the Blakloists Mr. Walsh.  
9 That neither the Pope nor the 
b Friar Walsh in his pag 430. 1. part of the first Treatise saith, I do myself (as I confess I am bound) most Religiously allow the canonisation vencration and invocation of Saint Thomas of Canterbury, and all three of him, as of a glerious Martyr too, and not with standing I allow also all the mercies raported of him.  Generals of Regular Orders, can inflict any corporal punishment upon their inferior Priests or Friars, for the greatest misdemeanours, or for writing such follies, as these of yours are Mr. Walsh. This also may comfort you.  
10. That notwithstanding supreme temporal Princes can not in conscience, or reason, 
c Pag 429.  exempt Clerks from their supreme coercive power, or Courts of secular judicature, according to your 7. principle, yet God may and hath wrought great Miracles (in the case of S. Thomas of Canterbury) to confirm they may so exempt them; and by consequence God, according to your principles, may encourage men to sin, by miracles.  
11. That God may in all like cases work Miracles to assure the Church, 
c Pag 429.  that a man who dies for defending the Church immunities, is a Saint, and enjoys his Divine sight, notwithstanding those immunities could not be lawfully granted by Princes to the Church, and the man who died for maintaining them, died maintaining an error.  
12. 
a Friar Walsh his words ibid. page 4●9.  One may be inuoked as a Martyr in the Church, (largely, or not so strictly, yet properly still) if he dies 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 just, and generaly seems the more pious, for all he knows, though it be not an evangelical trnth, and though perhaps too, he may be deceived in the obiective truth of what he dies for.  
This is your Creed Mr. Walsh, the twelve articles of your Remonstrant Religion. By this last, all jews, Turks, and heretics, that are pious in their own way, and die 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 obiective truth of what we believe; they only prove that we mean well in believing the Mysteries of Faith, though falie in themselves only such Christian and Catholic Martyrs whose Miracles as were wrought, say you, at the invocation of God (by the Saint himself, or by any other) that God might be pleased by working such Miracles 
b Page 429.  to evidence the justice of such a cause, do confirm the truth of the doctrine professed by such a Martyr or Maintainer of it. For, if they had been ●rought so, the case would be clear enough (as to such who saw those Miracles, or to whose knowledge authentik proofs of them di (sufficiently come) that enen the obedience, truth, and justice of things in such a controversy, had been on such a Saint, or Martyr's side. But otherwise wrought, they can be no more but Divine testimonies of his having wonderfully or extraordinarily served God either ●n his life or death, or both, whether he was deceived or no in some things. And besides, they can be no more, or at least on any rational ground can not be said to be any more, than Divine testimonies of his being now with God in glory. Do you say all this Mr Walsh, to make the world believe, that Turks and jews are now with God, or Saints in God's glory? Or only to prove that the Miracles wrought by God for S Thomas of Canterbury, may stand very well with having no truth or justice on his side in his known controversy with King Henry 2. And that the Churches honouring and innoking him, as a true Martyr for maintaining its immunities, is no argument, that he defended therein justice or truth; because forsooth neither himself, nor any other did invoke God to work the Miracles to evidence the truth or justice of those immunities S. Thomas maintained against the 16. or 12. laws or customs of Henry 2. which were all in order to take away or diminish the Pope's external spiritual jurisdiction and supremacy, and to assert in the King a coercive power over the Clergy.  
I pray Mr. Walsh, where do you find it declared necessary, that the Mysteries of Christian faith be made credible or confirmed by a formal or express invocation of God to work miracles for every one of them in particular? Christ himself taught, that Miracles confirm any general doctrine preached by him who works them; neither doth he put that condition or caution of a particular and formal invocation of God, without which you pretend the doctrine taught, or suffered for, may be false. But let that pass. What more express invocation or declaration of God, can you desire for the truth and justice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's doctrine, than that so notorious and so long depending a controversy between the Church and state, should suspend all Christendom, there being on the one side a powerful Monarch, who stood for the pretended right of Kings, on the other but a poor banished subject, though a Bishop, to maintain that of the Church? and that this poor man having been murdered (by flattering Courtiers) for maintaining the Church immunities, God should work so many, and so undeniable Miracles, at his dead body and Tomb, that you are not only forced to confess they are true ones, but that King Henry 2. himself acknowledged S. Thomas had the truth and justice on his side. And therefore to satisfy God and the world, rather for his unjust contest against the Church, than for the Saints murder (which the King neither intended nor desired) that great Monarch did undergo 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 upon yourself, as much as a Disiplin, like that which the Monks of Canterbury gave King Henry 2. We have related the principles of your religion and Remonstrance, out of your own Alcoran (your great volume is no better than Mahomet's Alcoran) now let us see what practices did flow from such principles.   

ANIMADVERSION 7. Of the practices of Friar Walsh his Remonstrant Church.  
IF the Roman Catholic Church of these last 600. years, hath fallen from the ancient Christian principles, of loyalty due to temporal Princes, as Friar Walsh pretends; and all the Roman Catholik Bishops are Traitors to their Sovereigns, (by the oath they take at their consecration) we may rather wonder God did not send sooner a holy man to reform these enormous errors, 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 Catholic Subjects that allegiance, from which they have been withdrawn for these six last Centuries Blessed be God, who albeit for our sins, he deferreth his mercies, yet never fails to impart them sooner than we deserve. Nor indeed could this age, so infamous for murders and rebellions against lawful Sovereigns, expect so Apostolic a Reformer, as Peter Walsh hath proved 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 Archbishop 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, contained manifest untruths; you suggest also that he is thought to be Author of the Dublin Libel, written against your Remonstrants directly, but withal indirectly, or even principally aiming at the most illustrious personof his Grace the Duke of Ormond. Though I have not the honour to be acquainted with that Prelate, yet his being one, and his writing against your accusations in his own defence, mad me curious and concerned; and having enquired after the Papers which passed between you, I obtained a sight of them, as also of that which you call the Dublin libel, which is termed by the Author thereof, a Vindication against Friar Walsh his Calumnies, written by a Pastor of the Diocese of Dublin.  
If all be true, Mr. Walsh, that is there in alleged against you with particular circumstances, you are the greatest Traitor and Rebel that breathes. You are charged 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 murdering five poor English Soldiers of the garrison of Raroffy in the County of Kildare, at the bridge of johnston, in the very beginning of the Irish commotion; and that, with such barbarous breach of faith, or at least of the law of arms, and incredible cruelty, that it's to be admired, how any, who values the name or blood of an englishmen, can see you, much less profess to be your friend, before you clear yourself 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 Marquis of Ormond Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, upon the proclamation of the peace of 1646. you seconded one Doctor Enos, by approving 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 adhering to that good peace, and from any agreement with the said Matques of Ormond, because forsooth, he designed the King's ruin, as well as theirs. This calumny Enos pretended to prove (and you approved of all, by commending the libel, and the Author in print, in the first leaf thereof) because his Excellency would not conclude before the year 46. any peace with the Irish, though he had positive and pressing commands from the King to do it; but for three or four years delayed it by unprofitable and suspicious cessations, in which time the King was subdued, and imprisoned, and therefore his said Lieutenant might pretend and plead that service (or at least a neutrality) to the Parliament, when they came to be Masters of all. And besides, his Excellency observing that the Earl of Glamorgan had given the Irish full satisfaction in the article of Religion (most insisted upon by them) the Lord Lieutenant would not condescend thereunto, but rather declared against it, imprisoned the Earl in the Castle of Dublin, and thereby dispersed 10000 men ready to be shipped at water ford for his Maiesty's relief in England, and ruin'd him by hindering that succour. This was the Subject of Enos and your libel Mr. Walsh; the common sort of the Irish nation believed you and D. Enos, and by your means conceived such hatred against their Countryman the Duke of Ormond (very popular before that time, for his extraction and good parts) that it could never be rooted out of their hearts, nor put out of their heads, but that he hated the royal family and his Country. This made his most loyal actions and attempts (if not successful) be looked upon as so many plots to ruin the King, and the only subjects then capable of helping him, the Irish. From hence proceeded the Towns refusing to receive his garrisons, from hence the divisions 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 jameston against his grace; from hence all other disorders, whereof you and Enos are more guilty than the Bishops, or the common people.  
Mr. Walsh, you may as well pretend this repetition and reprehension of your Knavery is writ against the Lord Duke of Ormond, as that the Dublin libel aimed at the most Illustrious Person of his Grace. But I assure you, I ho● or and love 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 upon him; nor abuse the generosity of so noble and discerning a person, who would easily perceive (if he had heard what others know) how ill Englishmen must take his protecting and countenancing a suspected Murderer of innocent English, and one who by the great hand he had in rejecting the peace of 46. and thereby unsettling and dividing Ireland, concurred very much to the Murder 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 suspicion against his Loyalty; some indeed admire how so wise a man should think, it the interest of the Crown, to permit those who fought for it, to be destroyed, and disinherited; and admire his want of memory in not remembering so many meriting men, who lost all for the King, and stuck to his Excellency, as the King's Lieutenant, in all his misfortunes. He hath forgot, they say, even those few, whereof the Act of Parliament puts him in mind by special name, and therefore are called the Nominees. But seeing his nearest relations complain, that they also are forgot, we must not accuse him of any thing but want of memory; especially 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 delivering it to the Nuntius But to convince you, and all the world of the veneration I have for that great Minister's loyalty, it is sufficient that notwithstanding I have 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 Subjects our King hath, and the fittest to be employed in great affairs, provided he never believes nor trusts you, when he is satisfied that what is generaly reported, and believed of you, is true. Mistake me not Mr. Walsh, I would not have his Grace advice to put you to death, but would have you not trouble him, avoid the occasion, and retire into your Convent. But I fear you had rather venture hanging, than do that. If you be not guilty, in God's name make out your innocency. The vindication or Dublin libel says, you writ with your own hand that fatal excommunication of the Pope's Nuntius, whereby the Castle of Kilkenny (the key then of Ireland) was put into the Nuntius his hands; and that with this Excommunication you marched up to the Castle gate in your Franciscan habit, and fixed it thereupon with the same hand which writ it. What I know certainly is, that this Excommunication writ with your own hand, was delivered to my Lord john Berkley when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and am confident he hath it still in his custody, as an evidence of your loyalty, and of your being a fit man to preach it to others.  
To these three particulars, of the murder of innocent English, of your approving Enos his libel against the Lord Marquis of Ormond, and rejecting the peace of 46. and of your wresting from the King, by an Excommunication of your own hand writing, and fixing, the Castle and City of Kilkenny (and by consequence the whole Kingdom of Ireland) I expected a clear and particular answer in this great volume of yours, wherein you answer other objections of less moment; truly seeing you named the Dublin libel, me thinks you ought rather to have confuted it, at least briefly, than spend so much time and paper in quoting the penalties, which the Canon and civil Law prescribe against libelers. 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 have confuted the pretended libel, then have quoted the Laws, that punish Libelers; because none can be punished by such Laws, before it be proved that the writing is a Libel. Indeed, Mr. Walsh, I was much surprised to see you remit English Readers 
a Pag. 50.  (for the confutation of these accusations) into your latin Hibernica, a book not as yet printed, and when printed, not understood by the generality of the English nation, which you ought to satisfy, and clear yourself from that horrid aspersion of Treasons, and english innocent blood cast upon you; you shall see how your titular Archbishop of Dublin doth clear himself of what you have printed to his disadvantage. I thought fit to give the public a view of the letter he writ for that purpose to a friend of his, who desired it to satisfy himself and others.  
SIR  
I Esteem the concern you are pleased to have for my reputation, as much as I do contemn Friar Walsh his calumnies. I send you a short and true confutation of them, to satisfy yourself, and those friends you say are so desirous to see it.  
As to what he says of my being dismissed out of the Society, 
b Pag. ‖ 528. & Seqq.  and of his own knowledge of the cause thereof, and of the person that procured it, you may believe him; because he hath most reason of any body (except myself) to know it, For, when F. Richard Barton then Provincial of England, and his So●ius F. Grey, offered to me in London very charitably (as from Father General) my choice of Province and College of the Society, to live and teach in, provided I would departed suddenly out of England, I confess I was too positive in rejecting that offer; but they desiring me to take some time to consider o● it, I went to Peter Walsh (of whom I had then a good opinion) to be advised by him, and told him sincerely, that neither desire of liberty, or aversion from regular discipline enticed me to leave the Society, whereof I was a member, and might continue, if I would; but that I was in circumstances, wherein I thought I might do God, the King, and all who depended of him, more considerable service, than I could in the Society, or ever again would be in my own power, or of any other of my profession. That I only scrupled the promise I had made (as all others do, who are not professed) of entering into the Society.  
He answered, that he judged in his conscience I might without any scruple leave the Society upon the aforesaid considerations; and as for the promise of entering thereunto, that he had power to dispense therein, because it was but votum simplex. And I was so simple as to take his word. So that you see I dismissed myself, and upon what score, and by whose approbation. You see also what Kind of man Friar Walsh is, who both in his great English volume, and in his latin epistle to Harold, proclaims me an Apostate, and a Traitor to the King, as acting against him in the year ●9, whereas none knew the contrary better than Walsh himself.  
I will briefly tell you the truth of all my Treasons. Upon Cromuells death, the divisions of his Army, and the submission of his two sons, the Commonwealths party was most like to prevail; a thing the Spanish Minister very much apprehended; whereupon they sent me to London to observe and obstruct (by their friends) he Commonwealths men design, but would not permit me to acquaint my own King with it, though indeed it was altogether for his interest. This journey of mine from brussels to England raised a jealousy in the King and his Ministers, as also in the Cavaliers in London, who thought I came in that coniuncture, to further some overtures of peace, which the Commonwealth party had made to the Spanish Ministers. The Earl of Clarendon, who was very angry with me upon the account of an imaginary Cardinal (I mean of an odd story attributed to his Lordship) continually inculcated to his Majesty, the prejudice my negotiation might do his affairs. I satisfied as many of the Cavaliers in London as I thought I might trust with a secret, and assured them my endeavours were, and always should be, to serve the King; and that there would be no peace with the Commonwealth party. The same I assured Peter Walsh upon his telling me he was going then to brussels, and delivered to him a letter for my Lord of Ormond, wherein I gave his Excellency the same assurances, I did the London Cavaliers, adding that a little time would prove me to be an honest man; for that I was then upon my journey to the Conferences of the Pirenées, where the general peace was to be concluded; wherein I hoped England would not be included, notwithstanding the Embassy and diligence of Sir William Locart to have it comprehended in the Treaty  
Arriving at Fuenterabra, I went strait to our King's Residents house, and he telling me that he had many advertissements of my ill intentions of obstructing his Majesty's affairs, desired me to assure him of the contrary by my word, which he would take, because he thought I was an honest man, and knew that those who writ against me to him, had been formerly (in Flanders) mistaken, both in my interest and intention of serving the King. I shown to the Kings Resident all my papers, gave him an account of my design, assured him, that Don Luis de Haro would give me credit (as to my relation of the King's interest being the only considerable in England) in case Don Alonso de Cardenu, and the Marquis of Caracona (as was generaly feared) should represent it otherwise. He finding the success did answer my undertaking, and his own expectation, gave full satisfaction to the King of my fidelity and endeavours to serve him after that his Majesty came to Fuenterabia. The same testimony was given to his Majesty by Don Luis de Haro himself; and then the King was pleased to receive me into his former grace and good opinion, as also my Lord of Ormond; who then trusted me with his concerns in the Court of Spain; (a pension promised, but never paid, until I sent him from Madrid three thousand eight hundred pounds in one Bill, the sum due to him) Notwithstanding that my Lord of Clarendons anger did still continue (he never forgave the story of the Cardinal, wherein I had no hand) yet the King (after his happy restauration) was graciously pleased (against the Lord Chancellor's will) to name me one of the Queen's Almoniers; but his Lordship, and the Marquis of Sandy Ambassador of Portugal, found ways soon after to deprive me of that honour. Hear you have all my Treasons which Peter Walsh hath disguised and dispersed in print with mysterious words, and malititious reflections, contrary to his own conscience, and the knowledge of the whole Court.  
As to his railing and saying (pag. 530.) that I went to his Chamber in London an. 1644. to importune him to take off a certain nobleman (he means my Lord Duke of Ormond) from hindering my being made a Bishop; the truth is, I went to Friar Walsh his Chamber; but with greater indifferency than importunity; for I shown him the letter I had then received from the Inter-Nun●ius of Flanders (as I did to many others) offering me from Rome a Bishoprik; and I remember very well, I told Peter Walsh, I valued not the offer so much as to accept of it, without my Lord of Ormonds (than Lieutenant of Ireland) approbation; and that I was very indifferent, whether he would allow of such a thing or no. And indeed if I had not been very indifferent, I would never have made use of Friar Walsh his mediation, whose design then was known to be, to hinder all such promotions until himself had been named Archbishop of Dublin, And his Comrade Charon Archbishop of Armagh. But I admire Walsh is not ashamed to touch this passage; his Diabolycalenuy, and foolish ambition having hurried him (immediately upon the sight of my Letter) to my Lord of Ormond, informing him of his fears, that the Talbots had a plot to assasinat his Grace, as he had ground to suspect by a word that fell from one of the Brothers, either Thomas or Peter Talbot (he knew not which forsooth) and therefore as his Grace's Servant, he came to advertise him of it; whereupon ensued the imprisonment of three brothers, which gave occasion of murmuring to many, and laughter to most, to see such a noise made of what was found to be nothing else but the malice and plot of a knavish friar, that endeavoured to destroy a whole family, lest one of them might lie in his way, or hinder him from that mitre he looked after. But a man who had Sacrificed the preservation of his King and Country (by preaching and publishing Excommunications against the peace of 46.) to the vain hopes of obtaining a Bishoprik from his master the Nuntius, would make no scruple to have three brothers put to death for a feigned conspiracy against the life of a privy Councillor. What troubled me most in this intrigue, was the loss of Sir Robert Talbots Estate, and of a considerable sum for ten years' Agency, settled by Act of Parliament, upon him, and the other Agents; into which was inserted, I know not how an obscure odd kind of clause of preference of payment in favour of Mr. Milo Power (as if he had been a mor meriting and suffering Cavaleer) before Sir Robert Talbot and others both Agents, and Cavaliers. And though every one knows Mr. Milo Power to be a very worthy gentleman, and pleasant company, it's also well known, that though his affection to the King's service be as great as any man's, yet the possibility of showing it, or of losing much for it, was not comparable to the sufferings and services of those, who lost the benefit of the Act upon his account. And indeed Sir Robert Talbot ought to be pitied, because having been employed by the public, he neglected his own particular concern, merely out of honour; lest it should be thought (as it was reported, but groundlessly, of others) that to secure his own estate he concurred to the ruin of his Country.  
As for Friar Walsh his no less ridiculous than malicious observation and Comments upon the most R. Father Olina his letter to me, and my devotion and respect to him, and the whole Society, I must own to the whole world, I should be as ill a man, and as great a liar as Wash himself (and that is the worst can be said of any man) if I did not esteem very much, and speak well of the virtue and learning of that Society. Few can speak with more knowledge, and none shall with less partiality. I have been in most of their Provinces of Europe, I have lived in their most famous Colleges, and taught in some: I never was in any College or Community of theirs, where there was not one, or more, of known eminent Sanctity; many of extraordinary virtue, and none, that I knew, vicious; I always found their Superiors charitable and sincere, their Procurators devout, their Professors humble, though learned; their young masters of humanity, and students of Philosophy, or Divinity, very chaste; and if any gave the least suspicion of being otherwise, he was presently dismissed. It is my greatest admiration how so great a body, so generaly employed, and trusted by the greatest Princes, so conversant in the world (according to their holy institut) can savour so little of it, and live so innocently as they do; and even forsake the best part of it (Europe) their many conveniencies, and relations (which are illustrious) and banish themselves to Asia, Africa, and America, upon no other account but that of saving souls. In their Schools they teach not those infamous doctrines, which that foulmouthd Friar Walsh asperseth their Authors with, and says I do practice; but are very reserved in delivering any larger opinion, even of the most famous writers; for fear men should abuse and misapply their authority. This is the substance of what I always said, and must say, if I will speak truth, of an Order wherein I have lived many years with great content; and truly so innocently (through God's grace, and their example) that the greatest sin I can charge myself with, during my abode amongst them, is the resolution I took of leaving them, though (perhaps erroneously) I framed then a judgement, that the circumstances wherein I found myself, did excuse it from being mortal.  
But afterwards reflecting with more maturity and less passion upon the positiveness of that my resolution, notwithstanding the charitable offers of the Superiors above mentioned, as soon as I knew I was designed to be made Bishop, I offered to F. General Oliva, and F. joseph Simons, then Provincial of England, to re-enter into the Society; but they (thinking perhaps I could not be of any great service, to it, and edified with my sincere resignation of being directed in that particular as they judged best for my salvation) did of their own accord, forward by favourable informations, and a better character than I deserved, the promotion which the Court of Rome had designed for me. I having notice of this civility, could do no less than writ a letter of thanks to Father General Oliva, and he answered me in those, usual unsignificant and general terms, wherewith Generals of Regular Orders congratulat new made Prelates; and whereupon Peter Walsh makes very silly but malicious reflections, to persuade the simpler sort of people, that my promotion was carried on by the jesuits, as if it had been a business of great importance for their Order, or as if their Order had been hugely concerned in the discredit of his ridiculous Remonstrance, which needed not be disgraced otherwise than by saying it was his.  
As for my answer to his petition against me, presensented to the Council in England, I could not excuse answering it, having been commanded by the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland, where I was, to put in my answer, which contained nothing but truth; and so it appeared to that honourable Bord, which declared me innocent. It was no other, but that I never persecuted, him nor any of his seven Friars Remonstrants, in whose behalf he petitioned; neither did I, nor could I excommunicate any Regulars, who (by the Roman Canons) are exempted from the Ordinaries jurisdiction; neither indeed did their own regular Superiors punish them for signing the Remonstrance, but for cheating the people of money, and for exacting it from the King's Subjects by virtue of a counterfeit commission from the Pope. I did afterwards tell some of the privy Councillors, and others, that I was surprised to see such criminal persons countenanced in prescribing ruler of loyalty to men whose families (an well old Irish, as old english) had for these 500 years past, stuck (according to duty) to the Crown of England, and themselves had suffered so particularly upon the same account. That as to my own family the Nuntius, and his Dean of Fermo endeavoured to have myself banished out of Rome, as an Ormonian; that Sir Robert Talbots house's and Tenants were destroyed by the Nuntius party in Ireland, his command taken from him, himself imprisoned, as having been the only man in Ireland (even of the Ormonian party) who would not give his voto in a subsequent general Assembly for rejecting the peace of 46. notwithstanding that General Oneals Army was at hand, and the Bishop of Clogher enraged at his speeches for the Assemblies reassuming the same peace, which Peter Walsh had so disloyaly cried down from pulpit and press, by commending so seasonably for the Nuntius, and so seditiously against the King's interest and safety, D. Enos his libel against that peace, and the proceed of my Lord of Ormond.  
But what is most falsely asserted by Peter Walsh is, that in my answer I did give a touch of the murder he is charged with. I touched not any such thing, I am sure I did not intent to be his Accuser in any cause of blood, and I hindered others from accusing him, as my Brother john Talbot had also done; nay I had him advertised of his danger (by a friend of his own) as soon as Father Cavenagh, and Father Bremingham attested the murder at Castleton in presence of my Lord Dongan, Mr. Chasles White of Leixslip, myself, and others; For, though his barbarous inhuman cruelty (if what is said of him be true) deserves ten thousand deaths, yet I would not for all the world concur to it. The thanks he gave me for letting him know his danger (to the end he might retire to his Convent, and do penance for his sins) was, to misinform the honourable House of commons and the committee of Religion, by one of the two Mr. Warnhams (commonly known by the name of Flahertys Varnham) that I did most impudently exercise papal jurisdiction in Ireland, by excommunicating and censuring his Majesty's most loyal Subjects for subscribing to the Remonstrance. And though this was known in Ireland to be a fable, yet Mr. Varnham, and some others of Friar Walsh his friends, averring it to be very true, I have suffered much upon that account; and that infamous Friar, though a known Traitor to God and the King, laughed in his sleeve, after abusing the Parliament with notoriously false informations; and insults for having been so successful in exasperating the Cavaleer party against one who endeavoured to serve many of them in their exile abroad; as some of them since were pleased to teftify, though too late for my relief, and redress of the injury done to me.  
My business is not to exaggerate this man's misdemeanours, but rather to warn him once more of his danger, and advice him not to be so public in London, frequenting great Prelates and Nobleman's houses, upon whom he must needs draw inconueniencies, if he doth not clear himself of treasons and murders better than by saying in his great english Tome of Irish Rhapsody, that all these accusations are lies, or libels of the titular Archbishop of Dublin, or of his friends; and then tell his Readers he will vindicat himself in his latin Irish work. Me thinks he might have reserved some of his unnecessary uncouth speeches, and tedious repetitions, for that work; and in lieu thereof clear himself of those foul aspersions, at least in a parentesis; some of his, being long enough to weary any patiented Reader, and to justify any honest man. This I hope is enough to vindicat me from Peter Walsh his calumnies, which do not much trouble me, it being the greatest honour of an honest man, to be railed at by an heretic. I am  
Your most obliged Servant PETER TALBOT.  
Mr. Walsh, I have been assured by credible persons, that what this Prelate says here of you and himself, is very true; and that a man would be laughed at in Ireland (where these things happened) if he questioned so notorious matters of fact, whereof there are yet living many legal witnesses. This supposed I must needs blame you for printing such lies to discredit a Bishop, or at least for not proving what you say of him by more credible arguments than the bare assertion of yourself in your own cause. If you, being but a private person, and a petty Friar, say (pag. 51. of your Preface) that the Author of the Dublin libel (for writing against you some pretended untruths) ought by the civil laws to be put to death; and by the Canon of Pope Adrian, be stripped naked, and whipped with scourges, if he can not prove the truth of the particulars of his libel; what will the world say of you, for writing manifest untruths of an Archbishop? Especially when you can not prove that he is the Author, or that you are injured by that Dublin libel, as you call it; and for want of an answer to the particulars therein alleged against you, remit your english Reader to a latin Irish work, not yet composed, not ever like to be printed? I am troubled Mr. Walsh, at this malicious 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 convinced 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 Civil Magistrate, from the Lord Lieutenant, or King's 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 even extraordinary favours etc. 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 have given sufficient arguments of both the one and the other. During which time, those poor Remonsirants had nothing to balance all their sufferings, but the bare satisfaction of conscience, to be slighted so by their friends, and persecuted so by their Enemies, 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 give a hint of it in the pag 3. of your Preface to the Catholics (which needed an other Preface, itself being a large book.) There you say, that the Antiremonstrants 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 give 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 natured as to persuade a poor Friar to play the Impostor? or that he would be persuade to play the fool and knave so egregiously, merely to undermine your Remonstrant Church? Good God, in what a great mistake hath the world been 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 understood one an other so well, that you combined to cheat the King's Subjects of money, and to establish the Remonstrant Church by virtue of the same imposture, and forged Commission, whereby your visitators and Collectors raised good sums for the Commissary Apostolyks occasions and expense.  
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 show for his authority over all the Clergy of Ireland, both secular and regular, but a copy of the pretended Original; and that so little authentik, that to gain it credit, you got the unwary Bishop of Ardagh to confirm it as a true one 2. the Commissary had no instructions; a thing unusual and unheard of in any person authorised with such an employment. But this defect you supplied, 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 whensoever you please. So that if you did not forge the Commission, you drew for the Commissaries Instructions. 3. You knew very well, it was not a likely thing that the Court of Rome would give so ample a power to an ordinary Friar, over Bishops, and all regular Superiors. 4. When the It suits made difficulty to submit to your Impostor Commissary, standing upon the Privileges of their Order, you reprehended them severely, and gave God thanks that yourself was so devoted to the Pope, as not to dispute his Commissaries authority, when they, who by a peculiar vow are tied to obey his Holiness, were refractory; and upon this, you, and by your example the rest kneeled down, craving the Impostor Commissaries benediction, and owning his authority. 5. He was wholly 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 concealed from a man so curious and corcerned as you were in this intrigue? Be not so  Mr. Walsh, as to fancy you can impose upon the world that you went not halfs in a cheat, yourself managed from first to last.  
You have no reason to say that during this time, the poor Remonstrants had nothing to balance 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 have a Commissary cum plenitudine potestatis at your command? To see your dearest Remonstrants made his Visitators and Collectors, taxing and raising moneys? and that, with Censures and Excommunications against such as refused or delayed 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 every night, with good Cheer, dancing, and Danes, or Irish Cronans; especially that famous Macquillemone; which was styled in a letter to Rome, Cantio barbara & aggrestu; and called by the Soldiers of the Guards in Dublin (hearing it every night at midnight) Friar Walsh, and Friar N. singing of Psalms? Call you suffering to see your grave Remonstrants dance Giggs and Country dances, to recreate yourself and the Commissary, who was as ready and nimble at it, as any of his Collectors? but indeed it's said, you danced 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 horsed as to run races, and that your Saint N. should excommunicate 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 sums they extorted from them? None durst complain of these exactions, the Collectors pretending your power and favour with the government was so great, as to wink at these your most illegal proceed.  
These were your sufferings and persecutions Mr. Walsh. But you know persecution if not suffered for justice, is not meritorious. You say your Remonstrant 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 upon and levy from his Subject's money by the Pope's authority, either counterfeit or real? We Antiremonstrants maintain the Pope hath no such power nor authority. Your Remonstrants maintain he hath, as appears by your Excommunications and suspensions yet extant. Is 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 perceived 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 Pope's 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 believe, 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) whereof one atticle is, there should not be tendered 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 opposite. Moreover you confess pag. 6. that you were sound checked by his Grace (as you expected) for daring to retain such an instrument from such men; that is, men, as to the generality and chief of them, formerly and lately too so caractered as they were for being in their indignations and carriage very much disaffected to his Majesty's interests, and very obnoxious to the Laws. You see Mr. Walsh, what thanks such buisy Friars as you get, for intermeddling in aflairs, whether Ministers of state, and the people concerned will or no. On the other side you cheated the Irish Clergy and Gentry, making the Clergy believe, they should have liberty to exercise their functions; and the Gentry that they should be restored to their estates, if they signed 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 been the better for his subscription? A man would think that my Lord of jueaghs' extraction, innocency, and merit; his breaking General Oneales' Army; his raising and losing two or three Regiments in the King's service; his venturing himself, and his nearest relations in the towns besieged by Cromu●ll; his constant following his Majesty's person and fortune in exile, needed no further remonstrance of his loyalty; but however, that nothing might be objected against him, he signed yours; and yet is nothing the nearer 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 never would reject the peace of 46. and suffered so much upon 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 believe, your Remonstrance was only a recognition of his Majesty's supreme temporal authority and right to his Kingdoms; but now you declare that it asserts, all which the oath of Supremacy doth, and that Roman catholics are rash and obstinate (and by consequence commit a sin) in denying to take the oath of supremacy, whereof (as was well known to such as refused to subscribe) this your Remonstrance contains the substance; which is, that temporal Sovereigns may by their own sole authority govern the Church, and make laws in Ecclesiastical matters, even of Faith. To prove this and the lawfulness of your Remonstrance, renouncing all those papalin or popish recusants doctrines, against which the oath of supremacy was made, and is tendered, is the subject and scope of this great Tome of yours: This is your own ingenious confession; these your endeavours since the year 61. You should have told this in the beginning to the Laity, and to such of the Clergy as understood not your design and doctrine. Now that they all know both, you must not admire, if even the subscribers detest you as a betrayer of their souls, as well as of the King's interest, not only by your former actions, but now also by your books and writings, inculcating to all Bishops and other Churchmen, that they commit a sin, if, (as Churchmen) they concur and contribute with their revenues, or any other corporal means, to preserve their King, or to restore him, if God should, for our sins, permit an other revolution, and that his right were possessed by a rebel or Tyrant. Is this Christian or Catholic doctrine? Hath the spiritual calling or character of a Bishop, or of a Clergy man, such antipathy with the duty of a subject, and of spiritual Father, that a Bishop or Priest must sin, if either of them apply his temporal goods to the support of his lawful Prince? You may as well maintain, that the character of Baptism, or Christianity, must make it a sin (in lay subjects) to defend or restore their lawful Sovereign; for Christianity is as solemn and spiritual a profession of following Christ's doctrine, as Episcopacy 
a Friar Walsh is half a Blakloist.  and Priestod is. I see Mr. Walsh, you are half a Blakloist: Blaklow and you agree in saying, that Subjects can not in conscience concur to restore a dispossessed lawful sovereign; but you say it only of the Clergy; he, of all. You ground your error upon the spirituality, and supernaturality of the Clergyes character; Blaklow upon the nature of man; which (as that heretical Traitor pretends in his book of Obedience and Government) inclines him rationaly, and obliges him to prefer his quiet and share of the human conveniencies of an usurped government before the Divine right which hereditary Sovereigns have to be temporal Governors (under God) of their Subjects, and the obligation Subjects have to venture their lives and fortunes to assert that right, and restore their lawful Sovereigns in case they should be disposest thereof. It's no more a marvel to me, that the 
b See Doctor Ceorge Leyburns Apology.  pretended Dean and Chapter of England, which commended Blaklows doctrine as eminent, after he had writ this destructive 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 evidence thereof. Consider, what credit can such men's approbation as cry up Blaklows condemned doctrine and books, 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 privy Councillors, and the Lords Lieutenants of Ireland, slight a Remonstrance and doctrine which doth inculcat or infer so  Tenets as yours, so destructive to Monarchy and morality, so incontinent with the safety of Sovereigns, and the duty of Subjects. What think you Mr. Walsh of the Clergy of France? Do they sin when every fifth or third year in their Assemblies they voluntarily tax themselves, and give so considerable sums to their King for his occasious? They do not give this help as temporal Peers or Barons of the Realm, but as Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Curates etc. Do they sin, I say, in doing this? Doth the Spanish Clergy sin in giving 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 come to that perfection you flattered yourself with, sure your Clergy would have been very rich, for they must not have given voluntarily as Bishops one penny of their Revenues to the King, to defend himself or the Kingdom against Rebels, or foreign Invaders. But if an Impostor Commissary comes, he way by a forged commission and the Pope's authority impose a tax upon the King's Subjects, and levy it by Excommunications and Censures. Is your loyal Formulary, and Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church of these last 600. years come to this Mr. Walsh? Who is the Traitor, who is the heretic? You, for your Remonstrance, or all the Bishops in the world for taking the usual oath at their Consecrations? For shame, Mr. Walsh, repent, retract, and retire to your Convent, and never write more of matters you understand not. But before you retire, I will solve 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 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 prevailed, even for and to the actual reduction of the Confederates 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 therefore, and only therefore, by their Adversaries without any fear 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 comes it to pass that of the great and numerous body of the loyal Irish Catholik Clergy, that approved themselves so in the occasion of trial, an, 1648. there should be found so many as 69. an. 1662. that subscribed to Peter Walsh his Remonstrance, so destructive to the King's safety, right and authority, as he hath been demonstrated? Now I will solve this question.  
You know Mr. Walsh when ambitious and irregular Friars, who aspire to Bishopriks', and hate the poverty and discipline of their institute, want friends and money, they invent twenty devices to compass both. Now, Redmund Charon and you, were resolved to be Bishops, the one of Armagh, the other of Dublin. You despared of obtaining Mitres by your merit, and the ordinary ways; therefore you resolved to fright the Court of Rome into it by setting up this your Remonstrance; and including yourselves into ecclesiastical and state affairs; you importuned two great Ministers of state to countenance the pressing of your Formulary, upon the Irish Clergy and Gentry, which had so faithfully served and followed the King in the worst of times, by shedding their blood 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 understood as well that it was not any good zeal, but your ambition and covetousness, which moved Charon and you to buisy yourselves in a matter very improper for your calling, and much above your capacities; yet for reasons best known to themselves, and common to all statesmen, they were content to let two such fellows as you, preach and press a Formulary, which they foresaw would divide the Catholics amongst themselves, discredit their Religion, and give the government the colour and advantage of excluding from their Estates many meriting gentlemen, for not professing that allegiance, which learned Friars of their own persuasion, maintained to be absolutely necessary in a faithful Subject: So that your Remonstrance served to exclude many honest men from their right, but never restored any to his inheritance; though many (fooled by you and Charon) put their hands to it in hopes of receiving thereby the benefit of the peace 48.  
As for your 69. Clergymen that subscribed the Remonstrance, yourself doth confess (pag. 578. part. 2.1. Treat) Some fell off immediately after their signing in the year 1662.— Others were content only to have signed it, like so many Nicodemus de nocte; not acknowledging amongst the Opposers what they had done. Some, who albeit they had sufficient judgement to guide themselves, or their own personal duty in order to themselves alone; yet had not those abilities either to persuade or satisfy others. Finaly there was not wanting amongst them a false and treacherous troublesome and impudent Brother etc. who discovered all might do them prejudice, and betray, them too wherein soever he might.  
I see Mr. Walsh, that of your 69. Ecclesiastical subscribers, some fell off immediately; others durst not own their subscription; others knew not how to justify it; and one false Brother betrayed your Counsels or cheats. The matter is worse than I thought. I pray how many able constant subscribers are there left in your Remonstrant Church? When you petitioned the King and Council in its behalf against the titular Archbishop of Dublin, you could name but seven; and four of the seven fell off then: and I believe the other two have done the same since. What? A Church, and none but one Friar Walsh to profess its Faith? Is AntiChrist come? Even in his time the Professors of Christianity will be more than 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 upon this deceased Bishop's authority, who was the only that subscribed to your Remonstrance. This obliges me to diminish a little his credit. Father john Talbot, of whom you said when he died (as if it were a rarity, or kind of miracle) There lies one honest jesuit, 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 haste from Dublin to Conaght, where General Presion then was with his Army, and persuaded that General to have the peace proclaimed in the head of the same. A little after, the Nuntius began to treat with you, and Friar Oliner Darcy (before he was Bishop of Dromore) who was General Preston's Ghostly Father; and upon that score could do much with him. Sir Robert Talbot having been made Prisoner for his zeal to the King's service, and to that peace, charged his Brother john Talbot, to keep still near General Preston, to the end he might keep him constant to the peace; for that he feared Friar Oliver Darcy (upon the hopes which were given him of a Bishoprik) would make the General alter his resolution. F. john Talbot did so, and having certain intelligence that Friar Darcy had undertaken to the Nuntius to gain Preston to his party, he asked 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 said he was, and the rather because Friar Oliver Darcy told him, he ought to be so. Father john replied, my Lord, will you give me your word, and hand, to continue so, though Father Darcy should advice you to the contrary? The General laughed at the improbability of such a thing. But the weak, though honest General, fell from his resolution by the Friar's importunity, who had been gained by the Nuntius; and upon this Friar Oliver 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 received Orders to take his pass, as the other Colonels did. Hereby the Bishop incurred his King's displeasure, and ruin'd the fortune of his Brother, a very loyal worthy gentleman, and a good Commander. After the King's happy restauration, this undutiful carriage of the Bishop was not forgot at whitehall; and he not knowing how to live in France, having also a desire to return to his own Country, writ to you Mr. Walsh, that he would do any thing you would have him do, so he might be permitted to return and live at home. A large offer, and an argument of a large conscience, in circumstances wherein he knew you wanted and sought (at this very time) a Bishop to head your upstart Church. You took him at his word, and he set his hand to to your Remonstrance. Whether he repent, or no, at his death, I know not, but I am sure Friar Redmund Charon, whom you canonize for a Saint (pag. 759.) ought to have retracted the doctrine of his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, which was stuffed with so notorious and palpable falsifications, that he can not be presumed to have been ignorant of them. But his last advice 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, even after his death, that matter (of the Remonstrance) and continue the defence or advancement of that doctrine, which in his life time you had for so many years, and notwithstanding so much contradiction, maintained.  
You do a great injury, Mr. Walsh, to the memory and merit of that Illustrious and Catholic Prelate, Thomas Dease, quondam Bishop of Meath, in joining him (in the same page) with Charon, as approving at his death of your Remonstrance, and doctrine. What if he did approve 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 govern the Church, and make Ecclesiastical laws, even in matter of Faith? Doth it maintain that Catholics both rashly and obstinately deny to take the oath of Supremacy, and by consequence commit a sin for not taking it? Doth it say the General Counsels of Ephesus and Chalcedon gave as much to temporal Princes, and as little to the Pope of spiritual authority, as the oath of Supremacy doth? Doth it say that some Catholics hold General Counsels are fallible? Where will you find in the book of Queries, that the Roman Catholik Church hath erred enormously in its principles and practices these last 600. years, and that all the Bishops thereof, are either Traitors to their Princes, or perjured to the Pope in taking the usual oath at their consecration? Doth the book of Queries teach that if Bishops, as Bishops, help their Sovereigns with money or arms against Rebels or Usurpers, they offend God? As also that temporal Soveraings 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 falsehood, or at least the Sanctity of a man who has a good intention and zeal in maintaining it or dying for it, thinking it to be a truth? Or that a man who dies 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 Martur, may be mistaken in declaring and believing him such a Martyr, though not in believing him a Saint in Heaven? All this you maintain (in Saint Thomas of Canterberies case) as necessary consequences flowing from the doctrine of your Remonstrance. Did Bishop Thomas Dease, nay did Charon himself, defend these heresies? The book of Queries only asserted the lawfulness of making peace and Confederacies with Protestants, and that the Pope's Nuntius could not validly excommunicate the Irish catholics for doing so; and that it was lawful to appeal to the Pope in those circumstances, and that the said Appeal did suspend the Nuntius Censures. No learned Catholik denies this doctrine. But not one Catholic in the world doth or can maintain your doctrines now mentioned, and therefore you are not only heretic, but an Impostor, pretending that they who opposed the Nuntius his Censures and practices in Ireland, were your Remonstrants.   

ANIMADVERSION 9 Whether temporal Sovereigns can exempt from their Supreme coercive power the Clergy of their Dominions?  
THAT they have done so de facto, is evident by the laws and practice of all Christian Emperors and Kings, especially in England, ever since Christianity flourished. But what's that to the purpose, if Friar Walsh say they could not the iure, or in conscience? Pardon me, 'tis something. For, though Friar Walsh his authority be very great, (Especially when he hath Barclay the Poet, or Romantik writer, to back him) yet I hope the persuasion and practice of the whole Catholic Church, the belief of all Christian Princes, and Prelates, 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 ignorance you so much pity) for being mightily startled at this position of yours and Barklays, The temporal 
a Friar Walsh 1. part. of his first Treatise pag. 267 & Seq.  Princes themselves, how otherwise Supreme soever, could not, can not by any law, right, authority, or power given them by God, or man, exempt from themselves, that is, from their own Supreme Civil, and even coercive power, the Clergy men of their Dominions.  
Sure you must needs have a very clear demonstration for this Tenet, that forces you to hold it being so contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Church. You say you have. Out with it then, Mr. Walsh, and let not the Faithful be any longer fooled. Good Reader, be attentive; 'tis a profound acute argument, you will find it pag. 271. cit. in these words. Whosoever have, and continue any office, which essentially inuolues a power Supreme, both directive and coercive, of all Clerks within their Dominions, may not divest themselves of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks, unless they do withal divest themselves of that office as towards the self same Clerks. Because they can not divest themselves of the essence of that which they hold still; this arguing a plain contradiction. But the Office of Kings inuolues a power supreme, both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions. Ergo.  
The Minor you must prove Mr. Walsh, I have already done 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 etc. cap. 5. thus. Aliquem esie Regem nihil aliud est, quam habere Superioritatem erga subditos, & in subditis esse obligationem pariendi Regi. etc. This is all you set down of Almainus his definition, and I have no exception against it, though I have against your sincerity in delivering the sense of it in English. The true translation of it is this, One to be a King; is nothing else than to haus' Superiority towards Subjects, 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 have a politic both directive and coercive power of Superiority over 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 advice Mr. Walsh, and let it be a general rule to you her after; never falsify, never add words to a definition, or Author, whereupon you build the force of your argument; especially in a matter of so great importance as this: For, if you do, most men will be tempted to say you are a knave; and if your dispute be against the doctrine and practice of the Church, they will add, you are so obstinate, that though you see the weakness of your cause, you had rather support it against the Church by corrupting Authors, and abusing illiterate Readers, than embrace and declare the truth.  
Our Controversy with you, Mr. Walsh, is reduced to this point, whether a King devests himself of his Kingship, when he grants to the Clergy, his own Subjects, an exemption from his Supreme coercive power, or from being cited or punished for crimes by his Secular Supreme Courts of Judicature; but withal leaves them to be cited and punished by Bishops, or some other Spiritual power; which in cases of Treason, degrades the delinquent and delivers him over to the Secular Courts? You say, a King doth divest himself of his Kingship by granting such a privilege to the Clergy. And you prove 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 Subject from it, you thrust into the desinition the word coercive power, and very clearly conclude from your own forgery that if a King doth exempt any Subjects from it, he doth vnking himself as to them, and makes them no Subjects. To be a King Mr. Walsh, as your own friend Almain tells you, is to have a Superiority over Subjects, and Subjects to have an obligation of obeying their King. Both are consistent with such an exemption from the supreme coercive secular power as the Clergy pretends to.  
You say no. Why not? pag. 269. Because the point of Lording, commanding, judging; punishing, at least in some cases, is the very essence of principality; so that the Prince can not remit, or quit this, and withal continue Prince. Certainly you are mistaken. Do you believe Mr. Walsh, that God is a Sovereign Prince or Lord of his Angels and Saints in Heaven? This is no impertinent question to one of your principles. If God then be a Sovereign Prince or Lord of his blessed Angels and Saints in Heaven, without doubt Sovereignty may well stand with an exemption from the Sovereigns coercive pour of punishing ever, or in any case his Subjects; for the Saints in Heaven are God's subjects, and yet by his special favour and gracious privilege are exempted from his supreme coercive power of inflicting ever pain or punishment upon them. If therefore it be not against the Divine Kingship or Sovereignty of God, to have Subjects exempted from his supreme coercive power, I see no reason why human Kingship and Sovereignty, (which is not so absolute, but a shadow of the Divine) may not be consistent with an exemption from the supreme human coercive power, sure you will grant the Angels and Saints in Heaven are as properly Gods subjects, and he (at least) as properly their Sovereign, as any King is of his subjects upon earth. Therefore the nature, notion, and essence of Kingship, Sovereignty, or Superiority, as such, is consistent with an exemption of the subjects from the coercive power of the Sovereign.  
Perhaps you will say, That the Saints in Heaven can not sin, and therefore there can not be any coercive power in God their King to punish them. This, Mr. Walsh, makes nothing for you. Though the Saints in Heaven can not sin, yet still they are Gods subjects, and he their Sovereign; they are exempted from his coercive power, though his subjects. Therefore Sovereignty and subjection doth not necessarily exclude an exemption in subjects from the sovereigns' supreme coercive power. Let me ask you an other question. Was the mother of God, or S john Baptist, and other Saints, who by a singular privilege were preserved from sinning, God's subjects upon earth? And yet there was no absolute impossibility of their not sinning upon earth, and by consequence none of being punished by Gods coercive power for sinning. And yet they were exempt from any such coercive power upon earth. Therefore an exemption from coercive supreme power, is consrstent with subjection, and a possibility of sinning.  
Be not startled at this Mr. Walsh, it's no new doctrine, 'tis but a small parcel of that ordinary Theology and common sense which you want. I will give you a reason for all this, and you can not deny it without declaring yourself an Atheist. The proper nature, notion, and essence of Sovereignty or Superiority doth not consist in not exempting subjects from a supreme or superior coercive power of punishing them, but rather in having power to pardon or exempt them, as well as to inflict the punishment they have deserved, or may deserve. Nay if you be not very stupid, you will easily perceive, that the notion of exemption or privilege, inuolues a subjection and dependency in the person exempted, or privileged as doth independency, Sovereignty or Superiority, in him that grants it. How then can it be inferred from an exemption from a supreme coercive power of Secular Sovereigns granted to their Subjects of the Clergy, that these are no Subjects, and they not Sovereigns? Learn a little wit, Mr. Walsh, and know, that nothing argues greater Sovereignty in a Prince than a power of exempting such of his subjects, as he thinks fit from his own supreme coercive power: for that very exemption is still a dependency or an argument of their subject's dependency and subjection, as well as a mark of the Prince his favour to them. I hope you comprehend now how it was and is in the power of temporal Sovereigns. (Without divesting themselves of their Kingship) to exempt from their own supreme coercive power their subjects of the Clergy. You say they never did so the facto; that shall be now examined.   

A NIMADVERSION 10. Whether Christian temporal Sovereign's have de facto exempted their Subjects of the Clergy, from their Supreme Secular judicature, and coercive power.  
FRiar Walsh says they did not, and proves by particular instances that they never intended any such thing. The first Prince therefore 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 will have the confidente to accuse him of having usurped any kind of authority over Churchmen, or practised any at all over them, but what was allowed him by the laws of God and nature, 
a The Accusations of the Bishops offered to Constantin, but rejected by him, as being an incompetent judge.  and approved also by the state civil and Ecclesiastical. And yet this very great and pious Coustantin is he who in the General Council of Nice, or when it sat, himself being present with them at Nice, and often in the very session hall amidst the Council, which was in his own Palace there, commanded the libels or petitions of accusitions and criminations offered to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops, and as a judge of them all of both sides, and in such criminal matters, commanded the same libels to be brought before him, and received them; albeit immediately thereupon, having first brought all parties to a friendly atonement by his Princely wisdom and piety, and rebuking severely 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 us that Constantin said in this occasion; It was not lawful for him, as being a man, to take upon or unto 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 have said so, partly out of somexcess of reverence and piety to their Order etc.  
Mr. Walsh, you tell us here a long story, but let me tell you, 'tis not every one can tell a story well, or to purpose. You must never bring a story for a proof of what you say, if it makes against yourself, and proves the quite contrary of what you quote it for: you bring this passage of Constantin the great, to prove that Secular Princes never exempted the Clergy from their own suprem judicature; and yet S. Gregory 
b Greg. 4. Epist. 75. Nicol. Ep. ad Mich. Imp.  the great, and Pope Nicholas, quote the very same passage in their letters to the Emperors Mauritius and Michaël, to show those Princes how much they degenerated from the piety and proceed of the great Constantin, who acknowledged it was not lawful for him to judge or punish the Clergy. You say Constantin received those libels as judge of the Bishops and Priests; but Constantin himself said it was not lawful for him to take upon 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 have said so partly out of some excess of reverence—. For, if Constantin had said so indeed, and withal meant to be understood of even mere lay crimes, or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawful, in order to such crimes of Priests, or even also to signify that himself was not a competent judge, nor the sole judge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion etc. He had never received the petitions either of the accusers or accused, but remitted them on both sides to their own proper judges and judicatories, the Tribunals of Bishops. Nay the Bishops themselves, at least such of them as were not particularly concerned in such criminations, had likely admonished him not to give ear or audience to the accusers of Bishops, or at all received their libels, as not being their competent judges.— And yet for any thing out of History, none of them ever admonished, much less reprehended him in this matter.  
You doubt, or at least would fain make others doubt, whether Constantin said it was not lawful for him, to take cognizance of Ecclesiastical complaints or causes. If Constantin said so at all. You perceive 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 have the same authority for this, which you have for the whole: and when you take any thing upon authority, you must take all or nothing. It had been more for your purpose to have resolutely denied 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 have said so partly out of some excess of reverence and piety to their Order; for if he meant to be understood in a strict sense of the word fas or lawful, or to signify that himself was not a competent judge, he had never received the petitions, but remitted them to their own proper judges. What do you mean Mr. Walsh? Must Constantin be supposed to have spoken one thing, and meant the quite contrary? Had he no other business ac Nice, but to compliment the Bishops, and tell them lies so prejudicial to his own right and authority? Is it the style of Sovereigns to declare that their Subjects ought not be judged by the Supreme Secular Judicature? Why must men suppose these absurdities Mr. Walsh? Because forsooth if Constantin meant to be understood in a strict sense of the word lawful, when he said he was no lawful or competent judge of the Clergy, he had never received the petitions, but remitted them to their own proper judges. I beg your pardon, Sir. Princes can not divine what men put in their petitions; they can not well reject them, before they are informed of the contents. Indeed you are in the right, when you lay that Constantin ought to have remitted the Clergy to their own proper judges, if he did not think himself one. And the same Authors 
a Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes, & potestatem dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi: & ideo nos à vobis rectè iudicamur, vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari, propter quod Dei Solius inter vos expectate iudicium, & vestra iurgia, quaecunque sunt, ad ●●ud Divinorum reseruentur examen Soz, lib. 1. cap. 16.  who tells you the story, tells you he did so; his words are, God hath constituted, you Priests, and gave you power to judge also of us, therefore we are rightly judged by you, but you can not be judged by men, wherefore expect the judgement of God alone, and reserve your differences, whatever they be, to that divine examination. What cause then had the Catholic Bishops to admonish, or reprehend so pious an Emperor, who remitted them to God, and his Divine Tribunal? What wonder is it you find no mention of any Bishop's complaint, admonition or reprehension in his History against Constantin?  
You will needs have it that Constantin by his own sole authority banished and restored Bishops and Priests; amongst others you instance both S. Athanasius, 
a The case of Athanasius and Arius.  and the heretic Arius. You impart to us (pag. 347.) this general observation. You shall never find that any Council, especially this of Nice, forced or gave sentence of forcing corporaly a Bishop from his see and City, and haling him into banishment; but only a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gave him formerly. And on the other side you shall ever see (So the the print must be corrected putting) (Never for Ever) it was the Prince alone that by his own royal power only sont Bishops to exile. Nay and this too not seldom without any previous 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 desired it; as holding the see absolutely vacant.  
Mr. Wash, General rules and observations ought to be well considered before they be prescribed; because there are few which admit not of some exceptions. But yours is so totaly false, that you can not name as much as one partioular to give the least colour of probability 
b Mr. Walsh his general rule, failing in every particular.  to your universal proposition. I challenge you to name any one Catholic Emperor or Sovereign, that banished or deposed any Catholic Bishop or Priest by his own sole authority, or before they had been 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 banished him also from Alexandria? Were not the Arian Bishops deposed and banished also by sentence of the Nicen Council, as well as Arius himself? Jts true the sentence was not put in execution, because they submitted and subscribed to the Counsels Creed. But yet you see how Socrates and others tell you, that though Arius submitted, yet the Council reserved upon him that part of his sentence, which banished him from his home, Alexandria. Was this no coercive 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 mere ecclesiastical, or merely spiritual sentence of deposition, and a civil imperial sentence of exile. Constantins' sentence of exile against Arius was long after this of the Council, and was but a continuation or confirmation of it as Baronius tells you. Neither did Constantin recall Arius from his banishment until he thought he was canonicaly pardoned or cleared and restored by the Synod of Jerusalem. But why name you not at least the Bishop whose exile by the sole temporal authority was judged by the Church for a sufficient deposition of such a Bishop.  
Now Mr. Walsh, I will give you a general rule or observation, against which you can not find any exception, and it is, that the general practice of the Church is, eo ipso that a Clergyman is declared an heretic, and therefore deposed or degraded, in that declaration or sentence is involved and understood exile, imprisonment, or whatsoever corporal punishment, the laws prescribe. This appears by the ancient Canons of Counsels, and true practice of the Church; and yourself grant it by what you quote (pag. 348.) out of the Council of Chalcedon 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 punished as a seditious man by the secular power. Reflect Mr. Walsh, upon yourself, and consider whether according to this general rule of the Church, you ought not be punished by the secular power as a seditious man. You continue still your seditious doctrine. You would fain set the Church and state by the ears, and incense temporal Sovereigns against their spiritual Fathers and Pastors. God gave 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 Sovereigns have employed their power and sword that way; therefore it's neither necessary nor decent, that Churchmen should take the sword out of their hands, or manage it against heretics and Preachers of sedition. That's done to their hand. But indeed rather than such an heretic, 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 sound; and that (I dare say) without offending any one of those temporal Sovereign's 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 losing their Kingdoms.  
And as we grant that the temporal sword is more properly in the hands of temporal Sovereigns, than of the Clergy, so we deny not but that it hath been a constant custom in the Church to let Treason and murder be tried and judged by the Princes themselves, to take away the occasion of ialousies, Treason being against the Prince's person, and murder 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 falsely accused both of treason and murder to Constantin, was content to leave the cognizance of those crimes to his Officer Dalmatius, as were also the Catholic 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 Province of Alexandria, as Athanasius 
a Athan. Apol. 2. Theod. lib. 1. c. 17.  himself, and Theodoret testify, these words, Vestri autem est, non mei iudicij, de ea re cognoscere. It belongs to your judgement, not to mine, to take cognizance of that matter. But the matter was treasonable, for Athanasius was accused to have sent a quantity of gold to abett the rebellion of Philemenus against the Emperor.  
Mr. Walsh, you are accused both of treason and murder. Why do you not imitat S. Athanasius, and clear yourself of both? Why do you not present yourself before the King, 
b All applied to Mr. Walsh himself.  or his Lieutenant in Ireland, and say, Sir, I am charged with a barbarous murder of six Englishmen at the bridge of johnston, I am also accused of having wrested the Castle of Kilkenny from your Majesty's faithful subjects, the Lord Viscomt Montgacret, and put it into the Nuntius hands, and this by virtue of an Excommunication writ and fixed by my own hand, which is said to be (the very original) in my Lord john Berkley's custody. Sir, all these are but calumnies, here I offer myself to the trial 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 mere calumnies, you have the confidence to print them in this your bundle of lies, 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, especially having mentioned and complained of it in this large volume of yours, wherein you repeat over and over many of yours own tedious and impertinent speeches. Is 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 proceed.  
You coin not off much better with your story and instance of Constantin the same Emperor, 
a The Controversy of the Donatists with Caecilianus and Felix.  about the controversy between the Donatists and Caecilianus the Primate of Africa, whom those heretics 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, answered them in great anger (as Optatus tells you) with those words, 
b Optat. lib. 2.  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 judges of the cause, but considering afterwards that without the Bishop of Rome, such causes could not be canonicaly decided, he remitted both parties to Melchiades than Pope, bidding each take along with them ten Bishops of their own faction, together with the three aforesaid French Bishops. Sentence being given by the Pope and his Colleagues in Rome against the Donatists, and Caecilianus by the same sentence declared innocent, the Donatists appealed 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 been well examined, the principal things having been omitted, the Emperor commanded the Proconful Aelianus to inquire very diligently into the whole business again; which he having done, declared Caecilianus and Felix innocent, and condemned again the Donatists. From this sentence also they appealed to the Emperor, who (as S. Augustin says Ep. 162. 
a Aug. Contra Donatistatum pertinaciam Ep. 162. Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudicium, aliorum scilicet Episcoporum, non quia iam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, & omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Noque enim ausus est Christianus Imperator sic corum tumultuosas & saliaces querelas suscipere, ut de iudicio Episcoporum qui Romae sederant, ipse iudicaret: sed alios, ut dixt, Episcopos dedit, à quibus tamen illi ad ipsum rursus Imperatorem provocare maluerunt. Qua in re illos quemadmodum detestetur, audistis. Atque utinam saltem ipsius iudicio infanislimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent, atque ut eis ipse cessit, ut de illa causa post Episcopos iudicaret à Sanctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus etc. Sic & illi aliquando cederent veritati. ) like a Christian Emperor not daring to humour so much their perverseness as to judge of the sentence formerly given by the Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues, appointed other Bishops at Arles to judge the cause, not because it was necessary to have an other judgement, but to give way to their impudent obstinacy, resolving afterwards to beg pardon of the holy Bishops. The Donatists having been cast also in the Council of Aries, they appealed again to the Emperor, who then uttered those remarkable words recorded by Optatus, Dico enim (ut 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 speak the truth as it is (saith Constantin) The Priests (or Bishops) judgement ought to be esteemed so as if our Lord himself residing amongst them did judge. For they may not think nor judge 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 judicature in Ecclesiastical matters (related by Optatus) and your contradicting Saint Augustins' plain text, to impose Caluins ridiculous answer consured by Belarmin (and other heretics errors) upon such as believe you have 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 just 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 having, or as if they had against any Divine or human rule or Canon, had recourse to a lay Tribunal. For had it been so, or had this been the Motive of his Exclamation, he had dismissed them, and remitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal judges, which yet he did not, but admitted their Appeal. But how ever this be, or what ever moved Constantin to this exclamation the matter of fact which followed, can not be denied. For sure 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 Council of Orleans (you ignorantly mistake all the way Orleans for Arles) seems very harsh to Baronius. And therefore says that Constantin was drawn against his will to admit so unjust an Appeal from the judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff. But to that of being drawn against his will, we have said before enough, or that there was none could force him. And for his admission (of the Appeal) I am sure Augustin never reprehends it.  
I pray Mr. Walsh, did not Constantin remit the Donatists to Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and those others joined with him when they appeal to Constantin himself? Therefore (even according to your own Confession) the Emperor's admiring Exclamation imports and signifies the Appellants ignorance or perverseness in appealing to himself, a lay person, in ecclesiastical affairs. For you confess if he did remit them to Episcopal judges, that is a sufficient proof of his reproving their appealing to himself. But however this be (say you) it's enough that Constantin admitted the Appeal. How did he admit of it? Doth not Saint Augustin tell you how he admitted of it, yielding to their mad animosities, to put an end to them, insanissinus animositatibus suis. How did he admit of it? with a resolution to ask pardon of the Pope, and those Bishops who joined with him in the sentence given by them against the Donatists in Rome. Eyes ipse cessit, ut de illa causa post Episcopos iudicaret, à Sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus. He knew very well that himself could not judge of Ecclesiastical matters; he knew also very well that after the Bishop of Rome's sentence given in the same, there was no need of any other, even of Bishops in a Council, Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudicium, aliorum scilicet Episcoporum, non quia iam necesse erat. Why then did the Emperor Constantin admit and remit the Donatists appeal, after the Pope had condemned them, to the Council of Arles? The Saint tells you in the very next following words, Non quia iam necesse erat, sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, & omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Are not you then as perverse 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 judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff. I am sure (say you) S. Augustin never reprehends it. What needed S. Augustin, the Pope, or any Bishop reprehend a pious Emperor, that acknowledged his own fault, and resolved to ask pardon for it, veniam petiturus, though he was forced to commit it by the impudence and perverseness of a powerful faction of the Donatists, threatening to disturb the whole Empire?  
Are not you worse than the Donatists, Mr. Walsh, when you say (pag. 349.) S. Augustin insinuates, that the sole judgement of Melchiades (Pope) had he undertaken any such himself alone in this controversy, as it was then, had been usurped; or had been so, if he had without the Emperor's special delegation presumed to determine it, but together with those other his French Colleagues. For Augustin treating of the pertinacy of the Donatists in their proceed, etc. objects to himself in behalf of the Donatists Ep. 162. thus. An fortè non debuis Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarints ●pipopts illud sibi usurpare iudicium, quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi Primas Tigisitanus prasedit, fuerat terminatum? To this what doth Augustin answer Certainly he doth not deny that such judgement of Melchiades might be justly thought in t●e case to be usurped; but excuses the judgement of Melchiades, which realy de facto was (not that which only ●ight be falsely supposed, or bruited to have been) and defends it (that so was truly) by saying again thus. Quid avod nec●●ipse usurpavit? Rogati●s quip Imperator Iudites misit Epis●opes, qui cum eo viderent, & de tota illa causa quodinsium videretur, Hoc probamus, & Donatistarum precibus, & verbis ipsius Imperatoris. So Augustin.  

a S. Augustin abused by Mr. Walsh.  Is it possible Mr. Walsh, you will have the Pope be an usurper of the Imperial authority, in case he should (without the Emperor's delegation or leave) decide a Controversy between Bishops, which caused so great a schim in the Church as that of the Donatists? Is it possible you will quote for this mad error S. Augustin? Do you believe Melchiades received his authority for judging the Controverly of the Donatists and Caecilianus from Constantin? Is it because Constantin commanded three french Bishops to join with the Pope in that matter, therefore they must be of equal authority with the Pope in deciding it, or any other Controversy of Religion? Was this S. Augustins' opinion? Read over again that 162. Epistle of Saint Augustin. You will find you mistake or abuse him and your Readers all along. Almost in the beginning of that Epistle he tells the Donatists that Caecilianus needed not fear or value the conspiring multitude of his Adversaries (who were 70. Bishops with their Numidian Primate.) And why? Because he was in Communion with the Roman Church, wherein always the principality of the Apostolic Chair was of force, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, and where he was ready to have his cause tried, ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere. Not a word here of usurpation of authority to judge of this or any other cause, in case the Pope should do it without the Emperor's delegation or desire. The principality of the Apostolic Chair, is the Pope's warrant to judge of all Ecclesiastical controversies, according to Saint Austin; not the Emperor's Commission or delegation.  
But how comes the Emperor Constantin to make the Pope his delegat in this matter? How comes Saint Augustin to say the Pope did not usurp his judging it because the Roman Emperor being desired, sent Bishop's judges, who might sit with the Pope, and judge of the whole cause what might seem just? First I do not see that Constantin delegated or gave the Pope any power to judge, but only sent, other Bishops to sit and judge with him. The usurping therefore which S. Augustin speaks of here, is not any usurpation of authority, as if the Pope had not any to judge such matters, without the Emperor's delegation, or approbation; but the Emperor having been chosen by the Donatists as Arbiter, and not having been excepted against by Caecilianus; or having been desired to name Ecclesiastical judges 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 Emperor's arbitration, or by judges which he was desired to appoint. Rogatus quip Imperator judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent. But the Emperor sending these judges he had appointed to Pope Melchiades, and bidding them join in judgement with him, is not to give authority of judging to the Pope, but rather to confirm by the Papal authority the Bishop's judgement. And therefore S. Augustin had reason to tell the Donatists, the Pope did neither usurp any authority, or intermeddle in their controversy officiously without having been appealed 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 judicature in ecclesiastical matters, and his insinuating that the Pope would usurp the Emperor's authority if he had judged this cause of Caecilianus without his Majesty's commission, it should be demonstrated, that Saint Augustin maintains the quite contrary, and reproaches the Donatists that even against their own holding the Emperor not to be a competent judge of Ecclesiastical differences, they made use of him in this controversy; and at the same time found fault with Caecilianus and Felix, 
a An fortè, sicut quidam dixit, quod quidem cum nobis diceretur, displicuit, sed tamen praetermittendum non est. Ait enim quidam, non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari iudicio purgar●, etc.  for defending themselves before a Secular judge? A Certain man (saith Saint Augustin; meaning one of the Donatists themselves) said a thing which you are not willing to hear, but must be told you, this man said, A Bishop ought not be cleared by the judgement of a Proconsul. This the Donatists objected 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 objection? As if forsooth Felix or Caecilianus had sued or desired such a judgement; quasi verò ipse sibi hoc comparaverit. It was at the instance of the Donatists, not of the Catholics, a lay man judged the matter; and supposing the Emperor took upon him the arbitration or judgement of it (whether with consent of the parties, or only with permission of Felix and Caecilian, who could not help themselves any other way) supposing, I say, the Emperor took upon himself the examination of the matter, he was bound in conscience to have 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 therefore S. Augustin answers the Donatists' objection, Non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari iudicio purgari; Quasi vero ipse sibi hoc comperaverit, ac non Imperator ita quaeri iusserit, ad cuius curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maximè pertinebat. Arbitrum enim & judicem causae traditionis & Schismatis illi eum fecerant, qui ad eum etiam pretes miserant, ad quem posteà provocarunt, & tamen iuditio eorum acquiescere noluerunt. Out of these words you see Saint Augustin says it belonged to Constantins' care most of all to examine or inquire into that matter, because the Donatists had desired him to be Arbiter or judge 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 judge, which the Donatists imposed upon them; and taxing these for recurring to him.  
Wherefore (saith Saint Augustin Ep. 162. 
a Itaque si culpandus est quem Iud●x ●errenus ab●o●uit, cum ipse ●bi hoc non proposcisset. qu●nto magi● culpandi sunt, qui terrenum R●gem suae causae iudicem esse voluerun●? Si autem criminis non est, provocare ad Imp●ratorem; non est criminis audiri ab Imperatore. Erg● nec ab illo c●● causam delegauerit imperator. D Aug ibid. Quendam evam suspen●um eculeo in causa Felicis Episcopi, amicus ille vo●uit criminati etc.  quoted by yourself Mr. Walsh) if he ought to be blamed who is declared by a temporal judge, when he desired none such, how much more are they to be blamed, that would needs have a temporal King to be judge 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. Therefore 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 objected 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  in that business. Nunquid poterat Felix, saith he) contradicere ne tanta diligentia vel severitate quaereretur, cum eius causam inveniendam cognitor agitaret? Quid enim erat aliud nolle sic quaeri, quam de crimine confiteri? How could Felix hinder the diligence or severity of him that inquired into that cause? would he not have confessed himself guilty, if he had obstructed that examination? Here you see Mr. Walsh, how S. Augustin blames the Donatist Bishops for repairing to a lay judge, but excuses the Catholic Bishop Caecilianus and Felix, for defending themselves before a lay judge, whom they did not desire to be judge of that Ecclesiastical cause. There is great difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Many things are lawfully done in a man's defence, when he is violently or unreasonably assaulted, which are not lawful when done otherwise.  
The same practice of the Donatist Bishops recurring 
a Friar Walsh imitats the Donatists' example in his persecuting catholics Bishops.  to a secular judge of their own accord, and taxing the Catholic Bishops with a crime, for answering and defending themselves when they are recommanded to appear before the same judge, doth Saint Augustin object in his 48. Epistle also, which you quote as favouring the quite contrary. Nay Saint Augustin himself (say you pag. 350.) openly says and avers, that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves 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 judicatory. 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 (says he) quia fecerunt; si non animo invido & noxio, sed emendandi & corrigendi voluntate fecissent. Therefore Saint Augustin says that where and when the dispute, concerns the correction and amendment of ecclesiastics, to demand the judgement 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 envy or malice. Thus you.  
Is it the part of a Christian writer, Mr. Walsh, to impose upon his Readers such falsehoods as you do, and then upon that great Doctor of the Church Saint Augustin? This great Doctor writ that Epistle 48. to prove it was lawful for Churchmen to implore the protection and help of secular Princes, and the execution of their laws against heretics and schismatiks (but not their judicature) as is evident 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 practices against Caecilian; showing how inconsequently and absurdly they argued against the punishment of convicted heretical Bishops by secular laws, whereas themselves made the Secular Sovereigns judges of Caecilianus and Felix, Catholik and innocent Bishops. This being the whole drift of S. Augustin in that epistle, you quote some words of it, which, even as you order them, make against you. For even in them the Saint taxes the ancient Donatists with presumption, for accusing Caetilianus (though he were criminal) before a Secular judge; and you pretend, Saint Augustin only reprehended their envy and malicious intention in accusing him, but not the accusation itself If you had done your Reader the favour, and Saint Augustin the justice, to quote his words but four lines after those, you would have cleared the whole matter, and not have forced me to call you a shameless Impostor. What think you of these words of S. Augustins' Mr. Walsk? (Ibid.) Illos autem magis hine arguimus, qui apud Imperatorem ultrò Caecilianum accusaverunt, quem prius apud Collegas trransmarinos convincere debuerunt, ipso autem Imperatore longè ordinatius agente, ut 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 judices apud terrenum Regem accusaverunt. But we reprehend them (the Donatists) the more, that they accused of their own accord before the Emperor Caecilian, whom first they ought to have convinced before the Colleagues beyond the seas (he means Bishops;) the Emperor himself having 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 have 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 been appointed their judges.  

a Friar Walsh his arguments applied to himself.  You have not hitherto Mr. Walsh, produced any argument against the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church, which hath not been retorted against, and applied 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 Sovereign. And because upon that occasion, some Inquiry was made into your own, and your Remonstrant brethren's actions, and some thereof appear to be Treasonable, you complain of the said Archbishop, as if he had sought to take away Churchman's lives by a secular power; whereas, if the truth were known, he hindered the witnesses to give in evidence against you, because they were Priests, and could not lawful concur to the death you deserved. But if by your own prosecuting him, your crimes vere casualy discovered, and published by others, he was no more obliged to save you from the gallows, than Bishop Felix was to save the Donatist from the rack. Notwithstanding this danger you were, and are still in, of hanging, you are still as obstinate in persecuting that Prelate, 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 been cast out of the Conncel of Ireland, as false; and he dismissed as innocent. But you print not a word to clear yourself of the Murders and Treasons laid to your own charge; not by him, but by many others, who say they will make them out whensoever commanded. The vindication of yourself from these aspersions you remit to your Latina Hibernica, or latin Irish volume, consisting for the most part of ridiculous impertinent speeches 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 have ruined your reputation; or as if english men could not be convinced 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 Pag. 354 & 355. Peter Walsh his parity of Bishops, and independent Episcopal Church.  Well, now you have done (say you) with Constantin, only this you will add in relation to that his famous saying, wherein he desired the Bishops to refer all their accusations to the great judge of all, Christ our Saviour himself on the final day, and to use no other means of punishing, constraining, or forcing one the other by their own authority, and at least in such things as properly concerned the execution of their Episcopal office towards their respective flocks: in relation I say to this part of that saying, or the meaning of Constantin, I, will add (say you) that Constantin might have heard, of others, or perhaps of himself learnt and read in, Saint Cyprian's works (for Cyprian was before his days), what even this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself, said to this purpofe openly in a great Council of his, African Bishops, (of all whom as being himself the, Archbishop of Carthage, he was Primate;) Neque enim, (says 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 universi indi ium, Domini nostri jesu Christi qui unus & 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 deceived) the parity of, Bishops amongst themselves, or independence from, the judicial authority, or authoritative judgement of, one an other (if we regard only the immediate law of, God) and therefore exhorting them all not to judge, one an other by any such pretended authority, but to, leave all their differences and dissuasions whatsoever, (about several or distinct ways of discipline, or of, the government or spiritual direction of their respect, ture flocks) to the judgement of our Lord JESUS, Christ, who (says he) is the only and sole he, that, hath power both to prepone us in the government of, the Church, and to iudg● of our act— Which final, and peaceable advice of Saint Cyprian to the Bishops, of that above mentioned African Synod, Constantin, the great may be thought to have alluded unto in, his advice also (being it is so like) given to those, other Bishops of the Nicen Council. But whether, certainly it be so or not, it matters not much here, or any more at all than to show upon what ground Constautin might have advised the Bishops to peace amongst themselves; and for pure ecclesiastical differences in point of mere discipline, or reformation of manners, or of the lives or conversation of the Bishops themselves in peace and unity to expect (if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification) the judgement of God alone, and not proceed to the Censure of one an other, especially in the occasion then present of the grand Controversy with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith itself; and in itself abstracting so much from all personal failings in life and conversation of either Bishop, Priest, or Laik. Nor doth it matter it at present how, or in what sense we must understand this saying of Cyprian, or every or any particular branch of it, further than that of Constantin, and in his right meaning (which I have before given) is parallel to it.   

ANIMADVERSION 11. Friar Walsh his Idea of the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church, and of the equality of its Bishops.  
THIS Explication and Comment of yours Mr. Walsh, upon Saint Cyprian and Constantins' words, concerning the judicature and Privileges of the Clergy, doth declare very well that entertaining and pleasing Idea you tell the Catholics of the three Kingdoms 
a Pag. 5. Dedicat.  you have had these many years, wherein they are so much concerned. It can not be denied but that its a very pleasant thing (especially for the Bishops, to be so absolute, so at peace, and enjoy such liberty, amongst themselves, that none but our Saviour jesus Christ can question them, for the government of their flocks, or for any scandal of their own lives and conversation. 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 advised the Bishops of the Nicen Council (according to this Idea) to fall upon the Arians, and never trouble themselves with reprehending or correcting their own faults and frailties, because all such things must be remitted to the day of judgement; in the mean time every 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 privilege, and more than ever the Roman Catholic Clergy (even the Pope himself) pretended to: for the Pope may be unpoped, 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 governing their flocks. Now, though you declare yourself to be no Roman Catholic by this your parity of all Bishops, and saying that (by the immediate law of God) the Pope hath no spiritual superiority or authority over other Bishops; yet I hope you will give temporal Sovereigns a superintendence, or some power to keep those independent Bishops in order, and Church discipline; 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 judge Bishops: Vnus & solus (jesus Christus) habet potestatem & proeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de actu nostro iudicandi. How come you then to fool us hitherto, and make the world believe (from the first page of your great volume unto this 345) that temporal Sovereigns have 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 discipline of the Church? Is this your zeal for the right of temporal Sovereigns Is this the scope and sense of your loyal Remonstrance? Certainly it will be suspected you are a Cheat.  
If you be such a man Mr. Walsh, you either were too scrupulous, or did over act the Hypocrite, when you refused the Bishopric (you say) was ofterd to you (by the Protestants I suppose) in Ireland. What could you desire more than to be equal with the Pope, 
a Mr. Walsh his opinion of the validity of the 〈◊〉 Protestant Episcopacy.  and not accountable to any spiritual or temporal Superior upon earth for the government of your flock, or yourself? Especially you having declared (pag 42. n. 13. of your Preface) that you hold yourself obliged in conscience (for any thing you know yet) to concur 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 have read all whatever hath been to the contrary objected 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 practice of ordaining (absolutely and without any condition at all) protestant Ministers, who are converted and desire to be Priests amongst us, upon their want of true and valid ordination proceeding from any Schism, heresy, or deposition of their Ordainers, and first protestant Bishops; for, we all grant that neither Schism, nor heresy of the Consecraters, or their deposition, makes an Ordination invalid; as you see by what we hold of heretical Bishops but we ground the nullity of the protestant Episcopacy and ordination both upon the invalidity of the protestant form of Episcopacy & priesthood, and upon their first Consecrater (Parker) (upon whose consecration all theirs doth depend) never having been consecrated a Bishop himself; for, (besides many other proofs) jewel and Horn pretending to make out his and their own Episcopal consecration, could never in their books printed to that purpose, and in answer to Harding and stapleton's printed books and questions, name then (when it concerned them most) the Bishop that consecrated Parker; nor produce as much as one witness of so public 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 have to believe the Protestant Bishops are not validly consecrated, nor the Catholics guilty of sacrilege in reordaining them, when they are made Priests amongst us.  
An other ground is the invalidity of the protestant Form for ordaining Priests and Bishops; the Form I mean that had been used since King Eduard 6. reign until the happy restauration of King Charles 2 For, after his restauration, the Bishops themselves found our exceptions against the validity of King Eduards Form, were reasonable, and thereupon were pleased to alter it adding thereunto the words Bishop and Prust, as we directed; which (or the equivalent) are necessary to express the character received by the form; and which were wanting in the old form. 
a  in Schism. F. H●livood, or Sacrobosco in hode●nuestig. vera Christs Ecclesia c. 4. Fitz Simons in Britonomachia. D. Champney. D Harding. D. Scapleton. Treatise of Catholic Faith and Heresy. Polit. Cathechism. Nullity of the Clergy of England in answer to D Bramhalls vind. Religion and Government. Erassus' Sentor & jumor.  This and much more you might have seen in the Catholic writers objections, Answers and replies to Mason Btamhall, Heylin, and other Protestant writers. And if you have seen them, you ought to be ashamed of being more obstinate than the Protestant Bishops themselves, who (by the amendment of their old Form) confess it was defective, and that a new Form was necessary; otherwise they would never have altered the old in so material a point, after an hundred years dispute. But seeing you are satisfied with the protestant Episcopacy, and believe the oath of Supremacy to be so lawful, as to upraid Roman catholics with rashness and obstinacy for not taking it, I see not how you could scruple accepting of a protestant Bishopric in your own Country; and therefore I can hardly believe any such thing was ever offered you. But if ever it will be offered you, it's twenty to one you will be desired first to clear yourself, and wash off that stain of innocent English blood, wherewith you are aspersed, and reputed irregular.  
But to return to Constantin and Cyprian, I can assure you, that you are very much deceived (or at least you design to deceive others) in the interpretation you give of their words. It's generaly believed that S. Augustin understood 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 of Bishops, as if none of them ought to be judged by an other, but only by God etc. Says, that S. Cyprian meant this of Controversies, wherein 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, etc. In such questions 'tis very certain that not only Bishops in Provincial and Gene-Councils, but that every private Doctor in the Schools, may speak freely, and not be forced to any side or sentence; and this is all that S. Cyprian meant, if S. Augustin be not very much deceived. 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 given only to the Bishop of Rome, and hath been given by a Primate of Africa, 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 etc. Father of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops 
a Tertullian. in lib. de Pudicrtia calls the Bishop of Rome iscopus Episcopor●m Bishop of Bishops. , 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 jurisdiction over other Bishops, independently of any general Councils, or their Canons (and consequently had this authority from God immediately) is confessed by S. Cyprian, who lived 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 observed in the lives of such Saints as are Fundators or Reformers of Regular Orders, that God did reveal to them, or give them an Idea of their Congregations. Was it God or the Devil gave you the Idea of your reformation? yourself is much pleased with it; but the Catholics to whom you communicate and dedicate it, have no reason to be pleased with it. For, it is a wild wicked fancy of independency: an unreasonable liberty without subordination or discipline: A company of dissolute fellows without fear of correction: A commonwealth of Libertins without any coercive power to keep them in awe, or in order. How can you imagine Mr. Walsh, that Christ, being infinite wisdom, would institute a Commonwealth of frail men, or a Church and not invest the Governors thereof (who are the Clergy) with any coercive power to punish and correct such frailties of their sheep or subjects, as he foresaw would be committed, and corrupt others? This is a pretty Idea of your Church, but not of Christ's. An Idea your Remonstrants did practise whilst you were in power, and governed them, but too scandalous to continue.   

ANIMADVERSION 12. Of the Emperors succeeding Constantin the Great.  
TO proceed therefore 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 have, and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriatch or Bishop of Antioch, as being accused (de vi. publica, & lege Cornelia de Sicarijs) of murder, to be tried in a secular Indicatory, and before himself in the Palace; and not by any means in the Church etc. Neither is it material to object here, 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 advised by them, as any Catholics, when the crime objected was not diversity in Religion.  
To prove that Catholic Emperors judged the causes and persons of Catholic Bishops in their lay Courts, you quote the case of Stephen the Arrian Bishop of Antioch, punished by Constantius the Arrian Emperor. And yet Theodoret, whom you cite for the murder (as you say) committed by Stephen (though Saint Athanasius speaks not of murder) tells you, according to your own translation of his words, that Stephen pleaded against the Emperor, Clerks ought not be whipped 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 Ep. ad Solit.  recounts it, and you may apply it to yourself and other heretics, whose custom it is, and has always been, to discredit and defame their Catholic Confuters, when they can not answer their arguments. This Stephen you speak of, having been with other Arrian Bishops condemned and deposed as an heretic, 
b Stephen the Arian Bishop.  in the Catholic Council of Sardica, persecuted most barbarously those who had condemned him and the rest; he laid spies and Catchpoles for them in all sea ports and inland Towns, when they returned from that Synod; just as you did in Dublin and other Towns for the poor old Archbishop Burk of Tuam, Father Farcell, Tully, Moor, add all who were against your Remonstrance. Amongst others, he persecuted the two Bishops (Vincent and Euphrates) who had been sent by the holy Synod to give an account to the Emperor of their proceed. And Stephen not finding any crime against them, he and some of his Priests hired or persuaded a Harlot to accuse Euphrates, as if he had artempted to be dishonest with her; but she not having been fully instructed, or not following punctualy his instructions, the fraud of Stephen and his Priests was discovered, and himself deposed by the Arian Bishops, by command of the Arian Emperor; who began then to suspect that a religion maintained by such villainies, 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 perceive; for, we Catholics not only confess, but desire, that such declared and condemned heretics as Stephen and you, be corrected and punished by the secular power, though you should plead the privileges of Churchmen. You have forfeited all such exemptions as soon as you declare yourselves heretics.  
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 having their refuge to the Emperor Constance in the west, he at their instance and earnest petition, and even in a cause merly ecclesiastical, but for the relief of innocency oppressed wrongfully, sent letters to his brother Constantius wherein (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 give him an account of the causes, why Athanasius and Paulus had been deposed etc. In which procedure of Constance, I believe our very Antagonists will not have the confidence to say there was any usurpation; being that such religious Orthodox Bishops as this Paul and Athanasius, and so rigidly observant as they of ecclesiastical discipline, were his Authors and Petitioners to reassume the judgement of themselves, albeit in a cause purely ecclesiastical, or which only, or at least chief concerned a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bishops from their Episcopal sees, pronounced against them by a Council of other Bishops. But whether our said Antagonists will (or not) pretend therein any usurpation, I am sure the matter of fact is true; as I am sure also that even natural reason itself will force them to confess there was a supreme right in ●onstans to relieve by all due means, oppressed innocency; and that there was no other way so ready, just, and equitable as this which he took.  

a The case of S. Athanasius and Paulus.  I have in other occasions adviled you Mr. Walsh; never to bring stories which make against yourself; but I see you are resolved to continue that course. However I will now advice you, that when you quote such passages, let them not be those which are most obvious, 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 unwary 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 judgement of themselves, 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 senseless a man as you, print it? To what purpose should those two Patriarches of the East, petition the Emperor of the west to reassume the judgement of a cause or fact that had no relation to his Dominions or jurisdiction? Do not you know that this Emperor's jurisdiction was limited by the Alps; and that Epypt and Asia was under that of Constantius his brother; How come you then to say that Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt, and Paul Patriarch of Constantinople, were earnest Petitioners to an Emperor only of the west part of Europe, for reassuming the judgement of a cause depending in Constantinople and Egypt? That out of his zeal he writ to his Brother Constantius, and threatened to make war against him, if he did not let those Patriarches return and govern their sees, we confess; but that these two holy men ever petitioned to him to reassume the judgement of that matter (which only can make for your purpose) is one of your accustomed fictions and impostures. Would not they be Rebels against their lawful Sovereign (according to your own principles) if they had done so? Hath the passion you have 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 Patriarches were restored to their sees by the Catholic Council of Sardica, and that they were deposed by an Arian Conventicle. 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? Catholics and Arians? If Athanasius and Paul had been deposed by such a Catholic aecumenical Council as that of Sardica, which restored them to their sees, they had been as justly banished by the Emperor, as you may be by any Christian Sovereign, after you have been excommunicated by your Superiors, and declared an heretic by yourself in print.  
You have an admirable wit and faculty Mr. Walsh; in arguing against yourself. To prove that Emperors and temporal Sovereigns have a power inherent in them to make ecclesiastical laws, 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 been deposed and degraded by the Pope and Councils How many times hath Belarmin told Caluin, and others from whom you borrow all your objections (but as they also do you conceal his answers) that temporal Sovereigns not only may, but are bound in conscience to protect the Church by punishing according to law, such as are declared by it heretics, deposed from their bishoprics, or degraded? You argue against yourself, when (pag. 360.) you quote S. Leo the Pope's words Ep. 81. to Leo the Emperor, wherein he begs of him to banish from Constantinople those of the Clergy which favoured heresy, seeing Anatolius the Bishop of that see, was remiss in doing that his duty; Vouchsafe (saith the Pope) for your Faith's sake, to do this favour 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,  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 judge 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 Sovereigns 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 succour their King to pull down an usurper, or oppose any rebellion) to send you to row in the Galleys of Tangiers, or to the Ba●bados, to labour with the slaves in the Sugar Mills (as you say pag. 357.) one Chronopius a Bishop was sent to dig in the Silver Mines by the Emperor Valentinian, for appealing to him after he had been condemned by an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70. Bishops; would any one think that this Mission of yours to Tangiers or Barbados (after you had been condemned by the Church, as an heretic for this doctrine) could prove that the King or Parliament had power to govern the Church, or to make laws in spiritual matters? 'tis therefore to no purpose for me to confute these and other wild arguments of yours, seeing themselves sufficiently lay open your gross mistake, and demonsttat your little wit and judgement.  
But I will beg my Readers leave and patience to relate your Achilles, 
a The case of S. john Chrysosiom.  in the controversy of S. John Chrysostom. Arcadius, an Emperor also very Orthodox (〈◊〉 Friar Walsh pag. 360.) received the accusations against john Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, and thereupon having first ordered a judicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop, at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Soldiers far off to exile. Socrates' lib 6. c. 16. & Falad. in Dial. And certainly Pope Innocent (the first of that name) who then governed the see of Rome, where he inveighs bitterly against Arcadius, and against Endoxia, his Empress, as against most grievous Persecutors of so great and so holy a man, doth not at all object that Arcadius, being a mere lay man, usurped a judiciary power in Ecclesiastical matters, or so against his own Bishop; nor that he proceeded so against him, out of, or by a tyrannical power, and not by any legal authority, over him in the case; but only reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded justly against Chrysostom; or in that he had not made right use of the power which he had in the case; and in a word, in that he expelled Chrysostom from his Episcopal throne, before his cause had been legaly, and throughly sifted or judged, as it ought, and consequently without observing the due formalives, or even substantial or essential procedure in such case required by the law. 〈◊〉 (says 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 having usurped a power of judging, condemning, or banishing him. And yet we know he writ to several, especially to Pope Innocent, many letters f●aught with complaints of the Emperor's unjust judgement and proceed against him; acknowledging Arcadius, or at least supposing him still a legal judge, though unjust as to the sentence in the case.  
You have the misfortune Mr. Walsh, to contradict yourself in every story you tell, and by consequence you have a special gift of discrediting your own writings, and making your relation and comments upon it incredible and ridiculous. You say in the beginning of this story, that Arcadius received the accusations against Saint john Chrysostom, and thereupon, having first ordered a judicial procedure against that holy Bishop, at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Soldiers far off to exise. A judicial procedure, Mr. Walsh, is, to proceed secundum allegata & probata; if Arcadius did so, and was Chrysostoms' lawful judge Pope Innocent could not reprchend Arcadius as proceeding unjustly against him, or say that he condemned him re non iudicata. Is to condemn one according to a judicial procedure, and by a lawful authority, to condemn him re non iudicata? When therefore the Pope reprehended Arcadius for banishing Chrysostom re non iudicata? before his cause was senteneed, he meant (as is understood by every man of sense) that Arcadius was not his lawful judge, and that he ought to have expected the sentence of the Apostolic sea, or a Catholic Council of Bishops to which the Saint had appealed? 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 lie.  
Hear then the true story of S. john Chtysostoms controversy with the Emperor Arcadius, as it is related by S. john himself, Palladius, and the same Authors which you quote. Theophilus' Bishop of Alexandria, and others ill affected to S. john Chrysostom, were employed by Eudoxia the Empress to depose that holy Prelate from his see, his chief Accusers were some of his own Priests, who could not endure his just reprehensions for their faults. Amongst other things himself says, he was accused of too much familiarity with a certain woman, and that he permitted people to receive the communion after eating. This accusation was heard by Theophilus, and 36. Bishops of his and the Empress' faction, met at Chalcedon; 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 hear a charge of 70. articles given in against Theophilus; but Thophilus who should have stood at the bair in Constantinople, sat as a judge in Chalcedon, and without any lawful authority summoned Chrysostom to appear before him at Chalcedon, to answer the charge put in against him by the two excommunicated Priests. But though the S. said he would appear when soever the judges were lawful and not parties, yet the 40. Bishops who stuck to him, signified to Theophilus, that he should rather come to Constantivople, to clear himself, than call others to judgement at Chalcedon? Upon this Chrysostom had sentence of deposition passed upon him at Chalcedon, for contumacy forsooth. And though he appealed to a Council of Catholic and indisterent Bishops, yet those of Chalcedon had so much interest with the Empress, and she with the Emperor, as to have Chrysostom halled out of his Church by Soldiers; whereupon he retired to Bernetum of Bithynia. But a sedition being feared in Constantinople for this injustice, the Emperor (and the Empress also) sent to desire him to return withal diligence; which he did; but as soon as he returned, he desired the Emperor (as may be seen in his Epistle to Pope Innocent) that his cause might be tried in a lawful Synod of Bishops; so far was he from acknowledging the Emperor to be lawful judge either of his cause, or of his banishment.  
Some months after Chrysostoms' return, he reprehended the sports and plays which were acted almost at the Church door, with so much profaneness and noise, that the Divine service and Sermons could scarce be heard. But because this stir was kept in honour of the Empress Endoxia, and at her statue, which was set up near the Church upon a noble pillar, she interpreted Chrysostoms' zeal to be but animosity against herself, and sent privately 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 whereof he might be deposed and banished. They finding no crime whereupon to ground his deposition, pretended it was a sufficient cause for it, that having been lately deposed by themselves in their Synod of Chalcedon, he returned to take possession of his see without the sentence of an other Synod greater than that which had deposed him; alleging this to be against a Canon made in a Council of Antioch. But the Saint replied, it was a Canon made by some Arian Bishops, against S. Athanasius, and therefore of no force. Heerupon the v Bishops and Eudoxia importuned the Emperor Arcadius to banish Chrylostom, assuring him that their sentence thereof was just, taking upon their own souls the sin and blame thereof. The Emperor at their instance sent a Message to Chrysostom, to be gone; but he answering that he had received the charge of that Church from God, to procure the salvation of souls, and therefore could not leave it unless he were forced away, the Emperor sent soldiers to do it. Then Chrysostom appealed to Pope Innocent the first, using 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 void and null, we having been absent, and not refusing judgement; those who have done them, make them subject to the Censure of the Church. But we who are innocent, and not coacted nor found guilty of any crime, command to be restored to our Churches, to the end we may enjoy peace and charity with our brethren.  
You see Mr. Walsh, whether S. john Chrysostom owned the Emperor to be his lawful and supreme judge. You see how he appeals from his judgement to the Pope. Now you shall see how the Pope not only reprehended, but punished, judged, and excommunicated the Emperor, declared void Theophilus, and all the other Bishop's sentence. Innocent his words are, I the last of all, and a sinner, yet having the throne of the great Apostle Peter committed to me, do separat thee and her (Eudoxia) from receeiving the immaculate Mysteries of Christ our God; and every Bishop or any other of the Clergy which shall presume to minister or give to you those holy Mysteries after the time that you have read these present letters of my binding, I pronounce them deposed from their dignities etc. Arsacius whom you placed in the Bishop's throne in Chrysostom's room, though he be dead, we depose, and command that his name be not written in the role of Bishops. In like manner we depose all other Bishops, which of purposed advice have communicated with him etc. To the deposing of Theophilus, we add Excommunication.  
Arcadius' writ a submissive letter to the Pope, excusing himself, and laying all the blame upon the Bishops and Eudoxia, saying he was ignorant of their injustice against Chrysostom, therefore begged that himself and Eudoxia (who he said was sick, and had been severely 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. john Chrysostom, out of which Mr. Walsh, you may gather 1. That Areadius did not as much as pretend to be judge of S. john Chrysostom, or of his cause. 2. That neither the Saint nor the Pope, nor even the factious Bishops who met at Chalcedon, pretended there was any power in the Emperor to judge or sentence the person, or cause of john, but only to banish him pursuant to the sentence of the Conventicle of Chalcedon, who took upon themselves the sin of that action, at which the Emperor scrupled as you have heard. 3. That when the Emperor commanded john to be gone from his Church, the Saint would not obey him, as not being his judge; and therefore the soldiers forced him away. Would such a great Saint as this, have disobeyed, if he thought the Emperor had any lawful power or judicature over him in that matter?  
It were an endless and superfluous labour to follow this wild Friar, wand'ring up and down the Ecclesiastical History with so little judgement, that though he can not find therein any thing for his purpose, yet is sure always to fix upon those examples which make most against him, as we have seen hitherto, and any one may see in his own book, wherein he instances half a dozen other Prince's actions, some whereof were confessed heretics, as Theodoricus the Arrian, This Prince, though an Arian (saith the judicious Friar pag. 357.) as to his belief of the Trinity of persons, or Divinity of jesus Christ, yet in all other points of Christian Religion—, he was precise, wary, and strict enough. It's very likely a man who denied the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, would be very precise in believing, and strict in not violating the Clergyes Privileges. The Catholic Princes did but execute the laws against Bishops, when these were deposed and declared heretics by the Church; and that, sometimes at the express petition of the Popes or Counsels themselves; and yet this dull Friar thinks this is a confession and acknowledgement of the Clergyes subjection in spiritual matters to temporal Sovereigns, as judges thereof. What man in his wits would quote (as this Friar doth pag. 361.) these words of Pope john 2. in his letter to the Emperor justinian, as an evidence of ●ay Sovereign's judicature or supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs, It's fit that they who obey not our Statutes, be esteemed out of the Church. But because the Church never shuts her bosom to those, who return to it, I beseech your Clemency, that if those men having forsaken their error, and bad intention, will return to the unity of the Church, and be received in your Communion, that you will remove the sting of your indignation, and at our entreaty, grant them the favour 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 lies. But we are dull. Observe, saith this acute Friar, that he (the Pope) says your indignation, not, our condemnation. Mark that Sir. Well? I see these searching and subtle wits are strange things; they find out Mysteries where there are none. Mr. Walsh, would you have the Pope speak nonsense like yourself? Would you have him exhort the Emperor to remove from his mind the Pope's thoughts, or a papal condemnation? What would you be at? The Pope desires the Emperor to be charitable, and to be recouciled to the Church. Is this to acknowledge in him a full, proper, legal, and supreme power of coercion of Clerks? write sense Mr. Walsh, and beg pardon of the prinrer and Reader, for your book is a manifest nuysance to common sense.  

a The case of Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen in Charles 5. time.  I will presume a little further upon my Readers patience, to let him see how wittily you confute Belarmins answer to Barclay, objecting against the Ecclesiastical immunity, the case of Hermanus Archbishop of Cullen, whom the Emperor Charles 5. summoned to iudment. Belarmin says 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 jeer, wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop, as he, road by with a splendid pompous train. The story is, that a Country clown having first admired, and said, this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles, to whom Bishops did succeed; and some of the Bishop's train answering, that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles, but also Heir to a rich Lordship; and that moreover he was a Duke, and a Prince too; the Clown replied, but if God (says he) condemn, the Duke and Prince to eternal fire, what will become, of the Bishop? Even so doth Belarmin write (as that seavant spoke) that this Hermanus, whom Charles 5. summoned to appear, was not only an Archbishop, but a Prince also of the Empire. And even so do I say, and reply with the Country swain, when the Emperor judged the Prince of the Empire, did he not, I pray, judge the Archbishop too? But you will say, that though indeed he judged the Archbishop, yet not as an Archbishop, but as a Prince of the Empire. Let it be so; for neither do I intent or mean (or at least urge, or press now) that Clerks, as Clerks, are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings; but as men, but as Citizens, and politic parts of the body politic; 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 Citizens, are subject to the coercive power and secular judicature of temporal Sovereigns, doth it follow, that the Sovereigns can not exempt them as they are Clergymen from that very coercive power and secular judicature? Here you grant they are exempted as Clerks from it, though in other places of your book you say its impossible they should be exempted, unless their Sovereigns cease to be Sovereigns. I wish you did exempt and free yourself from these contradictions. Indeed your story of the Country swain, doth sufficiently convince us of your great erudition, but me thinks the application doth not so clearly show your incomparable acuteness. You take the material man somewhat 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 above the natural or material manhood, and common sort of mankind. Saint Peter was more subtle; he called the Priesthood Regale Sacerdotium. Not that the spiritual character of Priesthood or Episcopacy changes man's nature, but his quality; it places the person in a higher rank, than naturally he could arrive unto. Even in human Creatures (as such) you may see this metaphysical distinction explained. A Peer of the Realm is a man, and as a man ought to be tried by a common jury; but his Peerage exempts him from that ordinary way of trial; and yet he is still a man, and can not, even as a man, be tried by twelve Commoners, but by his Peers. If the example of Subjects will not satisfy you, consider that of Sovereigns. Our ancient Kings of England did homage to the ancient Kings of France, as Dukes of of Normandy, Aquitain etc. 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 even as Dukes of Normandy and men, from the supreme coercive power of his Courts? Would this vnking the French Kings? I have proved this to be consistent with Sovereignty and subjection, in the 9 Animadversion, to which I remit you, if you understand not as yet how the same man may be privileged and punished upon 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 never send them thither for maintaining the just privileges either of a Prince or Bishop; but for some mortal sin unrepented; for which there is no privilege or exemption.  
I have heard your story of the Bishop and Prince told otherwise, viz that the Bishop lying a dying, the Devil appeared to him (as some think he doth to all men in that passage) and tempting him to despair, said, he had done such and such things, which were not suitable to his Episcopal function. The Bishop answered, he did not do those things, as a Bishop, but as a temporal Prince. To this the Devil replied, I am a dull Devil, and can not understand well those subtle 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 fear Mr. Walsh, this will be your fate. You will meet with some dull Devil, one as dull as yourself, a Devil that knows not how to distinguish between Peter Walsh the Procurator, and Peter Walsh the Friar. He must be a very acute Devil that can find out any formality or distinction to excuse your actings, either as Procurator, or Friar. As Procurator you betrayed your trust, and acted quite contrary to your commission; and as a Friar you ought not to have taken any without your Superiors leave. Therefore you being neither Prince, Bishop, nor lawful Procurator, but a poor simple Franciscan Friar, suppose the Devil had met you when you set out from Dublin, well mounted (and much finer, I believe, in  and ribbons, than the Bishop your Country swain was so much scandalised at) and attended to search after those poor souls that hide themselves from your persecution, suppose, I say, the Devil should meet you, and endeavour 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 every Country Clown or swain that saw it, scandalised? Did not a certain Lady object to you, that S. Francis never wore such , or travelled so; much less persecuted Priests? You object against F. Netteruille in your book, that he wore a sword in Dublin an. 1666. If he did, I believe it was to disguise his character, and out of respect to the government; and I am sure it was no silver sword, like yours. But you needed no disguise. You were and are still a privileged person, because you sent the poor Priests to prison, and when you could give 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 never take it from his side, until he saw the french King, is not credible, though you aver it very positively. It would incommode him very much in his long journey; and none would be more surprised at a religious man's wearing a sword in France, than the French King; neither would such an unnecessary disguise be the way for F. Netterinlle to make his Court to him.  
But the Devil will not in the last hour inveigh 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 commissioned you, and you confess my Lord of Ormond checked you sound for speaking in their behalf? will you answer the Devil when he charges you with your extorting the Castle of Kilkenny from the King's party, to deliver it to the Nuntius, that you committed not that treason as Friar Walsh, but as Procurator Walsh? He will reply, and prove you did it as Friar Walsh, and in your Franciscan habit, by virtue of an Excommunication written and fixed by your own hand. Will you pretend to the Devil, that you joined with D. Enos in his infamous libel against the peace of 46, as Procurator Walsh, when you ruin'd the King's interest, his Lieutenant's credit, and the Irish Nation? He will grant, you acted as Procurator, but as the Devil's Procurator; and will show your approbation of the libel in print in the first page thereof; and besides will prove the trust the Nuntius reposed in you, and how he joined you in a Committee, 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 Committee of three was appointed, viz. the Bishop of Ferns, Walter Enos D. of Divinity 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 quashed, you say. Why did not you oppose and quash also (seeing you were in such trust and power) a greater mischief, the Formulary and excommunication yourself drawn and writ for wresting the Castle of Kilkenny out of the King's 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 up with your Impostor Commissary (as yourself terms him) to cheat the King and his Subjects of Money by a forged Commission of the Pope? and when your Remonstrant brethren went up and down the Country imposing and raising a Tax and sums of money, wherewith you and they made good cheer, and were so often merry at the sign of the Harp and Croun in Oxmontown? Did you draw up 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 Devil object against you. What will you answer? You must confess that in all these practices you were not Procurator for the Irish Clergy, but that you were the Devil's 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. says, Charles did summon the aforesaid Hermannus of Colen to the Diet of Worms at the instance of the Clergy and Vniverfity of Colen, for introducing heresy into it by the advice of Buter; and therefore (say you) this Emperor summoned that Archbishop, even 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 Prelate? But if you will needs have Charles the 5. to be an Infringer of the Ecclesiastical immunities, our answer is, that he might do so de facto, but not the iure; and that therein he offended God very grievously. Some 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 alive in a little Cell of the Monastery of Sancta justa. Had the judge who executed that cruelty been so penitent as the Emperor, he might have been as happy. But perhaps he exceeded his Commission, because I know not of any other proof that the Emperor consented to the Bishop's murder, but that he never questioned the murderer. The story is this, the Bishop of Segovia, a popular Prelate in Spain, having been almost as active in the rebellion of the Commoners of that Kingdom against Charles the 5. as you Mr. Walsh in the rejection of the Irish peace of 1646. under the pretence of a visit (because it was difficult to put him to death publicly) was strangled in his own Palace and Chamber by judge Ronquillo, deputed by the Emperor to inquire after, and punish the Heads of that Rebellion. This clandestine execution, and open breach of Ecclesiastical immunity, occasioned the usual Censures of the Church against Ronquillo, who (perhaps being of your opinion, Mr. Walsh, in this matter) took little notice of the Censures; but in his last sickness he begged the favour of King Philip the second of Spain, to honour him with his presence, because he had some thing to communicate to his Majesty of great importance for his service. The King was pleased to grant him his request. His business was to tell him, that he had served his Father Charles 5. very faithfully, in putting the Bishop of Segovia to Death with so little ceremony; therefore to stop his Adversary's obloquys against that action, he beseeched his Majesty to own and justify the Act; and then he would die contented. The King answered it was done in his Father's reign, and that he might show his Father's Orders, if he gave him any to do it; and so advising him to make his peace with God, the King left him; and Ronovillo died, and was buried in the Church of a religious Convent in Madrid.  

a The Story of the Spanish judge Ronquillo.  What now follows of the Story will seem incredible to such as do not believe the real presence and Transubstantiation; but I do not hear that you Mr. Walsh, deny either as yet. Whether your opposing the lawfulness of the Ecclesiastical Immunities will incline you to doubt of this matter of fact, generally believed, and frequently printed in Spain, without the least contradiction, I can not tell; but I am sure you can have no reason to question a thing confirmed by the sight and testimony of a numerous Community of religious, who lived by burying the dead; and therefore against whose interest it was, to publish what happened in their own Church, and to one of their Benefactors. Some of these religious were living when you were in Spain, and repeated to as many as desired it of them, what I shall now relate.  
That very night wherein Ronquillo's body was buried in their Church, about midnight one rung the Porteria Bell, and rapt so furiously at the door of the Convent, that the Porter reprehended the extravagancy and impatience: but ask what the matter was, and who they were; (for he saw two) they answered they were Ministers of God's justice, which they came to execute in that house by the Divine Majesty's command; they bid him open the door immediately, otherwise they would find a way to do it themselves. The Porter gave an account to the Superior of what he had seen and heard; the Superior assembled all the Fathers, who were (at the usual hour) preparing to sing Matins in the choir; they all, much frighted with the Message and the noise, which still continued at the door, resolved to go in procession thither, to examine the matter, every Friar confessing, and preparing himself for death, not knowing but that those Messengers might be sent for himself. The door being opened, the Superior asked the two persons, who they were and what was their business? They answered, we are Gods Ministers of justice, and come to execute his command. The Superior told them, that Convent was God's house, and therefore it was fit to obey his Orders. Then the fellows bid the Fathers go to the Church, where the blessed Sacrament had been taken out of the Sacrarium and in the Ciborium set upon 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 grave of Ronquillo, who had been buried that evening: One of the two, touching the great Marble stone that lay upon the grave, removed the same without any difficulty; the other took up Ronquillo's body, and bid one of the Fathers bring the Ciborium from the Altar to receive in it the blessed Sacrament, which that wretch had unworthily received before he died; and the Friar holding it before the mouth of the Corpse, he that took Ronquillo out of the grave, 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 God's justice told the Fathers, they were sent by his Divine Majesty to carry that body into hell, where the soul expected it; and suddenly they and the body vanished. All attributed this manifestation of God's judgement, to Ronquillo's breach of the Ecclesiastical immunity, and to his contempt of the Censures thereupon ensuing. Let this example be a warning for you Mr. Walsh; if God wrought such a Miracle as this, to discountenance your doctrine, against a rash act of a lay judge, whereunto he was tempted by fear perhaps of losing his employment; or for being too forward in his Prince's service, what judgements ought not you (a Churchman and a Friar) to fear, even in this world, for wilfully maintaining that temporal Sovereigns do sin, and dethrone themselves if they grant or make good to the Clergy those privileges and monuments of piety, whereby Princes are justly styled Protectors and nursing Fathers of God's Church; and wherein consists the greatests glory of their renowned Ancestors?  
I have done Mr. Walsh, and beg your pardon for the harshness of my language, though in a cause and circumstances wherein it would be a crime to be more civil to such an Adversary as you. I defend the doctrine of the Church, together with the right of temporal Sovereigns, and the dignity of Bishops against the virulent passion and bitter pen of a barbarous Friar; and therefore it would be as ridiculous to treat you with ceremony in this occasion, as it would be  in any other, not to give you the respect due to a gentleman. You say you are one, I believe, and partly know you are: but if you were not, I should honour your habit more than your extraction. It is a sad misfortune, that I must not regard either, and that the same habit which might justly challenge respect for him that wears it, must be made your greatest reproach, and justify the contempt of your person. The obligations of a gentleman, and of a Seraphik Regular, which you have so notoriously violated, makes me use violence against my nature and inclination, whensoever I am severe upon you. I have a great affection for your person Mr. Walsh, and am sorry I can not as yet express it in other terms. As I am a defender of the Church, and you an Adversary of the same, I can not conceal the ways whereby you abuse the illiterate sort of people, and must in plain english say, you are a Cheat. But if you and I ever meet, and discourse as private persons, without relation to our Churches, you shall find me as civil an Admirer of those few good qualities you yet retain, as I now am a public Censurer of your errors. We are Countrymen, we are neighbours Children, we are old acquaintance, we have been bred together, all our Ancestors have been Roman catholics, our Relations are still so, and you pretend to be and continue one. Why then should we fall out irreconciliably? Let us therefore be friends; but first you must be reconciled to the Church, and to the Superiors of your Order. I have no particular pike to yourself, all my quarrel is against your book, and I believe few writers will be more moderate, 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 imagined. You know the best wits may be misled by extravagant fancies. Imaginatio laesa is a strange thing, Mr. Walsh. I have known a Professor of moral Divinity, much esteemed for his learned and judicious resolutions of cases of conscience; and yet this man was fully persuaded he was Don Sebastian the King of Portugal's son, and conversed with his old Father (invisibly) every day. Your disease Mr. Walsh is Imaginatio laesa, you fancy yourself to be a very learned man; you pity our ignorance, and are resolved to reform the Roman Catholic Church, so horridly defaced with errors ever since Pope Gregory the 7. I will endeavour to correct this imagination of yours, by letting you see, that you are not right; that is, I will prove 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 Animadversions in one of your lucid intervals, and I hope (with the assistance of God) it will dispose you to repent and retract your follies.   

A Charitable Exhortation to Friar Peter Walsh, taken out of S. Augustins' works.  
MR. Walsh, the great Doctor of God's Church S. Augustin (Ep. 118.) teacheth, that it is most insolent madness to dispute against that which the universal (or Catholik) Church practiseth. If this be true it must be concluded, that you are fallen into that distemper, as I am almost in despair of your cure. For, one of the effects of madness, is, to deprive the distempered person so totaly of his wits, that he doth not perceive his own follies. A weak or half witted man hath so much sense left, as to see his own weakness and want of advice, but a madman doth not see his own weakness, nor will he be advised. This is your condition Mr. Walsh, and only God can remedy it, by opening your eyes to see how ridiculous it is in you, or any other private person, to pretend and maintain, that the Church of God hath been infected with the very highest enormities of principles and practices these 600. years; ever since Pope Gregory 7. Item that all the Roman Catholik Bishops of the world are either Traitors to their temporal Sovereigns, or perjured to their Spiritual Superior, the Pope, for taking before their consecration an oath, which never was excepted against by any Sovereign Prince, or even private person, but yourself. Certainly you are persuaded that all Christian Sovereigns, as well as their Ministers of state, and Councillors, for many ages were mad; seeing they not only did not except against the Bishop's oath, but after the Bishops had taken it, permitted them to enjoy the great revenues of the bishoprics in their Dominions, and trusted them with their consciences and Counsels, employing them in state affairs, and Embassies, notwithstanding their being Traitors, or perjured persons. Would any one but a mad man trust a Traitor, or believe a perjured person?  
Mr. Walsh, when a man comes to be stark mad, he thinks all the world is mad, and that himself alone is wise. You are arrived to this perfection. All Sovereign Princes, all their Councillors, all their learned and loyal Subjects, are so notoriously mad (according to the best of your judgement) as to put their nearest concerns into the hands of Traitors, or perjured Bishops. Good God How comes this to pass? I confess our sins are great, and deserve the severest punishments; but sure God's mercy would never inflict in this life a punishment of sin, whereby is taken away the possibility of its repentance, and certainly mad men can not possibly repent. But how come you Mr. Walsh, to be the only man that escaped this sad punishment? Are not you a sinner like the rest of the world? Are you the only man in God's favour, and in your wits? Alas! what an age is this? Nay what a world, what a Church is this? A Church, that for six entire Centuries had not one sober man but Peter Walsh? Peter Walsh! A man whom we all that knew him, took to be no better, nor wiser, than ourselves. But it seems we are all mad, and therefore can not frame a right judgement, either of him, or of ourselves.  
But Mr. Walsh, If all the world besides yourself is mad, how will you persuade us that you are sober, and we all mad? For my own part, I declare before hand, I will not believe you in this point, and I am confident most men will be as obstinate as I, in the good opinion they have of themselves. Remember I tell you, it will be a difficult thing to alter it. To what purpose then have you taken the pains to write and print this volume? To persuade people they are mad, and that their Predecessors have been so these 600. years past? Set your heart at rest. None will believe you. So far perhaps we may agree with you, that either you, or we are mad. The question than will be, whether all the Roman Catholik world, or you Mr. Walsh, be distracted? who shall be judge of this Controversy? Not the Pope, say you; for 80. of them in a row (ever since Gregory 7.) have been mad. Let that pass; will you be judged then by the General Counsels of Lateran, Lions, Florence, or Trent? You can have no other exception against them, but that every member of them took the oath, which you say must needs make them Traitors, or perjured persons. I confess if the oath doth work that effect, your exception is rational, and all the Catholic world was mad in submitting to the Definitions and Decrees of those Councils, and you are the only sober man that hath lived in six ages.  
Without doubt these or the like objections occur to yourself, if you have any lucid intervals. They occurred to all such Reformers of the Catholic Religion as you are. They occurred to Luther (whose Ape you are said to be) when he writ, How often did my trembling heart beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that most strong argument; Art thou only wise. Do so many worlds err? Were so many ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into error to be damned with thee eternally? And again. Dost thou o sole man, and of no account, take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to err, why may he not permit th●e to err? Hitherto appertain those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers; the Counsels, the cusloms, the Multitudes, and greatness of wise men whom do not these clouds, and doubts, yea these seas of examples overwhelm? You see what lucid intervals and illustrations Luther had, I hope you have the like sometimes. These considerations will infallibly cure your most insolent madness of disputing against that which the universal Church believeth and practiseth, if you will entertain them.  
But if you will reject them, and imitat Luther in preferring your own private ingment and interpretation of the Scriptures before that of the Church, these iliustrations and considerations will not cure your disease, nor correct your erroncous fancies. When a pleasing impression doth strike, or affect the brains, it sinks so deeply into them (especially if they be shallow) that the fancy which it begets, doth stick almost inseparably to the person pleased with it; and becomes a real persuasion, if the man's soul be so much a slave to vanity and sensual pleasures, as not to reject those, which are against reason. It's thought Mr. Walsh, by men whom we Catholics take to be sober and judicious persons, that this is your case. You are hugely pleased with the fancy and conceit you have of your own abilities and wit, as being much more penetrating, and your judgement more profound, than that of other men; this fancy is so deeply rooted in your shallow brains, that you look upon the rest of the world as distracted persons, when they contradict you. This fancy you prefer before all contrary evidences, which are as many as your errors. You are so besotted with it, and with your own sentiments, that you do not perceive their non sense and contradiction; in this condition you will continue (I fear) until you resolve to be humble, and forsake those pitiful pleasures, which divert your reason from correcting your foolish imaginations.  
Now that you know the cause of your distemper, though the cure must be miraculous, and proceed from God's supernatural grace, yet 'tis (by his help) in your own power to obtain it, whensoever, like the prodigal child, you will return to that merciful Father, who with open arms expects you, and will meet you half way. Return therefore to your heavenly Father, to your holy Mother the Catholic Church, to your Seraphik Order of S. Francis, and to yourself. Return, I say, before you be prevented by approaching death, whose harbingers are already lodged in your diseased body. Your days can not be many; let not that horrid everlasting night and darkness oppress you at unawares. Let not the terrible judge find you in flagranti. Burn your heretical books, that they may not increase the flames, which otherwise will torment you in hell fit. In this world you can not expect any comfort, but that of an humble and contrite heart. Your Tenets, so inconsistent with the safety of Sovereigns, render you uncapable of being trusted or rewarded by your own, as your age doth of long enjoying preferment, if any should by mistake be so mad as to move for your promotion. Though you had been in the spring of your years yet the uncertainty of human life, and the length of eternity after it, would make your pleasures very short and inconsiderable; how much more now, when you draw so near your end. If the apprehended sound and summons of the last day's trumpet did keep Saint Hierom (when he was much younger than you are) in such awe, that he buried himself alive in the Cave of Bethleem, to the end his mortified body might be glorified in the day of judgement, with how much more reason ought it to terrify you, and make you retire to your religious Cell, and there chastise your pampered body with the usual disciplines of your holy Order to prepare both for your particular judgement (which is so near at hand) and for the general, wherein you will be publicly convinced of the falsehood of your doctrine, and of the folly of your attempts. Let not the punctilio of mistaken honour, nor the discontinuance of a regular life, nor the pride of obstinate heresy, work more upon your ambitious and discontented mind, than the example of Christ's humility, or that of many greater wits than yours, who retracted their opinions, and submitted their judgements to the Roman Catholic Church, in every age since the Apostles. Take courage then Father Walsh, set on a brave resolution; God is at hand to comfort and help you; the Church militant prays for you; the triumphant longs to rejoice at your conversion, which will be more glorious to you, even in this world, than your frailties have been dishonourable. For my own part, I shall commend your repentance more than I have condemned your errors and in the mean time shall not cease to offer my best devotions that you may return to your wits and a virtuous regular life.