The friar disciplind, or, Animadversions on Friar Peter Walsh his new remonstrant religion : the articles whereof are to be seen in the following page : taken out of his history and vindication of the loyal formulary ... / the author Robert Wilson.

ANIMADVERSION I. Whether the Oath of supremacy attributes only ciuil authority to the King, and denies no spiritual, or Ecclesiastical power or authority to the Pope?

THE best way to decide this contro∣uersy, 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 Ma∣jesty is the only supream Gouernor, of this Realm, and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Countries, as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal: and that no forain Prince, Per∣son, Prelate, state or Potentate, hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction, power, superiority, preheminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm; and therfore I do utterly renounce and forsake all forain iurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authori∣ties &c. so help me God, and the contents of this Book.

Mr. Walsh, giue me leaue to ask you, whether you euer read this Oath, and if you did, whether you are sure you vnderstand English, or whether better than English-men do? for, the common opinion is, that euery nation vnderstands its own language better than strangers. Mr. Walsh, all Englishmen vnderstand by the word spiritual, a quite different thing from temporal, as you may see in Thomas Thomasius his Dictionary. If this be so, I feare you will hardly persuade English∣men, that they do not vnderstand english, at least as

well as you, or any other Irish man. Now to the point. Doth not the Oath in cleer terms auerre, that the King is the only supreme Gouernor of England, and of all other his Dominions, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal? Is temporal and spiritual the same? or do these words signify the same? Jf not, how can you proue or pretend that no spiritual authority, or power is giuen the King, or de∣nyed the Pope by this Oath of Supremacy? I pray obserue; if the King be the only supream Gouernor of his Dominions in all spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes or things, hath he not all the spiritual power and autho∣rity in his own Dominions? And if the Pope be a sorrain Prince, Person, or Prelate, and no forrain Prince Person, or Prelate hath, or ought to haue, any Ecclesiastical or spiritual iurisdiction, power, Superiority, prehemi∣nence, or authority within his Majesties Kingdomes, how can the Pope haue any spiritual power or autho∣rity in the same?

J doubt very much, whether your marginal note directing to I know not what admonition after the In∣iunctions of * 1.1 Q. Elizabeth, and vpon the 37. article of the Church of England will bring you or the oath off so cleerly as you fancy. By that Admonition after the iniunctions of Q. Elizabeth, is pretended, the Church of England did not attribute to the Queen, power to exercise any spiritual function, as that of consecrating Priests, and Bishops, or ministring the Sacraments. Suppose this interpretation (which came, I must tell you, som what too late) were not known to be a pittifull shift, to stop the mouthes of those who laught at the weakness of the Bishops in allowing, and at the vanity of the Queen in assuming the spiritual supremacy of the Church; suppose, I say, the Queen

could not ordain Priests and Bishops, because herself was neither Priest nor Bishop; doth that hinder from hauing in herself, and giuing to others spiritual iurif∣diction to ordain and minister the Sacraments? what think you of lay Princes, and persons, that are Bishops elect? Haue they not spiritual iurisdiction, and can they not giue it to others? Though Q. Elizabeth was incapable of such spiritual iurisdiction, because she was a woman, yet her successors can not be excepted against vpon that score. But speak seriously, Mr. Walsh, do you think it was in the power of those, who explain'd the Oath of supremacy (if any did ex∣plain it) to alter the common known signification of words, and giue them a quite contrary, in matters of religion, Sacraments, and Oaths? If it were, there would be no religion in the world, no Faith, either human or Diuine. How could you therfore imagin, the Conuocation, or euen the Parliament of England, did or can alter the signification of words in an Oath, wherin a man professeth his Religion, or an important point therof? Can any power vpon earth declare this form of baptism, valid; I Baptise thee in the name of the mother and sister, and Brother, by pretending forsooth, that by an Admonition of the Conuocation, or any earth∣ly authority, the word Mother signifies Father; sister son; Brother Holy Ghost? Do you fancy, Mr. Walsh, that any iudicious protestant, or any Parliament man in En∣gland, will belieue you, if you should tell him, that his child is well-baptis'd by such a form, and expla∣nation?

Jf you wil read the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. & 8. Eliz 1. You will find that the Kings of Englands supremacy, is so spiritual and sublime, that there needs no chang∣ing 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 re∣ligion, establih'd by the lawes of the land, giue power by letters patents, to any of his lay subiects to conse∣crate Bishops and Priests; which is more than the Pope can do; for he must a point a Bishop to ordain Priests and Bishops. That the Kings of England may giue by their letters patents power to any of their lay subiects to consecrat Bishops and Priests, is very cleer in the aforesaid statuts. For, by two of them, there is giuen to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs, and Successors &c. full power and authority by letters patents vnder the great seal of England, from time to time to assigne, name and authorise such person or persons at she and they shall think meet and conuenient, to exercise, vse, enjoy, and execute vnder her Highness all manner of iurisdictions, priuileges, preheminences, and authorities, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, or iurisdiction, within this Realm, or any other her Majesties Dominions or Countreyes. Now Prie∣stood being nothing but a spiritual power to consecrat Christ's body and bloud, and forgiue sins; and Episco∣pacy including besides the same, a spiritual power to consecrat and ordain Priests and Bishops, who can doubt but that by vertue of these words and Statuts, the Queen might, and her successors may, by their letters patents and great seal, giue power to any of their lay subiects to make a protestant Bishop or Priest; seing by those letters patents any person that is a subiect, receiueth full power to exercise, vse, execute, enioy &c. all manner of iurisdictions, preheminences, and authori∣ties, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or Ecclesiastical power, &c.

This is no vain speculation Mr. Walsh, but a known practise grounded vpon the 25. article of 39. of the english Protestant Religion: it being declared therby, that no visible sign or ceremony (and by conse∣quence

no imposition of Episcopal hands) hath bin ordain'd of God for any of these fiue commonly call'd Sacraments, wherof holy Orders or Episcopal consecra∣tion is one. And therfore its no meruail the Parlia∣ment declared 8. Eliz. 1. that the first protestant Bi∣shops were & should be true Bishops, though it could not be proued that any Bishops euer laid hands vpon them. The Story is known. In the beginning of Q. Eli∣zabeths reign it was questioned, whether the Protestant Bishops were true or real Bishops; the Catholik Bishops who refused to consecrat any of them, maintain'd, they were not, because they had not any protestant, who was a true Bishop to consecrat them, hauing nothing to shew for the Episcopal caracter but the Queens let∣ters parents; and therfore the Catholik writers prouokt them (in print) to name the Bishop, who ordain'd or consecrated them (as themselues pretended) but fiue or six years before. This appears in * 1.2 D. Stapleton, Dr. Harding, and other bookes against Iewel edit 1565. & 1563. fol. 57. & 59. All the world perceiuing at that time, how none of the two protestant writers, who vndertook to answer, (Iewel and Horn) could name any, that consecrated Parker (of whose consecration depended that of all the rest) nor produce any Registers therof (as Harding in express terms demanded) it was thought necessary (for supplying this shamefull silence, and repressing the insolency of the popish Aduersaries) to declare the ground wherupon the protestants claim'd to be true Bishops, and to be both legaly and validly consecrated. Then was made the Statut 8. Elizab. 1. which begins, Forasmuch as diuers questions by ouermuch boldness of speech and talk — hath lately grown vpon the making and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within

this Realm &c. And though D. Bramhall late Pro∣testant Archbishop of Armagh, and others in their bookes, do endeauor to diuert the protestant layty from reflecting vpon the consequences, which euident∣ly follow from this Act of Parliament, as fauoring more the Kings supremacy and spiritual iurisdiction, than true Episcopacy; and pretend, that this Statut doth not giue his Majesty power to make Priests and Bishops hy letters patents; and that euen Harding and Stapleion excepted not against the validity, but against the legality of the first protestant Bishops consecration, and caracter; yet the words of this Statut, as also of those Catholik Authors, admit of no such interpreta∣tion. The Statuts words are very cleer, so are those of the Catholik writers, whose design was not to proue, that Parker, Iewel, Horn &c. were not protestant Bi∣shops; but that they were not true Bishops, or Bi∣shops at all. They knew very well that they were legal protestant Bishops, because they knew they had the Queens letters patents issued forth to the person or persons; whether Bishops or not, that matters nothing, as cleerly appears in the Statuts 1. Eliz. 1. and 8. Eliz. 1. And therfore D. Harding tells Iewel, he doubts not but that he may shew him the Queens letters patents for his Episcopacy; and by consequence that he was a protestant Bishop; adding withall, that he was no true Bishop; because (sayes he) the Queen may giue the lands, but not the caracter of a Bishop.

To proue then that they were both legaly and va∣sidly protestant Bishops, the Parliament (insisting vpon the purest protestant principles) thought it suffi∣cient to declare, and make out that they were conse∣crated by virtue of the Queens letters patents, and by som of h••r Majesties subjects; whether lay, or Ecclesi∣astiks, was not thought material; by any person, or per∣sons,

are the words of the Act; and the title of the same, (which declares the substance and scope therof) is, All acts made by any person since 1. Eliz. for the consecrating in∣uesting &c. of any Archbishop, or Bishop, shall be good.

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

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 16. of his Dedicatory to the Catholiks.
• * 1.2

  D Stapleton in his Counter blast against Horn fol. 79. & 301. and in his return of vntruths gaianst Iewel, fol. 130.