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.

ANIMAD: 3. Whether it be rashness, obstinacy, and a sin in Roman Catholiks, to refuse the Oath of Supremacy, and Friar Walsh his Remonstrance?

MR. Walsh, I couple these two instruments (the oath of Supremacy and your Remon∣strance) together, because yourself makes no distinction between them, as to the law∣fullness of their being taken by Catholiks. For, though each of them seem to renounce the Popes spiritual au∣thority, a 1.1 yet you tell vs, there is no such matter, be∣cause Spiritual authority in those oathes Formularies, signifies not Spiritual, but temporal authority. Seing therfore you are of opinion, that the oath of supre∣macy may be taken with a good conscience by Roman Catholiks, and that the whole Roman Catholik Church belieues, and tells vs the contrary, you haue no reason to be angry with Catholiks, if they do not rely vpon your word in any point that concerns their conscience or religion: and though your Remonstrance had no other fault, but that it is placed by you in the same line and predicament (as to the lawfulness of taking it) with the oath of Suprecacy, Catholiks are bound to refuse it; neither can a Franciscan Friar, who reproaches Ro∣man Catholiks with rashness and obstinacy for not taking the oath of Supremacy, expect to be their Spiritual Director, but rather to be concluded by them an Apo∣stat; and must not take ill, if his writings should be reiected and burnt as heretical.

Seing therfore Mr. Walsh, your arguments preten∣ding to proue that the two general Councells of Ephesus, and Calcedon, as well as the Prouincial of Afrik, taught the doctrin which Roman Catholiks except against in the oath of Supremacy, are found to be mistakes; what other arguments do you produce to conuince Catho∣liks of rashness and obstinancy for not taking that oath? None but your own authority; nothing but your say∣ing, that the Roman Catholik Church hath err'd ra∣shly and obstinatly for these 600. last years, because it admitted not a Spiritual Supremacy in temporal Soue∣ueraigns. Realy Mr. Walsh, I do not belieue your sole authority is a sufficient argument to proue the Church hath erred. To proue so rash an assertion you would fain make us mistrust the testimonies of holy and lear∣ned Authors of the Church History, as Baronius, Bellar∣min, and others; They are Impostors, you say, hired by the Court of Rome to diuest Emperors and Kings of their right of gouerning spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs; and to place it in the Pope. Your words (page 40. to the Reader) are, If the truth were known it would be found that Baronius, and the rest fallowing him were willing to make vse of any malitious vngrounded fictions whatsoeuer against lustinian the Emperor.—This Justinian was in the later end of his dayes, an heretik; and took vpon him to make lawes in matters of Faith; but he dyed sudenly before he could publish them. Yet before he was an heretik, he made good Edicts in fauor of the true Faith; and for this he is commended by Popes and Councells, as a Catholik; as also because its sayd he was reconcil'd at his death. Now you, Mr. Walsh, say, that the ancient and modern writers knew well enough he was neuer an heretik, but that they diffame him as an heretik, because his laws in Ecclesiastical matters, euen those of Faith, are a perpetual eysore to them, because

these laws are a precedent to all other good Princes to gouern their own respectiue Churches in the like manner without any regard, of Bulla Caenae, or of so many other vain allegations of those men; that would make the world belieue it vnlawfull for se∣cular Princes to make ecclesiastical lawes by their own sole au∣thority.

Truly Mr. Walsh, I haue endeuored to know the truth of those two Cardinals, Bellarmin, and Baronius; and do find, they were both, holy humble men, so farr from being hir'd by the Court of Rome, that nei∣ther of them could be persuaded by it to accept of more for their maintenance, than what was absolutely ne∣cessary for their dignity. They liued and dyed in the list of the poor Cardinals; both were named Cardinalls against their will: both industriously sought to make themselues vncapable of the Popedom. Twenty dayes did Baronius resist in the Conclaue the offers and im∣portunities of the Cardinals his friends, who were able and resolued to make him Pope, vntill at length he persuaded them to choose Leo 11. Both these Car∣dinals virtues are so conspicuous, that many press for their Canonization, and its belieued it will be obtain'd, God working Miracles to testify that they deserue it. This is the truth, Mr. Walsh, and the world blames you very much for calling such men Hirelings, Impo∣stors &c. What shall your friends say to excuse you when they heare you call'd an ignorant spitefull heretik, for calumniating such holy men as these? Som who obserue your actions, say, you are hired to write these calumnies, and that you haue chosen rather so base and mercenary a way to damn your self and others, than to liue quiet, and serue God in your Cell, according to your rule and profession. Good God, Mr. Walsh; is this possible? Can you sell your own soul and the re∣putation of Saints for such paltrey stuff, and at so low

a rate as 200. per an. If this be true, you are vnhappy; but Gods mercy expects your repentance, for which we your friends can but pray.

Others think you despair not by your litle bookes, and this great Volume to gain the fauor of temporal Soueraings. I can not belieue they will (by your per∣suasion) degenerat from the example of their renown'd Predecessors, and particularly from that of Constantin the great, who was so far from making laws for eccle∣siastical matters or persons, or medling with matters of Faith, that his saying and maxim was a 1.2 (speaking to the Bishops) Ves Dij estis a summo Deo constituti, aequum non est, vt homo iudicet Deos; I do not think I say Mr. Walsh, that Christian Princes will degenerat from this example, (applauded by all the world when Christianity was in its primitiue purity) to follow that of the Emperor Iustinian, when he fell from the Faith of Christ. Would it not be rashness both in Soueraigns and Subiects to preferr your bare testimony (who are (to my griefe) reported to be the greatest lyar and Impostor in the world) before the joint testimony of all orthodox wri∣ters, and the practise of the whole Roman Catholik Church, euer since it began to florish vnder Constan∣tin the great? Many except against your stile as well as against the matter: You excuse (page 43. of your Pre∣face) the meanness, or rather sadness of your stile all along your book, — you took no care (you say) of the language, though you took enough of the matter. In my opinion you are more faulty in the choice of your matter, than in your expression of it. But you thought perhaps, the matter was so good, and necessary for the Saluation of souls, that you b 1.3 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 seing those you intended chiefly to speak vnto, were the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland, wherof very few are great Clerks, you chose that manner of writing for their sake, that the meanest of them might vnderstand whateuer you would be at. I am sory to heare this Mr. Walsh; will you disgrace your own nation? One of them spoke thus to me of you. How comes none of the Roman Catholik Clergy of Ireland to haue as quick an apprehension, and as much learning, as Peter Walsh their Countreyman, and one who spent his time more idely than most of them? Is it because his forwardness in promoting protestancy against his conscience, and his importuning great men to be made an instrument of sowing dissention, and diuiding Ro∣man Catholiks by his Remonstrance, hath gain'd him a litle credit and countenance in Court, therfore he must be so learned and loyal, as to teach not only the Irish Catholik Clergy, but the whole Catholik Church their duty (as if they were ignorant of it) to God and Cesar? Whence had he all this learning? Did his tea∣ching a yeare or two Philosophy, and half a yeare, or therabouts Diuinity in Kilkenny, to half a dozen Schol∣lars, make him an Oecumenical master, and adorn him with so extraordinary knowledge, both Diuine and hu∣man, as to instruct not only the dull Clergy of Ireland, but the acutest wits of France, Spain, and Italy? The man was so sensible of the aspersion you cast vpon his, and your own Countreymen, that I durst not excuse you; and indeed you spoke inconsideratly; for its well known to most of the famous Vniuersities of Europe, that as Irish men haue bin antiently their first Founders, so they haue bin of late their chiefest Professors and greatest Ornament. Your self might haue known, or at least heard of Richard Wadding the Augustin in Co∣nimbria, of Iames Arthur the Dominican in Alcala, Sala∣manca,

and Conimbria; of Holiwood in Padua, and Mussi∣pont: of Luke Wadding and Richard Lynch in Sala∣manca: of Peter wadding in Prague, all Jesuits: of many famous Doctors of Sorbon in Paris: of your own Friars Hicky, Cauel, Lombard, and Luke Waddin, in Ro∣me. Of the Iesuit Thomas Talbot (aliàs de Leon) in Gra∣nada, the Oracle of all Spain, not only for his pro∣foundness in Diuinity, but also for the vast extent of his knowledge in other sciences and languages. You might haue knowen the eminent Doctor of Bologna, Riredan of Tolosa, not to speake of other famous Physitians, who though not Professors, yet Practio∣ners so farr aboue the common sort, as Fenell Fo∣gotty, O Meara &c. That they may be recorded to posterity for patterns of safe and successfull prescrip∣tions as others are for printed bookes. These and o∣thers, though all dead (the two last only excepted) yet are a fresh and euerlasting euidence against your impu∣ting dulness of apprehension, and ignorance, to the Irish Clergy, and nation. I could name (said an other) four of the Irish Bishops, yet liuing, and many of the inferior Clergy (especialy Regulars) who taught with great applause in foreign and famous Vniuersities both Diuinity and Philosophy. Without doubt they take ill that a petty friar should pretend to teach them their duty either to God or the King. Why did he not con∣fute them in the Congregation of Dublin an. 1666. when he had the Lord Lieutenants fauor to counte∣nance his doctrin, and fright them into his opinions? Why did not he answer then the Prolocutor (Bishop Lynch) and Father Nicholas Netteruilles reasons? Why did he not accept of Father Iohn Talbots offer, to shew, in diuers particulars, Frier Redmund Carons gross inex∣cusable falsifications in his Remonstrantia Hibernorum, and in his lesser libel intituled Loyalty asserted? Why did he

not answer the obiections and reasons of many others as learned men as these, who confounded him and his errors in that Congregation? Then was the time to vindicat his doctrin and Remonstrance; but if now after 6. years study, Walsh his volum of that subiect is a nuisance to the Academies, a bundell of errors rak't out of the ashes of burnt heretical bookes, how wat it possible for him to speake then any thing but heresies and nonsense? This your Countrey men. What could I answer to this?

But 'tis wors yet. He gaue me the ensuing writing, wherin he vndertakes to shew, euen to yourself, that those of the Irish Clergy you so much vndervalue, had, and haue still the better of you, not only in wit, but in learning, euen in this controuersy, after your 6. years study of this matter. Let vs first of all (saith he) state it right. You pretend that the Supremacy of tem∣poral Soueraings, doth not only giue them power to make ecclesiastical lawes, euen in matters of Faith (as appears by your foresaid own words, speaking of lusti∣nian the Emperor) but that the spiritual authority of the Church, can not warrant its punishing by corporal penalties such an irregular Friar as you are thought to be. And to make this your Tenet more plausible, you would fain inferr from the coerciue power in the Church of whipping such a fellow as you are, a coer∣ciue power to dethrone Princes; as if forsooth they could not sit securely, nor be at ease in their thrones, if you should be disciplin'd. Mr. Walsh the Soueraign¦ty of Princes is so sacred a thing, that I dare not medle with it, and am forbid to write of that subiect, as all others are; who liue in France; (the man is a Graduate of Sorbon.) But you know that Bellarmin himself confesseth, Princes can not be deposed for bare heresy, though Popes may. Their temporal iurisdiction can

not be question'd for their errors. How then can you inferr that if the Church may punish and whip you for heresy, it may also depose Kings for the same? Ther∣fore I hope it may be discussed without consequence or offence.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Pag. 24. 1. part.
• a 1.2

  Rufinus lib. 10. hist. cap. 2. S. Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 45.
• b 1.3

  Ibidem pag. 43.