called A Manuduction or Introduction unto Divinity containing a Confutation of Papists by Papists c. by Tho. James Doctor of Divinity late fellow of New-Colledge in Oxford and Sub Dean of the Cathedral Church of Wells printed at Oxford 1625. The Book is full of great Learning and Dedicated to the then Lord Keeper Bishop of Lincoln And there under his third proposition viz. the King is not Subject to any Foreign Iurisdiction he tells us in p. 40. that K. Henry the 8th being at Variance with the Pope a Parliament was called within two years and a Motion was made therein that the King should be declared Head of the Church But his Majesty refused till he had Advised with his Universities of that point And whilst the Parliament Sate God in whose Hand the Hearts of Princes are so disposing it the King reflecting belike on Wickliffs former Articles directing his Letters to the University of Ox. about Electing the Bp. of Lincoln into the Chancellorship of the University of Oxford in the room of Arch-Bishop Warham lately Deceased After the Accomplishment whereof saith the King our Pleasure and Commandment is that ye as shall beseem Men of Vertue and profound literature diligently intreating examining and discussing a certain question sent from us to you concerning the Power and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome send again to us in writing under your common Seal with convenient Speed and Celerity your mind Sentence and assertion of the Question according to the mere and sincere Truth of the same willing you to give Credence to our Trusty and Well-beloved this bringer your Commissary As well touching our further pleasure in the premisses as for other matters c. Given under our Signet at our Mannor of Greenwich the 18 th Day of May. 'T is there said in the Margent Ex Registro Act. in archivis Academiae Oxon. Ad Ann. Dom. 1534. p. 127 c. The Doctor then thus goeth on Upon the Receipt of these Letters the University at that time for ought we know consisting all of Papists being assembled in Convocation Decreed as followeth That for the Examination Determination and Decision of this question sent unto them to be Discuss'd from the Kings Majesty whether the Bishop of Rome had any greater Jurisdiction Collated upon him from God in the Holy Scripture than any other Foraign Bishop that there should be Deputed thirty Divines Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity to whose Sentence Assertion or Determination or the greater part of them the Common Seal of the University in the Name thereof should be annexed And then sent up to his Majesty And the 27 th of June in the year of our Saviour 1534. this Instrument following was made and sent up Sealed with the Common Seal of the University The Instrument it self is in Latin but is in English thus To all the Sons of our Mother the Church to whom these present Letters shall come Iohn by the Grace of God Chancellour of the Famous University of Oxon and the whole Assembly of Doctors and Masters Regents and not Regents in the same greeting Whereas our most Noble and Mighty Prince and Lord Hen. the 8 th by the Grace of God of England and France King Defender of the Faith and Lord of Ireland upon the continual Requests and Complaints of his Subjects Exhibited unto him in Parliament against the intolerable exactions of Foreign Jurisdictions and upon divers Controversies had and moved about the Jurisdiction and Power of the Bishop of Rome and for other divers and urgent Causes against the said Bishop then and there expounded and declared was sent unto and humbly desired that he would provide in time some fit Remedy and satisfie the Complaint of his dear Subjects He as a most prudent Solomon minding the good of his Subjects over whom God hath placed him and deeply pondering with himself how he might make good and wholsom Laws for the Government of his Common-Wealth and above all things taking care that nothing be there resolved upon against the Holy Scriptures which he is and ever will be ready to Defend with Hazard of his Dearest Blood out of his deep Wisdom and after great pains taken hereabouts hath Transmitted and sent unto his University of Oxon a certain question to be Disputed viz. whether the Bishop of Rome hath any greater Jurisdiction granted to him from God in the Holy Scriptures to be exercised and used in this Kingdom than any other Foraign Bishop and hath commanded us that disputing the question after a diligent and mature Deliberation and Examination of the premisses we should certifie his Majesty under the Common Seal of our University what is the true meaning of the Scriptures in that behalf according to our Judgments and Apprehensions We therefore the Chancellor Doctors and Masters above Recited daily and often remembring and altogether weighing with our selves how good and godly a thing it is and Congrous to our Profession befitting our Submissions Obediences and Charities to foreshew the way of Truth and Righteousness to as many as desire to tread in her steps and with a good sure and quiet Conscience to Anchor themselves upon Gods Word We could not but endeavour our selves with all the possible care that we could devise to satisfie so Just and Reasonable a Request of so great a Prince who next under God is our most Happy and Supream Moderator and Governor Taking therefore the said question into our Considerations with all Humble Devotion and due Reverence as becometh us and Assembling our Divines together from all parts taking time enough and many days space to Deliberate thereof diligently religiously and in the fear of God with zealous and upright Minds first searching and searching again the Book of God and the best Interpreters thereupon disputing the said questions Solemnly and Publickly in our Schools have in the end unanimously and with joynt consent resolved upon the Conclusion that is to say That the Bishop of Rome hath no greater Jurisdiction given unto him in Scripture than any other Bishop in this Kingdom of England Which our Assertion Sentence or Determination so upon deliberation maturely and throughly discussed and according to the Tenor of the Statutes and Ordinances of this our University concluded upon publickly in the Name of the whole University we do pronounce and testifie to be sure certain and consonant to the Holy Scripture In witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be written Sealed and ratified by the Seal of our University Given in our Assembly House the 27 th of the Month of Iune in the year of Christ 1534. I took care formerly to satisfie the Curious by my taking a Copy of this Rescript out of the Records in the Registry of the Vniversity of Oxford and which I not being able at present to find among my Papers have sent you this English Translation of it as Printed in that Book of Dr. Iames's That Book of his any one may see in the Catalogue
of the Bodleian Library and of which Library he was the Head-keeper And in that Office very Diligent and Careful and was a Person of great Learning and Probity The Knowledge of this Rescript of that Vniversity and likewise of the other of Cambridge is necessary to all who will be Masters of the Knowledge of the History of those times For the Author of a Book in Quarto Printed in Oxford in the year 1645. called the Parliaments power in Laws for Religion having there in p. 4. said that the third and Final Act for the Popes Ejection was an Act of Parliament 28. H. 8th c. 10. entituled an Act extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Saith it was usher'd in by the Determination first and after by the practice of all the Clergy for in the Year 1534. which was two years before the passing of this Act the King had sent this Proposition to be agitated in both Vniversities and in the greatest and most famous Monastery's of the Kingdom That is to say An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de Jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero By whom it was Determined Negatively that the Bishop of Rome had no more power of Right in the Kingdom of England than any other Foraign Bishop which being Testified and return'd under their Hands and Seals respectively the Originals whereof are still remaining in the Library of Sir Robert Cotton was a good preamble to the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy Assembled in their Convocation to conclude the like And so accordingly they did and made an Instrument thereof Subscribed by the Hands of all the Bishops and others of the Clergy and who afterward confirm'd the same by their Corporal Oaths The Copies of which Oaths and Instruments you shall find in Foxes Acts and Monuments vol. 2. fol. 1203. and 1211. of the Edition of John Day An. 1570. And this was semblably the ground of a following Statute 35. H. 8. c. 1. Wherein another Oath was devised and ratified to be imposed upon the Subject for the more clear asserting of the Kings Supremacy and the utter exclusion of the Popes for ever Which Statutes though they were all Repeal'd by one Act of Parliament 1st and 2d of Phillip and Mary C. 8. Yet they were brought in force again 1 Eliz c. 1. My Lord Herbert in his History of Henry the 8 th under the year 1534. and the 26 th year of his Reign p. 408. telling us that it was Enacted that the King by his Heirs and Successors Kings of England should be Accepted and Reputed the Supream Head on Earth of the Church of Eng. called Ecclesia Anglicana c. saith that that Act though much for the manutention of the Regal Authority seem'd not yet to be suddenly approved by our King nor before he had consulted with his Counsel c. and with his Bishops who having discussed the point in their Convocations declared that the Pope had no Iurisdiction warranted to him by Gods Word in this Kingdom which also was seconded by the Vniversities and by the Subscriptions of the several Colledges and Religious Houses c. Most certainly Hen. the 8 th's gaining this point that the Bp. of Rome hath no more power here by Gods Word than any other Foraign Bishop was of great and necessary use in order to the effectual withstanding the Papal Usurpations and was re verâ the gaining of a Pass and for which end he made use of intellectual Detachments from his Vniversities And suitably to the Wisdom of our Ancestors here in Henry 8 ths time any Popish Prince abroad who intends effectually to Combat the Papal Usurpations must first gain that Pass For the effect of the common sayings in Natural Philosophy that Natura non conjungit extrema nisi per media and that Natura non facit Saltum must likewise obtain in Politicks when the Nature of things is operating there toward a Reformation of Church or State And this weighty Rescript of the Vniversity of Oxford not being Printed in Dr. Burnets excellent Historical Books of the Reformation nor yet in Fox his Martyrology and now Published here as set down in English by Dr. Iames may perhaps serve usefully to illuminate the World abroad about the way of its Transitus from Popery But here I shall observe that though I find in Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments Printed in 3 Volumes in London for the Company of Stationers An. 1641. the Iudgment of the Vniversity of Cambridge is there set down in p. 338. and relates to the same year with the Oxford Rescript namely the year 1534. yet it doth not there appear to be a Rescript to King Henry 8 th by way of return to a Letter from his Majesty and it begins thus Vniversis sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filijs ad quos praesentes literae perventurae sunt Caetus omnis Regentium non Regentium Academiae Cantabrigiensis salutem in omnium Salvatore Iesu Christo. Cum de Romani Pontificis potestate c. And then follows the Translation of the whole in English and which makes about half of that page 338 and wherein the same Judgment for substance is given with that of the Oxford Rescripts That the Bishop of Rome hath no more State Authority and Iurisdiction given him of God in the Scriptures over this Realm of England than any other extern Bishop hath That Instrument hath not there the Date of any Month to it as the Oxford Rescript hath But in the Body of the Instrument 't is mentioned that the Iudgment of that Vniversity was therein required though not by whom and towards the Conclusion of it 't is Styled an Answer in the Name of that Vniversity and 't is probable that the Iudgment of that Vniversity might have been required by some of the Ministers of King Henry 8 th and by his Order whereas the Oxford Rescript mentioned his Majesties having himself required the Iudgment of that Vniversity in that point What I have here mentioned of the Iudgment of our two Vniversities gives me occasion to take notice of an Oversight of my Lord Herbert in this place of his History by me Cited For he in this p. 408. makes the Vniversities Determining that the Pope had no Iurisdiction warranted to him by Gods Word in this Kingdom whereas he should have Represented their Sense of his not having more here than any other Foraign Bishop And thus you truly express the Sense of their Judgment in this Case when you say p. 70 th of your Book that the Popes Cards were by the Clergy that plaid his Game thrown up as to all claim of more power here by the Word of God than every other Foraign Bishop had And both our Vniversities sent their Iudgments about the same thing to the K. which methinks might make our Papists approach a little nearer to us without any fear of Infection For we allow the Bishop of Rome
of the Council of Trent were admitted by a publick Edict made concerning the same matter in the year 1579 but that the Decrees which regard discipline are not received in France because they are not ratified by the Law of the Prince although the Chief Heads which do not infringe the received Customs and Ancient Rights of the Gallican Church are Comprehended in Regal Constitutions several times published concerning that matter Which thing how grateful and acceptable it was to Pope Clement the 8 th is testified by the late King Henry the Great in his Rescript of the year 1606. And then he Quotes Cabassutius his Notitia Concil in fine for the purpose I have mentioned before and declaring out of the Records of the French Clergy viz. that in their General Assembly at Paris in the year 1615. the Canons of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent were unanimously received by the whole Clergy Father Cressy then farther addeth by way of Triumph over the supposed mistake in the said Earl in p. 131. of that Epistle And long before that even from the rising of the said Council each particular Bishop had received it in their Respective Diocesan Synods Thus Sir you see a sufficient Reception of the Faith delivered by the Council of Trent in France both by Authority Episcopal and Regal I must not here forbear to take notice that if it were true what Cressy alledgeth namely that from the riâ—ing of the said Council the French Bishops did receive it in their Respective Diocesan Synods before any PVBLISHING of it by the French King and not staying for the same they made such a kind of Invasion of the Regal power in France Namely by introducing Religionary Establishments without ITS Authority as was never practis'd by our English Clergy since the Reformation nor perhaps before it and such as the French Clergy cannot charge the pretended Reform'd with For their Petition to the King doth in p. 3. mention their i. e. the pretended Reformed having been by Edicts permitted the Exercise of their Religion and the Freedom of Acting in their Synods as they have done But this by the way If we consider the time of the very Professio fidei that the Acts of the French Clergy speak of being first own'd and that in the year 1564 the time likewise of the Confirmation of the Trent Council and which was not made nor Composed by the French Clergy but by the Direction of the Trent-Fathers and Published by Pope Pius the 4 th in the year last mentioned must it not seem hard that Luthers Book printed as was mentioned in the year 1558 and that of Melanchton's printed in the year 1562 and before the Date of their very Profession of Faith should be brought in as Calumniating it When any had a Triumph Decreed them in the Old Common Wealth of Rome the Writers of such Solemnities tell us the Custom was Vt à militibus abjectissimis quibuscunque triumphalem currum sequentibus diversis triumphantes Convicijs incesserentur nè prosperâ illâ fortunâ plus justo insolescerent But the new Church of Rome I mean the Tridentine one in France will bear no Raillery nor Calumny of Words nor yet any to ask them when and by whom their Triumph was Decreed them and if their Doctrine was Crown'd Lawfully And methinks as if Nature and its God meant that all should ludibrium debere that would Triumph over Fallibility in what Church soever Our Honest Monk whom I lately mentioned as Decreeing himself a Triumph over that great observer of all things he referr'd to I mean the late Earl of Clarendon had in his Triumphant Chariot the usual Compliment of that Solemnity viz. Hominem te esse cogita there put on him by Nature And one might to him Cite D' Ossats Letters and with some Allusion to his Words to the Earl of Clarendon say that he supposed that that Cardinal understood the State of the Council of Trent relating to France as well as any one and much better than De Marca or any one else who would make its definitions of Faith admitted in France by an Edict in the year 1579. Let any one for this purpose who pleases look on D' Ossats Letter from Rome the 19 th of November 1596 to Villeroy where he adviseth that the Council of Trent might be Publisht in France and mentions that the Clergy of France had often desired a Publication of it and saith that the Huguenots by reason of the Edict of 77. would not be prejudiced by such publication and on another Letter to Villeroy from Rome on the 19 th of February 1597 where he again presseth for the publication of that Council and saith of it La publication sans l' observation pourroit plus que l' observation sans la publication and that the Courts of Parliament and others would have no cause of complaint thereupon and that a Salvo of two or three Lines would be a remedy against any complaints and on his long Letter from Rome the 28 th of March 1599. to Henry the Fourth where he minds him from the Pope that the Councel of Trent might be Published and saith Que la pluspart des Catholiques ceux qui plus peuvent Comme les Parlemens les Chapitres les principaux Seigneurs ne veulent point du dit Concile pour n' avoir point à laisser les benefices incompatibles les confidences autres abus quae la Reformation portee par le dit Concile osteroit and on his Letter from Rome the last of March 1599. to Villeroy Animating him to promote the Publication of that Council and where he saith I never knew that that Council prejudic'd any Regal Right as some say it hath done but though it might prejudice it in some point it might however be publisht with adding thereto such a Salvo as we could have Namely as to the Prerogative and Preeminences of the Crown the Authority of the King the Liberties and Franchises of the Gallican Church the Indults of the Court of Parliament and the Edicts of Pacification and all other things that we would have excepted and on his long Letter to Henry the Fourth from Rome of Iune the 11 th 1601. where mentioning his excusatory replies to the Pope about the not publishing that Council he saith that not only the Hereticks but a great part of the Catholicks were against it and that his Holiness might remember how Henry the Fourth's Predecessors could never be brought to publish that Council I might here mention how Father Paul in his History of the Venetian Interdict p. 4. and 48. tells us that the Trent Council was not received in France in the year 1616 and that Thuanus assures us that the Trent Council was not received in France in the year 1588 and therefore not in the year 1579. according to De Marca For that excellent and most Faithful Historian Tome the 4 th lib. 93. p. 361.
or any Act that shews us that it hath been truly received and publisht for according to the Rules of Right a Council cannot Faire Loy if it hath not been published But if any one were minded to speak Argumentatively and shew that the French do not now receive the Trent Council no not in rebus fidei he might urge 1. That the whole Clergy of France in their Assembly March 19. 1682. declared that a Council is above the Pope 2. That he hath no Power in Temporals in any Princes Dominions 3. That he hath no Power to Depose Princes 4. Nor to Absolve Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance 5. That he is not infallible And though the Pope declared by his Bull Dated at Rome Apr. 11 th 1682. that those Acts of theirs were Null the words of Improbamus Rescindimus Cassamus c. being in the Bull yet the French King had before in his Edict of March 23. 1682. Registred in Parliament Ratified and Confirm'd them all Nor is it deniable that these 5 Propositions contradict many things in the Trent Council which are setled in it as Doctrinal Points And moreover 't is obvious to any one to observe that in the Acts of the General Assembly of the French Clergy in the year 1685. they Cite their new Trent Creed i. e. some PART of it For the last of it they cite is p. 38. of that Book and leave out the LAST part of that Creed which is contained in these words Caetera item omnia Sacris Canonibus aecumenicis Concilijs ac praecipuè à Sacro-Sanctà Tridentinà Synodo tradita definita declarata indubitanter recipio ac profiteor simulque Contraria omnia atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas rejectas Anathematizatas ego pariter rejicio damno Anathematizo Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extrà quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesente sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram usque ad extremum vitae Spiritum Constantissimè retinere confiteri atque ab illis quorum cura ad me in munere hoc spectabit teneri doceri praedicari quantum in me est curaturum Ego idem N. spondeo voveo juro c. These are the words which the French Clergy leave out in their Book above mentioned and they knew the Preservation of the Liberties of the Gallican Church obliged them to such omission For by this part of the Trent Creed they are bound to believe and profess Omnia à Concilio Tridentino tradita definita declarata and so not matters of Doctrine and Definitions of Faith only And 't is most plain that the Council intended both matters of Discipline and Doctrine And in the aforesaid words of the Trent Creed a firm Belief is required to be given omnibus in Concilijs oecumenicis traditis and then a long farewel to all their Liberties of the Gallican Church would ensue and their Sanctio Pragmatica which is the Authentick Comprehension of them is Damned by Leo the 10th approbante Concilio in the General Lateran Council It may be moreover said that the words above mentioned that the French Clergy left out of their Book are a part Fidei Catholicae extrà quam non est salus and therefore if the French do not receive as it seems they do not this part of the Trent Creed then it may very well be doubted whether they receiv'd the Definitions of Faith of the Tridentine Council as De Marca would have us believe The Trent Creed I have referred to is at the end of that Council in most of the Editions of it but in the Edition at Antwerp which is the best viz. Anno 1633 it is in the Body of the Council Ses. 24. p. 450 451. It here occurs to my thoughts to entertain yours out of Hoornbeck's Examen bullae Papalis Printed An. 1652. where in p. 42. speaking of the French Embassadors claiming the Honour of sitting before those of Spain he saith uti apparuit in Oratorum Galliae Regis Carol. 9. protestatione in Concilio Tridentino factâ An. 1563 quando secus fieret Oratores Hispan Regis post Imperatoris locum Caperent primum Cujus omnem Culpam in solum rejiciebant Papam Pium 4 tum Cujus aiebant imperium detrectamus quaecunque sint ejus judicia sententiae reijcimus respuimus contemnimus Et quanquam Patres Sanctissimi vestra omnium Religio vita eruditio magnae semper fuit erit apud nos auctoritatis cum tamen nihil a vobis Sed omnia magis Romae quam Tridenti agantur quae hic publicantur magis Pij 4 ti placita quam Concilij Tridentim decreta jure existimentur denunciamus protestamur quaecunque in hoc conventu hoc est toto Pij nutu voluntate decernuntur publicantur ea neque Regem Christianissimum probaturum neque Ecclesiam Gallicanam pro decreto oecumenici Concilij habituram Interea quot quot estis Galliae Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Doctores Theologi vos omnes hinc abire Rex Christianissimus jubet redituros ut primum Deus opt max. Ecclesiae Catholicae in generalibus Concilijs anttquam formam libertatem restituerit Regi autem Christianissimo suam dignitatem Majestatem And he afterward in p. 192. desires that after those words dignitatem Majestatem may be added what followeth among the addenda there to his foregoing work viz. In Concilio Tridentino vehementer illa inter Gallos Hispanos agitabatur Contentio de praecedentiâ Non solum illis primum à legato Imperatoris locum petentibus sed nolentibus ut Orator Hispani Regis alio quo singulari loco ab illis sederet sed ordine post eos aliter se protestari non adversum legatos aut Philippum Regem aut Concilium aut Ecclesiam Romanam sed adversus ipsum Papam Pium 4 tum non pro legitimo illum habentes Papâ provocare se ad Concilium aliud liberum in Galliâ Cogendum Ubi illud facetum accidit quod quando adversus Oratoris Gallici expostulationem diceretur cum Scommate Gallus Cantat hic Concinne protinus respondit Vtinam illo Gallicinio Petrus ad resipiscentiam fletum excitaretur Illà que causa postmodum Gallis fuit inter alias quo minus Concilium Tridentinum in Regno Ecclesiis Gallicanis vel ejus publicatio admissa fuerit This Book of Hoornbeck was Printed at Vtrecht and the Papal Bull on which it very Learnedly Animadverts is that by which the Pope endeavour'd to Abrogate the Peace of Munster But to go on with my Assertion of the Non-reception of the Council of Trent in France I shall acquaint you that another considerable Author Namely My Lord Primate Bramhal who was an Exile in France in the time of the Vsurpation and whose observation penetrated as far into the Constitution of the Gallican Church as either F. Cressy's or any Man 's else
having in p. 284. of his Iust Vindication of the Church of England spoke of the Trent Council saith We have seen heretofore how the French Embassador in the Name of the King and Church of France protested against it and until this day though they do not oppose it but acquiesce to avoid such disadvantages as must ensue thereupon yet they never did admit it Let no Man say that they rejected the Determinations thereof only in point of Discipline not of Doctrine For the same Canonical Obedience is equally due to an acknowledged General Council in point of Discipline as in point of Doctrine Monsieur Iurieu in his Historical Reflections on Councils and particularly on that of Trent which were Translated into English and Printed in the year 1684. Saith that the French Kings their Parliaments and Bishops dislike several things in the Decrees of the Council of Trent and mentions as the Reasons why the Council of Trent is not received in France these following 1. That the Council hath done and suffered many things that suppose and confirm a Superiority of the Pope over Councils 2. It hath confirmed the Papal encroachments upon ordinary's by exemption of Chapters and priviledges of Regulars who are both withdrawn from Episcopal Jurisdiction 3. That it hath not restored to the Bishops certain Functions appertaining to their Office and taken from them otherwise than to execute them as delegates of the See of Rome 4. That it hath infringed the priviledges of Bishops of being Judged by their Metrapolitan and Bishops of Provinces by permitting a removal of great Causes to Rome and giving Power to the Pope to Name Commissioners to Judge the Accused Bishop 5. That it hath declared that neither Princes Magistrates nor People are to be consulted in Setling and placing of Bishops 6. That it hath Empowered Bishops to proceed in their Jurisdictions by Civil pains by Imprisonment and by Seisures of the Temporalties 7. That it hath made Bishops the Executors of all Donations for Pious uses 8. That it hath given them a Superintendency over Hospitals Colledges and Fraternities with power of disposing their Goods notwithstanding that these matters had been always managed by Lay Men. 9. That it hath ordained that Bps. shall have the examining of all Notaries Royal and Imperial with power to Deprive or Suspend notwithstanding any Opposition or Appeal 10. That it hath given power to Bishops with consent of two Members of their Chapter and of two of their Clergy to take and retrench part of the Revenue of the Hospitals and to take away feudal Tithes belonging to Lay-Men 11. That it hath made Bishops the Masters of Foundations of Piety as Churches Chappels and Hospitals so as that those who have the Care and Government of them are obliged to be accountable to the Bishops 12. That in confirming Ecclesiastical Exemptions it hath wholy ascribed to the Pope and Spiritual Judges all power of Judging the Causes of Accused Bishops as if Soveraign Princes had lost the right they had over their Subjects as soon as they became Ecclesiasticks 13. That it hath empower'd the Ordinaries and Judges Ecclesiastick in Quality of Delegates of the Holy See to enquire of the Right and Possession of Lay-Patronages and to quash and annul them if they were not of great necessity and well founded 14. That in Prohibiting Duels it had declared that such Emperor or Prince as should shew favour to Duels should therefore be Excommunicated and Deprived of the Seignory of the place holding of the Church where the Duel was fought 15. that it hath permitted the Mendicant Fryars to possess Immoveables 16. That it hath ordained an Establishment of Judges it calls Apostoles in all Dioceses with Power to Judge of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Matters in prejudice of the Ordinary 17. That it hath declared that Matrimonial Causes are of the Churches Jurisdiction 18. That it hath enjoyn'd Kings and Princes to leave Ecclesiasticks the free and entire possession of the jurisdiction granted them by the Holy Canons and General Councils that is to say usurped by the Clergy over the Civil Power These are the Principal Points Disputed in France These that tend to the Diminution of the Authority and Priviledges of Bishops to enlarge the Roman power are Rejected by the Bishops And those that would extend the power of Bishops to the Prejudice of the Civil Authority are Rejected by the Parliaments Between both this Council as enacting contrary to the Rights and Liberties of the Gallican Church was never at all received in France so as to obtain the force of a Law He then shews that the Popes Superiority over Councils is a point of Doctrine and was decided in the Council of Trent And yet that the Gallican Church believes the contrary I know it will be said saith he that the Council of Trent hath not decided that the Pope is Superior to Councils Men may talk as they please but things for all that will continue as they are It is true that among the Decrees and Canons of the Council there is none that saith in express Terms that the Pope is Superior to Councils and can be judged by none But the effect of such Decision is apparent in all the Acts and through the whole Conduct of this Council And he afterward saith that the Clause of proponentibus legatis was a plain Decision of the Popes Superiority over the Council But to these 18 Reasons of Mr. Iurieu about the Reception of the Trent Council in France being neither practicable nor practised I might add that according to what my Lord Primate Bramhal observes in another place of that Book of his I Cited before the Obedience promised to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to St. Peter and Vicar of Iesus Christ pursuant to the Trent Council may seem to quadrate but ill with the liberty of the Gallican Church to set up a Patriarch For in p. 194. of that Book he mentions that in Cardinal Richelieu's Days it was well known what Books were freely Printed in France and publickly sold upon pont neuf of the lawfulness of Erecting a new or rather restoring an old proper Patriarchate in France as one of the liberties of the Gallican Church And thereupon saith It was well for the Roman Court that they became more propitious to the French Affairs And if we consider how in the 22 d. Session of the Council of Trent Chapter the 11 th all Kings and Emperors are Anathematized who hinder any Ecclesiasticks from the Enjoyment of any of their feudal Rights or other profits and that it might well be supposed that the Course and Vicissitudes of time would put Roman Catholick Princes on somewhat of that Nature and which so eminently influenced the French King in the Munster Treaty none need wonder at the Trent Councils not being received in France There was a Book called a Review of the Council of Trent written by a Learned Roman-Catholick and Printed A. 1600. and Translated by Dr
Langbain and Printed at Oxon 1638. The Author is believed by Rivet in his Answer to Coeffeteau and by Langbain to be William Ranclin Dr. of Laws fiscal Advocate in the Court of Aydes at Oua in Henry the 4 ths time and after-terward Attorney General in the Soveraign Court of Aydes at Montpellier In ch 1. p. 11. of the Translated Book he tells us that being at Court he saw many earnest Suits Exhibited to the French King in behalf of the Pope for the receiving that Council and such as had been made to the preceding Kings but which they would never grant nor allow the publication of what they conceived so dangerous to Church and State And in ch 2. he gives us several Instances which were made to the late Kings for receiving the Council of Trent Charles the 9th was moved by the Embassadors of Pope Pius the 4th the Emperor and King of the Romans the King of Spain the Prince of Piemont soon after the year 1563. to Publish that Council The King said he would have the Advice of his Lords But it was Determined by them that he should not hearken to their Requests That in the year 1572. when Cardinal Alexandrino knew the Popes Nephew came out of Spain into France with Commission to reinforce the Suit to Henry the 3d. both the Pope and the Clergy urged him to publish it but nothing was done The Request was renewed by the Clergy at Blois and especially by Peter Espinoc Archbishop of Lions in the year 1576 but without any effect The Request was renewed by the Assembly of France Assembled at Melun in Iuly 1579. The Speaker was Arnalt Bishop of Bazas Nicholas Angelier Bishop of Brien made the like Instance to the same King Oct. 3. 1579. and again July 17. 1582. Renald of Beaune Arch-Bishop of Bourges and Primate of Aquitaine Delegate for the Clergy made the same Request at Fountain-Bleau but all in vain In the beginning of A. 1583. A Nuntio came from the Pope into France to Henry the 3d. but could not stir him from his purpose and in a Letter to the King of Navarre Henry 4. who afterward Succeeded him he protests that it was never in his thoughts to admit of it November the 19th 1585. the aforesaid Bishop Nicholas Angelier renews this Request very earnestly to the King and another Assault is made on him October 14. 1585. by the Bishop and Earl of Nayan who in his Speech is very Confident that the Council of Trent was guided by the Holy Ghost He adds though it was not received yet several things in that Council especially what concern'd the Clergy were inserted in the Canons of some of their Provincial Councils held in France at Rohan 1581 at Bourges 1584. at Tours 1585. and at Aix in Provence the same year One of the Kings Lieutenants General for the Administration of Iustice in an Assembly of the States particularly An. 1588. makes a Suit to the King to publish the Council but to no purpose Nay more The King did not receive so much as those very Decrees of the Council which were no way Repugnant to the Gallican Liberties However Suppressing the Name of the Council they Decreed the very same things at Blois An. 1579. But after all that this Author hath mentioned of the Parliament at Blois Decreeing the same things in the year 1579. that were agreeable to the Canons of the Council of Trent and of the fruitless Request of the Arch-Bishop of Bourges in 1582. and of others afterwards for the Reception of that Council I cannot but call to mind that Thuanus Hist. Tom. 4. lib. 94. p. 388. Edit An. 1620. tells us that in the year 1589. the same Arch-Bishop of Bourges in a Convention of the â— Estates did among other things propose ut Concilio Tridentino tradita disciplina ab omnibus recipiatur But nothing was done and the Speech of the Arch-Bishop and some others made in that Convention are by Thuanus called Orationes intempestivae And I might add that the Author of the Inventoire General des affaires de France from the Death of Henry the 4 th to the year 1620. tells us that in the year 1615 on the 19 th of February the Clergy Deputed the Bishop of Beauvais to pray the third Estate to agree to the publishing the Council of Trent And that Monsieur le President Miron in the Name of the 3d. Estate Replyed that they could not at present receive that Council The which agrees with what I have before alledged contrary to the Measures of Cressy and as doth likewise the Popes issuing out a Breve to the Cardinal of Ioyeux An 1605. and mentioned in the Memoirs p. 391. after the Histoire du Cardinal Duc de Ioyeux par le Sieur Aubery Advocat en Parlement aux Conseils du Roy Printed at Paris An. 1654. and in which Breve the Pope desires that Cardinals earnest endeavours for the introducing the Constitutions of the Council of Trent into France and acknowledgeth the Difficulty of that Work but withal addeth that he confideth in the Cardinals Industry as to the Labouring that point and saith that he had Writ to Hen. the 4 th about it And p. 931. there is another Breve of the Pope to that Cardinal A. 1615. which beginneth thus Venerab Frater noster Salut apostol benedict Planè dicere possumus expectavimus pacem ecce turbatio Superioribus namque diebus spem non levem conceperamus fore ut SSti Concilij Tridentini decreta in Galliâ reciperentur dum animum nostrum varietate multitudine pastoralium Sollicitudinum penè oppressum Sublevare hoc Solatio curabamus repentè ad nos allatum est quod 4 to Nonas â—ebr in publico conventu isthic attentatum fuerit in detrimentum supremae Authoritatis hujus SStae Apostolicae sedis c. And where he afterward complains to this effect that the King i. e. H. 4. had several times abused him with promises and pretensions that he would publish the Council of Trent but that nothing came of it If then any one will yet say that the French Clergy not being able in the year 1615 to engage the 3 d. Estate to agree to the Publishing the Trent Council did then Publish it themselves I shall leave him to consider both the Nature and the Event of such an Invasion of the Regal Rights and shall further acquaint him that according to the saying of De facto factum potest de facto tolli he may if he pleaseth consult the Publication of the Peace Relating to the French King and the Prince of Conde first Prince of the Blood Published in the Town of Loudun the 14 th of May A. 1616. and where he will find the 5 th and th 6. Articles to be as followeth viz. 5th That the Authority of the French church be observed and no allowance or Permission be granted for any Encroachment upon the Rights Franchises and Liberties of the same
Aristophanes whom you had said you had found Cited for that Sense of the word at the end of Cloppenburg de Sacrificiis and who Citing Aristophanes his Comedy of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aves where the Birds threaten Iupiter with a Holy War shews that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was meant Avis Seminilega and that the Athenians thought St. Paul would despoil the Altars of the Gods of the Provisions of their Offerings And in Fine you said that such various readings of that word would certainly meet in any ones being thought a Babler by those of the Religion Established if he would interlope in their Maintenance I doubt not but you have heard of the late Candidate Beyond-Sea for the Office of the Reconciler of Churches I mean the Author of TVBA PACIS ad universas Dissidentes in Occidente Ecclesias seu Discursus Theologicus de unione Ecclesiarum Romanae Protestantium nec non amicâ Compositione Controversiarum sidei inter hosce Caetus per Matheum Praetorium Memela Prussum Printed at Collen An. 1684. and which that Author Dedicates to the Emperor and to the Kings of Poland France England Denmark Sweden severally and to the Electors and other Princes of the Empire And just before he blows his Trumpet he warne thus of the two Old Pronouns that have so long troubled the World viz. Meum and Tuum and which will always continue so to do till all Men shall be of St. Francis his mind whom when a Fryar told that he came à cellâ tuâ St. Francis when he heard the word tuâ said he would Lodge no more there The Author tells us in his 10. Chapter Tentavit quidem Compositionem Vir ob studium pacis a plurimis principibus viris Longè Laudatus Georgius Cassander sed non fausto Successu Contradicentibus partim Romanis partim protestantibus and tells us there of the like Event that Marcus Antonius de Dominis and his Work for that purpose had But our Author had the Fortune to Catch a Tartar of an Objection in the last Paragraph of his Book save one viz. At dicet aliquis si unio nostrarum Ecclesiarum Cum Romanâ Ecclesiâ sieret Romanus Pontifex jus suum repeteret tot bona olim Eccliastica quae jam per pacta transacta in manus serenissimorum principum Cessere quae nunquam principes in aerarij sui damnum adimi sibi patientur And to this Objection he returneth this Answer viz. Respondetur Omninò aequum est Ius suum Cuique tribuere nec Romano Pontifici illud derogandum quod ipsi legitimè Competit Bona Ecclesiastica quae olim fuerunt nunc autem aerario principum adscripta jure gladij pactorum acquisita NON PVTAMVS Romanum Ponti ficem pro suâ quâ pollet prudentiâ repetiturum Frui Concedet ijs ad quaâ— admissi sunt possessionibus Nihil ijs vel decedere vel adimi cupiet This the good Man in his Embassy Speech to the World as its Reconciler tells us of this Pope but without shewing his Credentials either from the Pope or any one else And I believe on the account of what you have shewn of the Munster-Treaty the Princes and Electors of the Empire to whom he hath Dedicated his Book will not fear this Popes being either able or willing to give them any disturbance in their Church-Lands Nor need any of us in England more fear the Popes being able or willing to hurt our possessions of the Church-Lands We are sufficiently shewn it out of Mores Reports f. 1.282 that the Popes Bulls giving Monasteries to Wolsy with the consent of the King and the Surrender of the Priors to Wolsy would not serve the turn and that nothing but an Act of Parliament would alter the Property You have here an instance of our present Foraign Reconcilers of Churches being very poor Middle Region Men in Comparison of Cassander and Antonius de Dominis and others as our late little Reconcilers likewise have been Compared with the unfortunate ones of the Old Conjuncture The question of what will this Babler say is properly applicable to them from all Parties But one thing I cannot but here observe to you that as I was very well pleased with your Design that you Communicated to me after you had begun this long VOYAGE of your THOVGHTS as I may call it and writ the former part of your Discourse namely that because in your occasional Conversation with People of all sorts you have found that Mens Fancies were as you said Nail'd to POPERY and their Tongues Ty'd up as to any thing but POPERY and that they could not go beyond the Tedder of that in their Discourse and that POPERY's Monopolizing so much of their Discourse had been one of its VSVRPATIONS you intended to try to divert them from it and make them pass ad autres by laying before them such various Matters of Calculation relating to their own Country and many places of Christendom as might give them somewhat beside POPERY and PLOTS to think and speak of in Company So I am much better pleased with your Performance of that your Curious Enterprize and do think that your Book by containing in it so many MISCELLANEA must eo nomine prove highly useful to our English World in this Conjuncture It here occurs to me to observe to you that after an Erratum of the Press in Page 38. of your Discourse Namely where you referred to P. 325 in the Advocate of Conscience Liberty instead of Page 225 you make the last Letter of D'Ossats to be from Rome An. 1596 and I suppose you happened to do so by casting your Eye on the Old Date of the last Letter but one Printed in the Volume of his Letters in Folio of the Paris Edition An. 1625. and finding it to be An. 1596. But it came not into your Mind then to observe that the last of his Letters as they are Ranged in Order was the 199 th and in the End of Book 9 th and which was to Villeroy from Rome March the 6 th An. 1604 and in which Year he dy'd as you rightly refer to his Epitaph to shew But it seems after that last Letter in Book 9 th of the Paris Edition the Publisher saying that he had recovered some others of his Letters Prints them without respect to the Order of time and there makes the Date of the last Letter save one in the Volume to be in the Year 1596. as you have there done But however this Derogates not from the Iustice of your Animadversion in page 38. on the Roman-Catholick English Priest for making D' Ossat to have known the Gun-Powder Treason Plot to be a Sham one Eight Years before it was to be Executed For the Letter of D' Ossat that that Priest alledged to prove what I now mentioned was Dated as you justly say from Rome March 29 th An. 1596 and he never read the Letter that can find any thing of the Gun-Powder Treason in it I shall here take occasion to make my Excuse to the Reverend Divines of our Church assuring them that by adding Observations on the Writings of the Author of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented I intended not to Derogate from the Sufficiency of the Learning and Reason they have shewed in their Answers thereunto But the â—ruth is though as in our Parliaments frequently when â—ny have moved for some Additional Branch to be setâ—â—ed on the Revenue here afâ—er the Example of somewhat of the like Nature in France the Naming of France â—n the Case then for a Preâ—ident hath been observed â—o make many speak against the Vnseasonableness of the Motion who otherwise would not have done it so the writing of any thing that was contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England and after the Mode of the Bishop of Condom and the Acts of the French Clergy just at this time of Day was a thing that I could not but shew my Resentment against as very much unseasonable And moreover according to the saying that one ought not tâ— be Patient under charge of Hesie I may justifie the warmth of my Resentments against the Acts of the French Clergy charging some of ours both with Heresie and Calumny and bringing up our Whitaker and Downham there in the Van of the Calumniators under the first Article and our Raynolds under the Sixth I Remain SIR Your Affectionate Friend and Servant ANGLESEY FINIS