Divine Worship on Men as much as your Description doth And the Venetians particularly opposing the Popes Interloping in their Jurisdiction that other thing referred to in your Description is sufficiently known But if by your Description of Popery you intend only to give us a Dictionary of your Sense of the word generally as used by you and that you intend by the Extermination of Popery the Banishing only of those Principles of it that are Irreligionary out of Mens Minds namely the Principles that tend to the Popes Spiritual and Temporal Vsurpations I am not to quarrel with your expressing your own meaning But as I Judge several Roman-Catholick Writers using the Term Popery to intend thereby the Religion of the Church of Rome as for example the Author of the Compendium saying what I before referred to that nothing but Popery or at least its Principles can make the Monarchy of England again emerge or lasting yet as to which a Divine Sentence was in the Mouth of the King when in his Gracious Expressions in Council concerning the Church of England he Judged otherwise and said I know the Principles of that Church are for Monarchy c. and meaning by Popery what was called la Catholicitè I shall say that according to the common acception of the Word Popery were I to explain what I usually mean by it I would declare that I mean not only the Power of the Bishop of Rome but of any General Councils in Imposing Creeds and Doctrines c. on me And I desiring to have all Religionary Errors banished out of my understanding and Loving my Neighbour as my self will desire they may be so out of his and particularly if after he knoweth he is bought with a price he shall think it lawful for him to be a Servant of Men And will not only weigh the Commands and Decrees of any Bishop But of any General Council whatsoever And if in Matters that Import my Salvation I find them contrary to the Bible with a Salvo to the Reverence I owe to all Lawful General Councils I will desire them to excuse me from obeying them Were it not for what you have so well in p. 48. said that the Protestant Religion not making the intention of the Preist essential to the Sacrament of the Eucharist is more strongly assertive of the Real presence there than the Popish Hypothesis and for that great and excellent Notion of yours in your Discourse viz. That Papists and others being bought with a Price that therefore they ought not to be the Servants of Men and my Judging that according to what I have mentioned out of Dr Iackson that you would separate your self from any Church that imposed any thing Magisterially on Mens Faiths I might think that perhaps had you lived in the Reign of Henry the 8 th you would not have separated from the Ecclesia Anglicana as then by Law Established And therefore when by your warm Expressions in p. 47. after you have said that the Protestation that the Protestant Religion requires is such a continual one as is Reiterated upon every fresh Act and Attempt of the Papal Religion upon ours and whereby it would impose Creeds and Doctrines on us contrary to the Liberty of the Church of England as now by Law Established You tell us that We are to shew no Mercy to these Principles of Popery that disquiet the World and on the several occasions offered protest against the Damages that both our King and Country may have from the Rage of Popery I may tell you that this PROTESTANCY amounts to no more than what we read of in the Review of the Council of Trent where in Book 1. and 12 th Chapter the Author refers to the French King by his Embassadors causing a PROTESTATION to be made against the Council of Trent and as appeared by the Oration there made by Mr. Arnold de Ferriers the 22 d. of September 1563. where among other things having mentioned many grievances he saith that according to the Commands of the most Christian King they were constrained CONCILIO INTERCEDERE VT NVNC INTERCEDEBANT by the same Token that that Book relates how thereupon a certain Prelate of the Council of Trent not well understanding the Propriety of the Word Intercedere which the Tribunes were wont of Old to use when thay made their Oppositions and Hinderances asked his Neighbour PRO QVO ORAT REX CHRISTIANISSIMVS But of the French Kings Embassadors protesting not only against Grievances in the Council of Trent but against it self as a Grievance and of some occasions thereof it will come in my way to speak hereafter Nor was there ever any Instrument or Paper Writ with more sharpness of Anger and Scorn in the way of Defiance against Papismus or Popery than H. the 8 ths Protestation against the Council of Trent and yet inclusive too of another Protestation I mean of his Adherence to the Faith then called Catholick That long Protestation calls the Pope by the Name of Bishop of Rome and saith surely except God take away our right Wits not only his Authority shall be driven out for ever but his NAME also shall be forgotten in England Nor did ever any Protestant Writer in Queen Elizabeths or King Iames the First 's time or in our late Fermentation so zealously press the Exterminating of the Papal Power as Henry the 8ths Proclamation about the Abolishing the same Triumph at its being here done And where he saith We have by Good and Wholsom Laws and Statutes made for this purpose EXâ—IRPED ABOLISHED Separated and Secluded out of this our Realm the Abuses of the Bishop of Rome his Authority and Iurisdiction of long time Vsurped c. And the King there Orders all manner of Prayers Oraisons Rubricks Canons of Mass-Books and all other Books in the Churches wherein the Bishop of Rome is NAMED or his Presumptuous and proud Pomp and Authority preferred utterly to be Abolished Eradicate and Razed out and his NAME and Memory to be never more except to his Contumely and Reproach remembred but perpetually suppressed and obscured The Act of 28 of Henry the 8 th before spoken of called an Act for Extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome was here referred to and which Act and other Acts of Parliament Establishing the Kings Supremacy and Excluding the Pope for ever I mentioned as revived in Queen Elizabeths time after their being repeal'd in Queen Mary's I need not observe to you how this present French King hath likewise lately shewn a very Commendable Zeal for the Exterminating the Vsurpations of the Papal Power in the Business of the Regalia and that the Case of that Kings Power is much altered for the better since D' Ossat Writ to Villeroy from Rome with so much Joy for his having found out an expedient as to the difference between Henry the 4 th and the Pope about the granting to one a Church Dignity in France Namely to have the Words put
of the DEPOSING Power than any thing said by their Writers hath been and no doubt but when any more such close Attacks shall be made upon them by our Writers as have been since his Majesties Reign to charge the Allowance of the Deposing Power on their Church they will not neglect to Crave Aid from what you have said in that your Historical Account of that Peace I assure you it was no easie Task to give so Critical and so Impartial an account of the factum of that Peace as you have done and so much for the Advantage of the Papists and whereby you have Merited much more from them than their Favorite of our Church Dr. Heylin did by Writing of the Outrages that accompanyed the Reformation And your occasional rectifying the Mistake of a considerable Writer of the Church of Rome and of such another of the Church of England here in the Negotiation of that peace hath shewed the Niceness and Difficulty of stating it exactly as you have done The Author of the Novelles de la Republique des Lettres for the Month of November last past giving an account of Dr. Burnets 2d Part of the Hist. of the Reformation being Beyond-Sea lately Printed in French doth there in p. 1250 give the World a fresh view of the Horrour of the Lateran Council by rendring our Queen Mary as prompted by that Council to the Persecution of her Protestant Subjects But you having in your Discourse with the Exquisite Artifice of Oratory mentioned some Passages in her Reign not commonly known and that on the Foundation you lay'd so low in the Rubbish of her Reign you might with more Advantage support the whole Super structure of your Judging that any Roman Catholick Prince that should inherit the Throne here would perfectly Decline her politicks and likewise in your Preface particularly fortified the Minds of People against the Fears and Jealousies of such a Prince that might be Occasioned by the Lateran Council did very seasonably thereby advance the measures of Loyalty and Mens more chearful adherence to the Lineal Succession And the Truth is that among the many Pamphlets Writ with most Artifice and ill apply'd Learning ad faciendum populum and to pervert them to the Exclusion I observing the Lateran Council so much insisted on cannot but Judge your undeceiving them in that point to have been the more necessary The Pamphlet you shew'd me in 4 to Pr for Ianeway in the year 1681. and called A Moderate Decision of the Point of Succession humbly proposed to the consideration of the Parliament doth harp much on that Council And another Pamphlet Printed in the same year for the same Person and called The Case of Protestants in England under a Popish Prince c. did there among the many Quotations out of the Canon Law and Canonists councils and Popish Divines and School-Men making for its purpose in p. 5. and 27. trouble us with the Lateran Council and mentions Bellarmines calling it the Papists great and most Famous Council Your having in your Discussion so succesfully combated the obligatoriness of that Council upon Papists was of great use for the unblundering many nominal Protestants as your term is in their fancying it so necessary for the quiet of Christendom that Princes and their Subjects should agree in the Belief of the Speculative points of Religion as your expressions are and whereupon you promise the Age your publication of the fact of the Munster Peace and its Consequences and which promise you have in your Preface so well and fully perform'd The Author of the Answer to the Book call'd A Papist Misrepresented doth refer to Lessius his Discussio decreti magni Concil Lateran and saying that the Churches Authority would not be maintain'd without the Deposing Power and in p. 104. making the Councils of Lateran under Alex. 3. and Innocent 3. to be general ones And in the Reflections on the Answer nothing is mentioned to deny it But your having in your Discussion cited Cardinal Peron for having so strenuously asserted that Councils being a general one and yet not thinking it Obligatory for the Exterminating the Persons of Hereticks from France where their number was so great and your having cited Cardinal D' Ossat partly to the same effect and further shewing this their Doctrine Incarnate in the Lives of so many Roman-Catholick Crown'd Heads and their Empires after all the dismal effects that the contrary practices produced and that the Voice of Nature did in the Storm their Country 's were in and when it was so necessary to have many Hands speak it as plainly concerning Heretical Subjects continuing with them as St. Pauls words were to the Centurion and to the Soldiers viz. except these abide in the Ship ye cannot be saved and your shewing that pursuant to the Munster Peace they did abide in the Ship and thereby saved themselves and it was time by you very nobly spent in your helping Men to See how far Nature had by its powerful Hands effectually delivered People from their Fears of the Lateran Council and which time was to much better purpose spent than that of some Roman-Catholick Apologists for any harsh thing Decreed by General Councils and saying that they are not declared as Doctrinal points and that the Decrees relating only to Discipline and Government come short of being Articles of Faith as the Author of the Reply to the Reflections upon the answer to a Papist Misrepresented and Represented oâ—â—erves and as to which he there further in p. 54. quotes the Vindication of Dr. Sherlocks Sermon for saying that to Decree what shall be done includes a Virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded But such little Arts the great Cardinal you mentioned forbore to use in the point of the Lateran Council And 't is not Art but Nature that can satisfie the Curious in this inquisitive Age and by the great prospect of Nature you have shew'd Men appearing in the Munster-Peace they will be naturally untaught their Fears of that Council now they know its Sting is pluck'd out what ever humming about their Ears it may still make by the help of any Writers The Learned Author of the Seasonable Discourse in his other Book of the difference between the Church and Court of Rome consider'd in p. 21. speaking of the Lateran Council and how his Roman-Catholick Antagonist had Cited one Iohn Bishop who in a Book Written in the time of Queen Elizabeth affirmed that the Constitution of the Lateran Council on which the whole Authority of Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance and Deposing Princes is founded is no other than a Decree of Pope Innocent the 3 d and was never admitted in England Yea that the said Council was no Council at all nor any thing at all there Decreed by the Fathers doth in the following Pages substantially Confute his Adversary and sets up the Authority of Cardinal Peron and of the Council of Trent against
of his History tells us that at that time i. e. An. 1588. Magno Caloris aestu contentio de Tridentinâ Synodo toties agitata denuô renovata est and how stoutly the promulgation of it was opposed And there is the Work of another French Historian that may be here referred to viz. Historiarum Galliae ab excessu Hen. 4. Libri 18. Authore G. B. Gramondo in Sacro Regis Consistorio Senatore in Parliamento Tolosano Praeside Tolosae 1643. and where in p 57. the Author tells us that in the year 1615. the year in which Cressy out of Cabassutius says the Clergy received the Trent Council Proposita à Clero Concilij Tridentini promulgatio molliendae invidiae adjecta est haec clausula sine praejudicio Coronae Regiae Libertatum Gallicanae Ecclesiae c. and that Cardinal Peron spoke Elegantly and Learnedly for it but that after long debate about the Reception of that Council especially between the clergy and the 3 d. Estate the issue was that the third Estate carryed it against the Clergy and the Reception and Promulgation of the Trent Council was absolutely rejected and p. 69. PRAEVALVITQVE CLERO POPVLVS Where it is evident 1. That what Cabassutius in his Notitia Conciliorum p. 720. names only a Convention of the Clergy in that year 1615. as if that had been all was in Truth Conventus trium Regni Ordinum a Convention of the three Estates the greatest and Supream Convention of France and as Gramondus saith p. 58. 2 dly That whereas Cabassutius says the Trent Council was received in that General Convention of the Gallican Clergy De Marca saith and evidently proves that no such Convention of the Gallican Clergy had any Authority to Receive or Promulgate the Trent Council or any other Approve it they might but receive it they could not But it was so far from being recieved by the Convention of the French clergy that it was absolutely rejected by the Supream Convention of the three Estates and that after a long and free Debate It is true and most Notorious that not only in France but in England heretofore many of the Papal Clergy were generally more addicted to advance the Papal Power than the Just Prerogatives of their own Kings or the Rights of the Laity Because as by the Clergy's help and assistance the Papacy grew greater their Jurisdiction and Revenues were thereby encreased And thus Anselme and Becket being zealous for the Pope and Disobedient to their King found their account in the Pope's Assisting and Favouring them with his Power while they lived and Canonizing them and making them what their Loyalty could not while they lived Saints after their Death But as our Magnanimous Roman Catholick Princes did then bridle the Papal Power so likewise those of France have done and even where Cabassutius saith that the Trent Council was received in the year 1615. à Clero Gallicano sub Ludovico 13. he doth not say that the King received it and thus De Marca tells us in his De Concordiâ Sacerd. Imperij Lib. 2. Cap. 17. S. 7. p. 33. Decreta Conciliorum legis vim in Gallià non habent nisi recepta à Clero Regiâ Authoritate munita But De Marca had in that Book informed us that in the time the Trent Council Sate when it evidently appeared by the Decrees of that Councel the Liberty of the Gallican Church was in quamplurimis apitibus destroyed the Embassadors of Henry the 2 d. and Charles the 9 th left the Synod being called home by their Kings And had complain'd in that Council that the Liberty of the Gallican Church Regia dignitas erant imminutae and their recesse from and leaving the Council was a good reason as De Marca there proves non admittendae Synodi i. e. of their not receiving that Council Father Paul likewise in his History of that Council saith that the French Bishops left it on the same account But moreover De Marca in the same place tells us that the whole Clergy of France did most frequently in their Synods Petition their Kings that they would Publish and Recieve the Trent Council excepting those things which were repugnant to the Liberty of the Gallican Church and that they would never grant their Petition nor Publish or Recieve the Trent Council though with that Exception His words are Totius Cleri Gallicani Conventus Concilij Tridentini promulgationem à Regibus nostris supplicibus libellis postulaverit eâ lege ut ea Capita exciperent quae libertatibus Ecclesiae adversarentur Quorum desiderijs Principes toto hoc negotio saepe in Consilium prudentissimorum relato se accommodare non potuerunt From whence it is evident if that great Arch-Bishop says true that the Kings of France would never recieve any of the Trent Council no not that part of it which was not against the Liberty of their Church or their Kings Regalities But after all this I must not forbear to observe how here it appears that the Learned De Marca doth contradict himself For in the same page and Columne viz. p. 133. Col. 1. he saith that the Definitions of the Council of Trent concerning Faith were admitted in France by a publick Edict Anno 1579. which must be in the 6th year of Henry the 3 d. of France and yet he tells us in this same page and Columne that although the whole Clergy of France did most frequently Petition their Kings to Promulgate and admit only that part of the Trent Council which was not against the Liberties of the Gallican Church yet their Kings would never admit it If these words of his mean any thing I think they must mean the Definitions of Faith which De Marca saith were recieved by the Edict 1579. But if their Kings would never admit any of it though the whole Clergy did Petition them to do it then was it not admitted by any Publick Edict in the year 1579. I remember the Learned Author of the Nouvelles de la Republique des letteres for the Month of March 1685. there mentioning the Histoire critique du Vieux Testament par le P. Richard Simon Prêtre de la Congregation de l' Oratoire of the New Edition at Rotterdam that year saith that that New Edition contains a Letter of a Protestant Doctor who procured the 5 th Edition of that Critical History and further quotes that Protestant Minister for giving an Answer to the ordinary Distinction viz. that the Council of Trent hath been recieved in France in what concerns Faith but not in matters of Discipline and he speaks of an Assembly of the Clergy held which he saith Deliberated how to present a Petition to the King that that Council might be recieved as to what concerns Faith only and that whatever deliberation the Prelates made there upon the Court would not grant their Request And if that Council saith he hath been received let them produce us the publication of it
AGREED VNTO 6th That that which was made by the Clergy for the Publication of the Council of Trent without the Authority of the King be Repaired and Amended and all such things formerly done in the Estate be Reformed AGREED VNTO Yet if any one wants further Confirmation from Authorities about the Trent Council not having been received in France I may send him to the Synopsis of â—ouncils Writ by Dr. Prideaux sometime Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford and afterward Bishop of Worcester where the Bishop Writing Chap. 5. and p. 29. of the Trent Council saith This Council cryed up by so many Acclamations and so Solemnly Confirmed by the Seal of of the Fisher the French admitted not But after all this said of the Council of Trent's not having been Published and Received in France if either by the Government or Clergy or Laity there any of the Religionary or Doctrinal points of Faith contained in that Council are inwardly believed and openly professed I leave them and all Mankind to the Exercise of the Liberty wherewith christ hath made them free and will suppose that if after all the Old Protestations of the Government against that Council Roman-Catholicks in France having found the Doctrinal Points of their Faith that were Stated and Determined by former General Councils to be more fully and clearly made out in the Tridentine one did prosess the belief of the same and did refer to that Council when they would give an exteriour Account or Reason of their Faith and did think themselves obliged for the supporting the Vnity of the Roman-Catholick Church to profess the same Doctrinal Points with these Countries where that Council had been received and published I will make this Charitable Construction that they did and do intend no more Diminution of the Regal Rights and Liberties of the Gallican Church thereby than the Nations of Europe did intend a Diminution of their Freedom by receiving any part of the Civil Law of Rome and still continuing the Use and Authority of the same in their Commerce and in the Interpretation of their publick pactions and of the Ius gentium Nor than the Romans did intend to lessen the Rights of their Government by taking their Law of the twelve Tables from Athens nor their Maritime Law from Rhodes and no more than our Roman-Catholick Ancestors did intend a Subjugating of our Laws to the Popes Canon Law against several parts of which they openly protested by the receiving of some other parts of it they thought agreeable to the good of Church and State or than the Government at present intends any Recognition of Foraign Power by any parts of the Civil or Canon Law being still incorporated in our Laws and continuing here to be a part of the Lex terrae QVOAD certain causes Ecclesiastical or Maritime And indeed it must be acknowledged to be for the Honour of the Trent Council that in France and some other Countries where it hath not been received and published its Doctrinal Definitions have yet got ground in the Belief of many Roman-Catholicks on the supposed Merits of the things themselves therein contained and as it hath been for the Reputation of some things in the Civil or Canon Law that on their being thought reasonable our Laws have Adopted them as their own But as with all due Tenderness to all my fellow Christians in France or elsewhere whether Lay or Clerical I forbear to Censure or Reproach them in my most Secret Thoughts for Embracing the Belief of any such Tenets as may be called Religionary though taken up from Trent by them after they have used all the due means for the finding out Truth in the same and do most earnestly pray that God who hath been pleased in Scripture to express his Divine Philanthrophy by the Discreet Love of a Father and the Tender Love of a Mother would bestow the same Blessings on them that I wish for my self and my most near and dear Relations so I should have been glad to have found the like Spirit of Charity Breathing in the Acts of the French clergy with Relation to their Christian Brethren differing from them in points Religionary instead of pronouncing their breach made with them to be founded only on Calumnies after the Pastoral Advertisement of that Clergy to them in the year 1682 and instead of affording them their Compassion for not being able in the three following Years to receive that Faith of that Trent Council which I account from the year 1564. the time of its Confirmation to this Day not to have been Published or Received in that Kingdom and whose Publication may be said to be there yet but as it were in abbeyance and instead of further charging them as Calumniators because of the things Writ against the Romanists by our Whitaker and Downham a hardship I have observed complain'd of in some late Writings of the French Protestants But the great Royal goodness of our Gracious King and the fervent Zeal and Charity of the present Divines of England have made them an amends for what they suffered on the account of those our former great Clergy-Men Yet must it be acknowledged that in one point that Clergy in their Petition to the King doth the Huguenots this Justice as to say the pretended Reformed how great so-ever their Blindness is are not arrived to that height of Folly as to maintain their lawful practice of the Crimes of Imputations and Calumny And I am glad that since the 2 d. of March 1679. so much occasion hath been given by the Popes Condemning the Tenets of the Iesuits about the Doctrine of CALVMNY and their Sicarious Principles for the not charging them on the Church of Rome as approved by it as formerly But on the account of the Horrid Calumnies against Fathers and Councils still continued in the Decrets of the Canon Law and forged with as much Falshood as any could have been by the French Clergy observed in the Case of the pretended Reform'd as I have particularly enough shewn in the Case of Cyprian I may well urge it as an Argumentumad hominem that neither the Pope nor French Clergy should have been Authors of too much Severity to those Reformed on the pretence of their Calumniating the Doctrine of their Church And have been careful not to charge on the Catholicitè as the Term is the Falshood of Gratian and the lachesse of the Popes that so long suffer'd so much Trompery in him to pass for Law And were I at Rome now while the Pope is so worthily busy'd in strengthening the preparations against the Turk in this Conjuncture would not divert him from the same by importuning him to make a better Canon Law for his Flock Nor do I charge on the Gallican Church or State what I have mentioned out of Boerius a President of Parliament there If they hoped by the publication of their Book in France to effect a Reconciliation of Churches there or the Translators of it
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.
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