Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	ecclesiastical_a	pope_n	1,524	5	6.4103	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25430	Memoirs of the Right Honourable Arthur, Earl of Anglesey, late lord privy seal intermixt with moral, political and historical observations, by way of discourse in a letter : to which is prefixt a letter written by his Lordship during his retirement from court in the year 1683 / published by Sir Peter Pett, Knight ...	Anglesey, Arthur Annesley, Earl of, 1614-1686.; Pett, Peter, Sir, 1630-1699.	1693 (1693)	Wing A3175; ESTC R3838	87,758	395

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confirmed the Papal encroachments upon ordinary's by exemption of Chapters and priviledges of Regulars who are both withdrawn from Episcopal Jurisdiction 3.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

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 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 ri●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.