Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:25:05.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Richard Smith's Gallican Backers and Jesuit Opponents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

A. F. Allison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In May 1629, the President of the English College at Douai, Matthew Kellison, published a book entitled: A treatiseofthe hierarchie and diuers orders of the church against theanarchie of Caluin. In spite of the title, the main purpose of the book was not to defend Catholic teaching on the hierarchy against Calvin. Kellison wrote it is in response to an urgent appeal by Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, at a crucial moment in Smith's episcopate. During the four years in which he had been in England as bishop, Smith had met with mounting opposition from the regulars and from the Catholic nobility and gentry. Opposition from the laity was greatly strengthened by the publication in 1628 of a work by the President General of the English Benedictine Congregation, Rudesind Barlow, maintaining that the papal brief appointing Smith in 1625, properly interpreted, did not grant him the extensive powers he claimed. What Smith was asking of Kellison in 1629 was not a work in support of his claims in detail—he intended to write that himself—but a general treatise addressed to the lay Catholics explaining the theological basis on which those claims rested. Kellison, as President of the English College and a theologian of international repute, was the ideal man for the task. ‘In these circumstances,’ Kellison a letter two years later, describing how his book came to be written, ‘the Bishop and leading members of the clergy wrote to me urging me to produce a book on the dignity and authority of bishops. Because of my respect for them, and also because of my love for my country, I consented …’

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 329 - 401
Copyright
© 1986 Trustees of the Catholic Record Society and individual contributors

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

†Following the normal practice in Recusant History, extended quotations from foreign languages are given in English. Whenever the precise wording of a quotation is of significance, and in every case where the source is an unpublished manuscript, the original is supplied in a note.

1 A&R, 431. STC, 14914. ERL, 152.

2 Barlow's work is ARCR, vol. 1, no. 62. For the powers claimed by Smith, see Allison, A. F. ‘A Question of Jurisdiction. Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon, and the Catholic Laity, 1625–31’ (RH, October 1982, pp. 111–45).Google Scholar

3 Kellison to the Faculty of Theology of Paris, 21 March 1631. Latin. The original letter is not extant. Printed in Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom, 2, pt. 2, p. 343. For further reference to this letter see p. 368 of the present article.

4 Most of the standard accounts of Gallicanism deal mainly with the mediaeval period and with the late seventeenth century. The political aspects of the theory in the early seventeenth century are well handled in Victor, Martin Le gallicanisme politique et le clergé de France, Paris, 1929.Google Scholar Crehan, J. H. (article ‘Gallicanism’ in CDT, vol. 2, p. 314)Google Scholar makes some important points about the spiritual aspects in relation to the events of the early seventeenth century. On Richer, the fullest (and fairest) account is that of Puyol.

5 Richer sets out these opinions succinctly in De ecclesiastica et politico potestate, 1611, chapters 9, 14–18. For a full analysis, see Puyol, tom. 2, p. 229.

6 STC, 21024.

7 See Crehan, art. cit. note 4 above.

8 Amplius dico, nisi per ius commune episcopi crearentur, Christus Dominus in necessariis defuisset; quia posito quod Sedes Apostolica duos vel tres annos vacasset, ut earn totidem vacasse omnes fatentur, sequeretur toto ilio tempore ecclesiis viduatis episcopos creari non posse. Quibus ex Vallii dogmatibus promptum est videre, residentiam episcoporum, immo vero dignitatem episcopalem, aut nullo modo, aut non magnopere esse necessariam Ecclesiae, sed omnia per Archipresbyteros rite sub Romano Pontifice curari posse: ut hodie curantur in Anglia, omnibus Catholicis gementibus, & sacramento Confirmationis magno cum Ecclesiae damno carentibus. Emundi Rieherii … Defensio libelli de ecclesiastica et politica potestate. ed. of ‘Cologne’, 1701, tom. 2, p. 27. Written in reply to André, Duval De suprema Romani Pontificis in Ecclesiam potestate, Paris 1614.Google Scholar Richer's work was circulated in manuscript c. 1615 but not printed until years after his death. The term ‘ius commune’ (1.1 above) seems to be used in its mediaeval sense of the general law of the Church.

9 This outline is based mainly on Puyol, tom. 1, pp. 114, et seq. I have taken some additional details from documents printed in DupIessis-d'Argentré. Jourdain and Feret say little about day-to-day administration.

10 In 1626, fifty or more votes were cast at the censure passed on Garasse (Jourdain, p. 112), and some fifty at that passed on Santarelli (Puyol, tom. 1, pp. 292–93). In 1631, when Floyd's Apology was censured, fifty-six votes were cast, according to reports reaching Floyd (See above, p. 366). Also in 1631, the ‘Irish Propositions’ were condemned by sixty votes, according to Paul Harris Aϱχτoμ∝στιξ, pp. 8–9; see note 111 below).

11 Puyol, tom. 1, pp. 292–93.

12 Article on Filesac in DTC, tom. 5, col. 2304–07.

13 There is an article on Isambert (under Ysambert) by Antoine Degert in CE, vol. 15, p. 737. For M. A. de Dominis, see Crehan, J. H.. ‘The Dalmatian Apostate’, in Theological Studies, vol. 23. no. 1, March 1961.Google Scholar

14 Puyol, tom. 1, p. 295.

15 Guido Bentivoglio, La nunziatura di Francia del cardinale Guido Bentivoglio, ed. L. de Steffani, Firenze, 1863–70, tom. 2, pp. 278–79. Italian.

16 Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, p. 203. See also Prat, tom. 4, p. 721; Puyol, tom. 2, p. 276; Martin, chapter 6, pp. 168–71.

17 See p. 357 above.

18 Prat, tom. 3, pp. 319 seq. 771, seq. Chesneau, tom. 1, p. 11.

19 Hierarchia Catholica, vol. 4, Appendix II, ‘Provinciale, sive conspectus provinciarum ac dioecesium … lists under Gallia for this period (1592–1667): 18 privinces embodying 126 dioeceses. Pastor, vol. 28, p. 440, says there were 150 archbishoprics and bishoprics in France in Richelieu's time.

20 Chesneau, tom. 1, p. 11. Chesneau, who does not supply the reference, gives the words in French: ‘perfides … turbulents … sages’.

21 For a general account of Kellison, see Anstruther, vol. 1, pp. 193–94.

22 On Arras College, see Allison, A. F. ‘Richard Smith. Richelieu and the French Marriage’ (RH January 1964, pp. 148–211,Google Scholar especially p. 167). For Kellison's non-residence, see Guilday, p. 106, n. 3.

23 From a eulogy of Kellison in a Latin account of the foundation of the English College, Lisbon, preserved in the Lisbon College archives now at Ushaw. An English translation of this account, accompanied by valuable notes, was published by the librarian of Ushaw, Dr. Michael Sharratt, in the Ushaw Magazine for December 1975. See especially p. 20.

24 See Allison, A. F. ‘The Later Life and Writings of Joseph Creswell S. J.’ (RH, October 1979, pp. 79–144,Google Scholar especially pp. 100–19.)

25 For Champney, see Anstruther, vol. 1, pp. 70–71.

26 Guilday, p. 262, n.

27 On this, see the report of c. 1628 by an unnamed regular, on the difficulties of organising the distribution of priests on the mission (AAW, A21, no. 33). The writer says that. for the last twenty or thirty years, the numbers of priests coming into England have been increasing at an alarming rate. and there are now too many for the Catholic gentry to support. Many priests arriving in England have great difficulty in getting a family to take them in and some eke out a wretched existence as itinerants, wandering from house to house begging alms. In consequence, there is desperate rivalry among priests to acquire friends and benefactors among the richer laity.

28 On 10 January 1634, John Southcote, secretary of the clergy, wrote to Fitton, now clergy Agent at Rome: ‘The tediousness of these delays about our matters made us resolve in our last consult [i.e.; the periodical meeting of the Vicars-General representing the Chapter] to write to D. Maylard [Mailer] at Paris (inconsulto … et inscio Chalcedonensi) to entreat him in the clergy's name to propose our case to the Sorbonne, and to know of them, what we may lawfully do to help ourselves in case we cannot get a bishop from Rome’ (AAW, B44, no. 69). A few years later, Henry Holden, living in France, was toying with the same idea. On 30 August 1647 he wrote to Sir Kenelm Digby that he was putting the question to the Sorbonne, whether a bishop for England, elected by the Chapter. could be appointed and consecrated by the Archbishop of Rouen without authority from Rome (See Robert, Pugh Blacklo's Cabal, 1680, pp. 24–25)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Pollen, J. H. The Institution of the Archpriest Blackwell London. 1916, p. 3, note.Google Scholar

30 Guido Bentivoglio diplomatico, ed. Raffaele Belvederi, Rovigo, 1949, vol. 2, pp. 121–25.

31 Ubaldini to Cardinal Borghese, Paris, 24 October 1612. I am indebted to Fr. Francis Edwards S. J. for a transcript of this letter. Fr. Edwards's reference is Arch. Vat. Borghese, II, 23–24, c. 238.

32 Meerbeeck, p. 180, no. 482. The English Carmelite is probably Bede of the Blessed Sacrament (John Hiccocks) who was teaching at the Carmelite missionary seminary in Louvain. See Benedict Zimmerman, Carmel in England, London, 1899, chapter 4, especially p. 92.

33 Meerbeeck, p. 191, no. 513.

34 In Wadding Papers.

35 Quod … scriptus fuerit contra anarchiam quam Calvinisti Angli tuentur, et agit solum de hierarchia Ecclesiae in génère, et de dignitate episcopalis status … Quod nihil omnino tractatspectans ad controversias quae sunt inter Episcopum Chalcedonensem et Regulares Anglos, sed tantum défendit fidem Catholicam contra Puritanos. AAW, A25, no. 49. Fitton's autograph copy. Undated. Kellison had himself instructed Fitton to adopt this line of argument with the Roman authorities. On 16 August 1631, just before Fitton left Paris for Rome, Kellison wrote to him: ‘You may infer that my Hiérarchie was against no man nor handled the controversy and my Reply was only a just defence’ (AAW, A24, no. 67).

36 See, e.g., the long letter on the subject from John Jackson, alias Nelson, Smith's Vicar-General for the South-West District, to Fitton. 5 January 1632 (AAW, B47, no. 165).

37 A&R, 778. STC, 20594. ERL, 153. In all three it is mistakenly attributed to Richard Smith.

38 Foley, vol. 5, pp. 629 et seq.; vol. 6, p. 225; vol. 7, pp. 850–51. Foley's account is badly in need of revision. Some additions and corrections are supplied by McCoog (See especially p. 121).

39 A&R, 898. STC, 25779.

40 Foley, vol. 7, p. 719.

41 Alegambe, p. 99. Southwell (1676) p. 185 silently omitted this and all the other Jesuit works in the controversy but for reasons unconnected with the accuracy of the attributions. See Appendix, p. 390 above.

42 Smith, writing only a few weeks later in A brief inquisition, says: ‘The Author, as I am told for certain, is a Jesuit, whose surname beginneth with the same letter that D. Kellisons surname doth, under whom, 1 understand he hath been bred heretofore in Doway College’ (Preface, sig. A5r). Knott had been a student at Douai, 1599–1602 (CRS vol. 69, p. 290).

43 Vitelleschi to Blount, 15 February, 22 March, 26 April, 1631 (ARSI, Angha Epist. Gen. 1605–41, vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 327v, 328, 331v). Photocopies at APSI.

44 McCoog, p. 121.

45 ARSI, Anglia Epist. Gen. 1605–41, vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 274, 279, 284. Photocopies at APSI.

46 Champney, in a letter from Brussels to Blacklow at Rome, 13 April 1629: ‘Father Knott is taken going into England’ (AAW, A23, no. 103). Vitelleschi had learned of Knott's capture by 28 April (Letter to Silesdon at Watten, of that date; reference as in note 45, f. 293v).

47 Vitelleschi to Silesdon, 12 May, and to Blount, 25 August (Ibid. ff. 294, 300).

48 See W., K L. Webb S. J. ‘Thomas Preston O.S.B., alias Roger Widdnngton, 1567–1640’ (RH, January 1954, pp. 216–68,Google Scholar especially pp. 237–38).

49 The warrant for his release was signed on 24 January 1632. It is printed in William Prynne, The Popish Royall Favourite, 1643, p. 20. Southcote refers to Knott's release and banishment in a letter to Fitton of 3 February 1632 (AAW, A26, no. 23).

50 McCoog, p. 121.

51 OBA, vol. 1, nd. 129. Southcote's autograph copy. His correspondent is not named but is evidently an English secular priest at Paris. References to Smith in the text show that he is not the addressee. The Benedictine has not been identified. Southcote clearly writes the name as ‘Homes’. Foley (Vol. 7, p. 851 note), using a 19th century transcript of the same document, misrenders it as ‘Holme’.

52 I am indebted to Fr. W. K. L. Webb S. J. who pointed this out to me many years ago.

53 ‘Typis mandatas fuit 4 Maii anno 1629’. From an undated document among Fitton's papers, headed ‘Rationes cur Domini Kellisoni Hierarchia prohiberi non debeaf, which perhaps was intended to supplement the document quoted in note 35 above. It is not in Fitton's hand.

54 See A&R, pp. 184–85, ‘Secret Presses operating in England’, no. 13, ‘Printer of Coster's Meditations.’

54A I give the page reference to the second edition as reprinted in ERL 60. The text is the same as in the first edition.

55 A&R 773. STC 22809a.5. ERL 365.

56 See note 3 above.

57 AAW, A31, no. 36.

58 Knott's claim that only a small minority of theologians has ever denied this power to the Pope is borne out by non-Jesuit sources. Even the early eighteenth-century ‘Tractatus de Confirmatione’ attributed to the Gallican Charles Witasse admits that the central tradition, from St.Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus down, affirms that he has this power. See the reprint of the ‘Tractatus’ in Migne, tom. 21, col. 545–1210, especially 961–67.

59 Defensio libelli de ecclesiastica et politico potestate, ed. of ‘Cologne’, 1701, tom. 1, p. 302. See note 8.

60 Allison, A. F. ‘John Gerard and the Gunpowder Plot’ (RH, April 1959, pp. 43–63)Google Scholar.

61 For the printed version, see the references at note 55. The passage about Gerard as it appeared in the manuscript version is given verbatim by Floyd in his ‘Admonition to the Reader’ prefixed to the second edition of Knott's A modest briefe discussion. I quote it in the article cited at note 60 (p. 45).

62 A&R 710. STC 6929. ERL 290.

63 His letter to the Faculty of Theology of 21 March 1631 (See note 3); and a letter to Fitton at Paris, 16 August 1631 (AAW, A24, no. 67).

64 A&R 894. STC 1017. ERL 237.

65 Materials for Floyd's life are provided in the following sources: Foley, vol. 4, p. 237 n.; vol. 6, p. 185; vol. 7, pp. Ixix, 268–69; Chadwick S. J., H. St Omers to Stonyhurst, London, 1962, pp. 100,Google Scholar 165; CRS vols. 37, 40, 54, 55, passim; ARSI, Anglia 38, I, 253 (APSI microfilm, reel 93); TD, vol. 4, p. cxxxiv; General S. J. ’s letters in ARSI; Anglia Epist. Gen. 1605–41, passim (APSI photocopy). The ‘Catalogus secundus personarum Societatis Iesu Provinciae Angliae’ for 1639 (the earliest known) contains the following report on Floyd by his Provincial: ‘ Ingenium: praestans. Judicium’, in speculativis insigne. Prudentia: non omnino respondet. Experientia rerum: bona. Profectus in Uteris: insignis in omni génère. Complexio naturalis: sanguinea. Ad quae ministeria talentum habeat: ad docendum concionandum et scribendum.’ (ARSI Anglia 14, f. 64r.) I am greatly indebted to Fr. T. McCoog S. J. who kindly allowed me to make a transcript from his photocopy.

66 Vitelleschi went so far as to send Floyd instructions on the lines he was to follow, and proposed that he should move to Liège so as to be able to consult more easily with the Rector of Cologne, Goswin Nickel. (ARSI, Anglia Epist. Gen. 1605–41. vol. 1, pt. 3, ff. 474, 486. Photocopy at APSI.) For reasons unknown to us the proposal seems to have come to nothing.

66A See notes 71, 72, 76 below.

67 Like all Floyd's works, it reveals great erudition, closeness of reasoning and familiarity with every detail of the controversy, and these are clothed in a style that relies for much of its effect on a combination of colloquial English speech with the figures of classical rhetoric. I shall give one example from the ‘Admonition’. On pp. 1–2 the author is answering a charge brought by Smith (here called the ‘Inquisitor’, i.e. the author of A brief inquisition) against Knott (here called the ‘Discussor’, i.e. the author of A modest briefe discussion). Smith claims that Knott has deliberately falsified a passage from St. Denis so as to make it appear to favour his own thesis. The author of the ‘Admonition’ protests that Knott has done nothing of the kind: he has, in fact, used the text accepted by the best scholars, whereas Smith has sought to gain the advantage over him by citing a version for which there is no really sound authority. After setting out the evidence, the author of the ‘Admonition’ sums up the position thus: ‘I desire the Reader to stand attent and he will clearly discover not want or sincerity in the Discussor, but in the Inquisitor want of matter joined with a great appetite to cavil. The change is double.’ The use of the colloquial expression ‘to stand attent’ followed closely by balanced antitheses in the manner of Cicero, is characteristic of Floyd.

68 Art. cit. note 60.

69 For Weston, see art. cit. note 24 above, pp. 111–19.

70 Reputo indoctum, temerarium, & erroneum dogma asserens ius divinum in quocumque rerum statu ratione persecutionis orto obligare Romanum Pontificem aut hactenus obligasse ad inducendam in Angliam eiusmodi ordinariam iurisdictionem, cum in Universum iura divina semper vel in omni loco aut cum damno boni spiritualis, maxime si praxis Ecclesiae (uti in Anglia contigit) illud ius divinum executioni non mandant haud obligare merito aestimentur./Cum ordinaria iurisdictio pendeat a iurisdictione ordinarii superioris si sermo sit de episcopis, & parochis; iudico illius collationem aequaliter respicere sacerdotem saecularem, & regulärem religiosum. Adstringere vero hanc collationem ut iuris divini peculiariter qualitati sacerdotis saecularis, vel dicere sacerdotem saecularem ut talem iure divino ius habere ad illam iurisdictionem; vel eo iure compotem existere illius jurisdictionis est erronem vel potius haereticum./ Rebus in Anglia, ut iam est earum status, prudenter & cum Christiana caritate pensatis quarum hactenus in nulla alia ecclesia persecutione vexata extitit similis faciès, aut conditio, existimo iuxta dictamen prudentiae & charitatis versatur circa maius bonum Ecclesiae Catholicae in Anglia procurandum non esse in Anglia instituendos episcopos. vel parochos ordinariarn iurisdictionem retinentes: consequenter ad id faciendum non esse urgendum Pontificem Romanum.

71 A&R 899. STC 25779. 3. ERL 60.

72 A&R 900 (Delete C3 which belongs to the second reissue. See note 76.) STC 25779.5 (Delete C3 as before).

73 See Orcibal's note on letter 154 in Janssen Letters, pp. 497–8.

74 Reference as in note 73. Add Puyol, tom. 2, p. 310 m.; Chesneau, pp. 37 n., 42, 43.

75 Orcibal (Saint-Cyran), p. 340 n. 8.

76 Not differentiated in A&R or STC. The C3 copy listed at A&R 900/STC 25779.5 belongs to this reissue. See note 72 above. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Burke of Emmanuel College for examining it for me.

77 Reference as in note 73. Add: Chesneau. pp. 37 n. 78 n.

78 Janssen Letters, p. 493 (Letter 154). For further reference to Janssen's letters see p. 385 of this article.

79 A&R 322. STC 11109. ERL 88.

80 In his Commentaria in secundam secundae of St. Thomas Aquinas, published in 1616. Floyd gives the reference: 2.2.q.1.a.10.disp. 4.dub. 2 ‘An Papa habet iurisdictionem in singulos fidèles immediate?’. For Malderus, see DTC, tom. 9, cols. 1766–72.

81 AAW, A31, no. 36.

82 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1129. See also RH, May 1982, p. 41, n. 81.

83 They signed a petition to the Pope on 6 April 1629. (AAW, A23, no. 100). For their biographies, see Anstruther, vol. 2, pp. 167, 150, 191, 25. Anstruther's biography of Fitton is seriously defective.

84 TD, vol. 5, p. cclxviii. There is much unpublished documentation on the incident in AAW, B48.

85 There is a very incomplete biography of Mailer in Anstruther, vol. 1, pp. 223–24. It should be supplemented and corrected by reference to the Annales of Lisbon College, p. 1, (Ushaw College, Lisbon Collection); DD3, p. 137; the Lisbon College narrative cited at note 87; letters printed in the Lisbonian, December 1966; Hughes, p. 398; and the following letters by Mailer or mentioning him, in AAW: A23, no. 134; A23, no. 147; A23, no. 149; B47, no. 8; B47, no. 65; B47, no. 69; B47, no. 45; B47 no. 167. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Michael Sharratt of Ushaw for supplying me with photocopies of the Lisbon material.

86 When he was at Douai his sentiments were decidedly anti-Gallican (See RH, October 1979, pp. 104–05); he seems to have changed his mind later.

87 See his letter to White at Rome, of 24 November 1629 (AAW, A23, no. 149). After congratulating White on his appointment he says he himself is on the point of departure from Lisbon.

88 See note 23 above.

89 See pp. 367, etc. above.

89A Francis O'Mahony. See p. 367 above.

90 Hughes, p. 398. AAW, B47, no. 69.

90A This is the letter referred to at note 28.

91 There is an account of David Chambers, based on Scottish archival sources, in Hay, M V. The Blairs Papers, 1603–1660, London, 1929, pp. 110 Google Scholar et seq. Hay's account of him is supplemented by information provided in Southcote's letter of 24 February 1632 (See note 96 below).

92 See Francis Ferrier, William Chalmers [Chambers], 1596–1678, Paris, 1968. (Le mouvement desidées au XVIIe siècle, 7.)

93 Southcote's letter of 24 February 1632 (See note 96 below).

94 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 208. See the Royal Privilege of 17 April 1630 and the postscript dated 10 October 1630.

95 Southcote's letter of 24 February 1632; and see p. 367 above.

96 AAW, A26, no. 30.

97 Printed in Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, p. 341. Fitton's autograph file copy of the letter is at AAW, A25, pt. 2, no. 61. It is undated.

98 AAW, A24, nos. 57–60.

99 The register for this period is preserved at BN, MSS. Fonds Latin. Nouvelles acquisitions. 2456–2457. For the printed censures, see note 105 below.

100 This is the printed covering letter by the Agents which accompanied the letter of the bishops resident in Paris to their brothers in the country in February 1631. See note 117 below. It is ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1407.

101 Preamble to Censura, ARCR vol. 1, no. 684, p. 6. Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, pp. 325–27. English translation in A&R, 224. See note 105.

102 AAW, A24, no. 37.

103 See note 98 above.

104 Preamble to Censura, ARCR, vol. 1, no. 684, p. 8. Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, pp. 325–27.

104A Censura, p. 9.

105 ARCR, vol. 1, nos. 684, etc. An English translation [by Paul Harris] of the Censura (including the preamble) was published at Douai, by the English College, in April 1631, with the title: Censurs of certaine propositions, partly brought out of Ireland, partly drawne out of two English bookes. (A&R 224. STC 4911.5. ERL 246.) The English also includes the censures of the Archbishop of Paris and of the archbishops and bishops temporarily resident in Paris and the covering letter of the Agents of the Clergy intended to accompany the letter. See notes 116, 117.

106 ARCR, vol. 1, nos. 65–67. See Chaussy, pp., 108–14; Ceyssens, L. Les sept points jansénistes, 1953. pp. 8–11.Google Scholar (Jansenística Minora, 20.) The original approbation (sig.elv.) was signed by Urbain Gamier and Elie du Fresne de Mineé on 15 July 1624. The promise to defend the work is given in an extract from the Liber Conclusionum of the Faculty printed on sig.e2r.

107 AAW, B47, no. 18.

108 See Nédoncelle, M. Triois aspects du problème anglo-catholique au XVIIe siècle, Strasbourg, 1951, pp. 30.Google Scholar et seq. On the other hand, Floyd may have had in mind other works circulated in manuscript by Barnes at about the same time. The following (apparently not now extant) were censured as heretical by two of the ultrarnontanist doctors of the Faculty of Paris, Nicolas Isambert and Jacques Lescot, on 30 May 1627: (1.) Tractatus de suprematia Conciliorum Generalium inSummos Pontífices; (2.) Raisons pour lesquelles il convient que Testât d'Angleterre favorise aucunsCatholiques qu'ils croiront estre affectionés h leur patrie et h leur souverain; (3.) Appendix tibrorumqui usui esse poterunt Ecclesiae paci conciliandae; (4.) Gemitus et planctus, risus et laetitia, morbuset sanitas. This censure is not recorded by Duplessis-d'Argentré. There is a contemporary manuscript copy of it at OB A, vol. 1, no. 100.

109 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 861.

110 His real name was Paul Green. He also used the alias Washington. See Anstruther, vol. 1, p. 137 (under Green). There is a biography of him (under Harris) in DNB. Harris published a number of violent attacks on the Irish Franciscans (A&R 189, 380–86). He also published in 1631, an English translation of the censures passed by the Faculty of theology of Paris on the ‘Irish Propositions’ and on the books by Knott and Floyd. See note 105.

111 As stated by Harris in Aϱχτoμ∝στιξ, (A&R 380, ARCR, vol. 1, no. 639.1). pp. 8–9.

112 Copy among Fitton's papers, at AAW, A24, no. 97. I have not found the original. The copy does not bear the name of the addressee but he is addressed as ‘Vestra Paternitas’.

112A There is a copy of the charges against Cahill before the Holy Office, dated 23 May 1631, among Fitton's papers (MW, A25, no. 106).

113 Wadding Papers, pp. ix-x, 556, 571, and see the index under ‘Propositions’.

114 Printed in Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, pp. 341–42. The date is given in the form: Tondini XV, Kalendis Martii’.

115 Printed in Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, p. 343.

116 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 682. English translation in A&R 224. Seenöte 105.

117 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1406. English translation in A&R 224. See note 105.

118 Nicolas Sanguin, Bishop of Senlis since 1622.

119 Franqois de Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Rouen since 1616. He may have opposed the censure for the reason stated, but he was very Gallican, nevertheless. See Pastor, vol. 28, p. 437.

120 Franqois de la Rochefoucauld, Cardinal since 1607. Preacher to the King of France.

121 See note 98 above.

122 This section (AAW, A24, no. 57, pp. 221–22) is entirely in Fitton's hand.

123 See note 105 above.

124 Ista propositio intellecta de particulari Ecclesia perfecta, est falsissima, in consequentia periculosa, temeraria, scandalosa, ordinis hierarchici destructiva, populo Christiano nociva, traditionis Apostolicae, & successionis ecclesiasticae fundamentum convellens. (Censura, pp. 40–41.)

125 Spongia, pp. 38–39. Floyd cites Gerson: Opera, tom. 1, col. 438. for further discussion of Spongia see p. 375 of this article.

126 Ista propositio est captiosa, & in haeresim inducit, inquantum omittit obligationem, quam habet universalis Ecclesia ut sibi provideat quantocius de capite. (Censura, pp. 40–41)

127 See note 81 above.

128 Nam nuperrime ediderunt unum [librum] lingua Anglica, sub falsissimo titulo Apologia pro Sede Apostolica, in qua aperte docent Pontificem non esse de essentia Ecclesiae, quia tunc (inquiunt) moriente Pontifice, moreretur Ecclesia: quae est ipsissima nova haeresis Richerii, et ratio eiusdem, uti constat ex Duvallio lib. de potestate Pontificis q.6 pag. 137. Et quam pernitiosa sit turn Sedi Apostolicae turn toti Ecclesiae, me tacente satis per se patet. Dicunt etiam … caetum Catholicorum, qui paratus est recipere episcopum quando legitime mittitur, (qualis esse potest caetus merorum laicorum) habere totam essentiam Ecclesiae. (AP, Lett.Ant., vol. 100, ff. 237–38. Photocopy at AAW. The letter bears the date: December 1630 but does not give the day of the month.)

129 Hughes, p. 377, citing Acta Cong., 139, no. 8.

130 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 34.

130A For Goffar, see J. H. Zedier, Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexicon, 1732, etc., Bd. 11, col. 93;Google Scholar also Biographie Nationale … de Belgique, tom. 7, 1880–83, col. 84.

131 ARCR. vol. 1, nos. 489–90.

132 In this same year he gave his approbation to a medical work published by widow Boscard at Saint-Omer: Anastichiosis apologetica pro paraenesi … Auetore M. A. Obert, Audomarensi Medico. There he signs himself: ‘Franciscus de Latre S.T.L. Canonicus Archipresbiter Audom.’

133 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 491.

134 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1088.

135 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 488.

136 See note 132 above.

137 ARCR,. vol. 1, nos. 484, 484–1.

138 Mitto etiam una cum his ad Eminentias Vestras blasphemam Censuram symboli quam hie Iesuitae ediderunt et publice apud haereticos vendi curarunt, ut ex hoc simul cum aliis ipsorum libellis quos profundunt Eminentiae Vestrae intelligant quam opus sit hie episcopalem authoritatem tanquam antemurale constituere, quod eorum effraenes impetus retundat. (AP, Lett.Ant. vol. 100, ff. 250–251. Photocopy at AAW). There is an English summary of this letter in Hughes, pp. 380–85, but Hughes did not know that Censura symboli was the title of the Jesuit book, and he renders the sentence ‘Mitto … blasphemam Censuram symboli …’ incorrectly as ‘I send … the censure of a blasphemous book …’

139 Panzani, in the Relazione (1637) which he compiled for the Pope from materials gathered during his visit to England in 1635, says of this book: ‘e dispiaciuta anche agli Eretici, e pero il Cantuariensa la proibi’. (Contemporary MS. copy at AAW, A29, no. 35, see p. 93.) A copy of one of the two editions, neither of which is dated, is preserved among the Thomason Tracts (E246/32) at the British Library, where it is bound among the tracts acquired by Thomason in 1642. It does not bear Thomason's customary MS. note saying when he acquired it. An examination of the typography indicates that the date of printing is some years earlier than 1642 and leads me to conclude that this is probably the edition that was circulated in England, through the non-Catholic booktrade, in 1631.

140 ARCR, vol. 1, nos. 1400–02.

140A The preface is printed as an Appendix at the end of the work because, as the printer explains in a note, the MS. arrived at the press too late for insertion at the beginning.

141 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1403.

142 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 1404.

143 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 481.

144 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 482.

145 ARCR vol. 1, no. 483.

146 See note 132.

147 CRS 37, p. 201. See also CRS 69, p. 128; Foley, vol. 5, p. 494.

148 Testimonium alumnorum aliquot Collegii Anglicani de bono regimine patrum Societatis Iesupraedictum Collegium administrantium. (AAW, B48, no. 64.) There are twenty-five signatures.

149 The abstracts of Vitelleschi's letters are at ARSI Anglia Epist.Gen. 1605–41, vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 314, 315 (Photocopy at APSI.) Both letters are dated 27 April 1630.

150 See McCoog, p. 121.

151 ARCR Vol. 1, no. 1410.

152 See Allison, A. F. ‘A Question of Jurisdiction’ (RH, October 1982, pp. 111–45,Google Scholar especially pp. 135, et seq. and 144–45.)

153 Duplessis-d'Argentré, tom. 2, pt. 2, p. 342.

154 Ibid.

155 See Chesneau, tom. 1, pp. 42–43.

156 Cited in Chesneau, tom. 1, p. 41. Chesneau's reference is: AV Nunziatura di Francia 74, f, 81.

157 Letter of 31 March 1631, cited in Chesneau, tom. 1, p. 38. Chesneau's reference is: AV Nunziatura di Francia 74, f. 43v.

158 AV, Nunziatura di Francia 74, ff. 151v-154. Microfilm penes me.

159 Cited in Chesneau, tom. 1, p. 41. Chesneau's reference is: AV Nunziatura di Francia 74A, f. 13.

160 Letter of 12 July. AV, Nunziatura di Francia 74, ff. 161v-163v. Microfilm penes me.

161 Saint-Cyran's letters to Janssen are not extant but their contents can often be deduced from Janssen's replies.

162 Janssen Letters, p. 508, letter 159.

163 Ibid., p. 511, letter 161.

164 Ibid., p. 153, letter 162.

165 Meerbeeck, p. 263, no. 702, and footnote. See also note 167.

166 Ibid., p. 255, no. 679.

167 Janssen Letters, pp. 518–20, letter 165. See also note 165.

168 Meerbeeck, p. 289, no. 760. Meerbeeck dates the letter 23 August 1631 but this would seem to be a mistake for (?) 23 May. Lagonissa says Spongia had appeared in print a few days before he wrote the letter. We know that Spongia was printed in May 1631 and that copies had reached Paris by 7 June. (See pp. 384).

169 For Thomas Layton alias Port, see Foley, vol. 3, p. 109; vol. 6, p. 248; vol. 7, p. 442.

170 For William Baldwin, see Foley, vol. 3, pp. 501 et seq.; vol. 7, p. 42.

171 Pierre Paunet, Bishop of Saint-Omer, died 31 March 1631. The Vicar-Capitular was the Dean, Christophe Morlet, who was appointed Bishop in succesion to Paunet in July 1632. (Meerbeeck, note to letter cited at note 168 above.)

172 AV, Nunziatura di Francia 74, ff. 174–175. Microfilm penes me. Perche qua si avvisa, che Monsr Nuntio di Fiandra habbia tentato supprimere questo libro, e gli altri simili con pigliarli esse tutte dallo stampatore, e che sia stato impedito dalli Spagnoli, s'interpreta, che tal cosa si prenda per un affare di stato, quasi che gli stessi Spagnoli desideranno e si aiutano disporse in Francia le desunioni d'Inghilterra.

173 ARSI, Angha Epist.Gen. 1605–41, vol. 1, pt. 2, ff. 327v, 328. Photocopy at APSI.

174 Ibid f. 334v.

175 A contemporary authenticated copy of the Brief is at AAW, A25, no. 93. English summary in Hughes, pp. 378–80.

176 A contemporary copy of Smith's letter to the Pope is at AAW, A25, no. 125.

177 Hughes, pp. 387–89.

178 See art.cit. note 82, p. 138.

179 ARCR vol. 1, no. 498.

180 Renk Rapin, Histoire du Jansénisme, ed. of Paris, 1862, p. 282. Rapin, a contemporary, says he was told of Filesac's part in the publication by Antoine Vitrk, the Paris printer who printed PetriAurelii … opera, 1646. Vitrk, it seems, was a personal friend of Rapin's.

181 I shall discuss this in Part II of the article.

182 In the epilogue to Defensio decreti Sacrae Congregationis, 1634 (ARCR, vol. 1, nos. 485–86). This also will be discussed in Part II.

183 Janssen Letters, p. 513, Letter 162, dated 11 April 1631.

184 ARCR, vol. 1, no. 34–1.

185 ARSI, Anglia 33. vol. 2, ff. 237 et seq. Microfilm at APSI (Film 54).

186 See my foreword to the facsimile reprint of Southwell's edition published by the Gregg Press, London, 1969.

187 ARCR vol. 1, nos. 485–86.

188 George, Oliver (Collections towards illustrating the biography of the Scotch, English and Irish Members of the Society of Jesus, London, 1845, p. 94)Google Scholar rejects the attribution for his reason. Augustin and Alois, de Backer (Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus, Liège, 1853–61, ser. 4, pp. 224–28)Google Scholar query Floyd's authorship, citing Oliver and Southwell. Sommervogel, tom. 3, cols. 816–17, includes entries for these works under Floyd.

189 Shelf-mark: XTX.E.9.25.

190 OBA, vol. 1, no. 129. Autograph copy. This is the letter referred to at note 51. Southcote's correspondent is not named, but allusions in the text show that he is not Smith.

191 See Foley, vol. 3, pp. 522, et seq.; vol. 6, p. 215; vol. 7, p. 242; A&R 299–302.

192 See Anstruther, vol. 1, pp. 30–31. Anstruther's account of him should be supplemented by reference to documents at AAW (A series) which Anstruther inexplicably overlooks.

193 Aquaviva to Robert Jones in England, 19 February 1610. (APSI, English abstracts (p. 25) from ARSI. Anglia Epist.Gen. 1605–41.)

194 In vol. 7, ‘Collectanea’.

195 See Ann, M. C. Foster: ‘A Durham Family: Jenisons of Walworth’ (RH, April 1955, pp. 2–15).Google Scholar

196 See note 185.

197 AAW, A29, no. 35, p. 93. See note 139 above.