possessor is to bee preferred and Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est reo potius quam Actori When the rights or titles of the parties that are in suite are obscure or not cleere the Defendant is rather to be fauoured then the Plaintiffe And this is the first assured ground and principle for which the doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie may not only be barely and simply denyed as it is in the second clause of the Oath by force only of the words but also bee abhorred detested and abiured as impious damnable most cleerly repugnant to the Word of God and in that sense hereticall as it is in the fourth clause The second manifest principle is that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes and approued by many and therefore truely probable that the Pope hath no authority to depriue Princes of their Regall Power and Authoritie 12. For the better cleering whereof it is to be obserued sixtly that as Ioannes Azorius a famous Iesuite expresly affirmeth Azor. tom 2. lib. 11. c. 5. q. 8. it hath euer beene a great controuersie betwixt Emperours and Kings on the one side and the Bishops of Rome on the other whether in some certaine cases the Pope hath a right and power to depriue Kings of their Kingdome For some Kings haue oftentimes yea since the time of the great Lateran Councell contended with Popes about this matter saying that they haue their Kingdome from God and not from the Pope and that in those things which are ciuill and temporall the power of Kings is supreme and absolute and that herein Kings are not subiect to the Pope although in sacred Ecclesiasticall and spirituall things the Pontificall power is supreme and that herein Kings and Princes are subiect to Popes as children to their Fathers and sheepe to their Pastours c. And many complayned that Gregorie the seuenth did excommunicate Henry the fourth and depriue him of the administration of his Kingdom Thus Azor. And it is a controuersie among the Schoolemen saith Ioannes Trithemius Trithemius in Chron. Hirsaug ad annum 1106. and as yet it is not decided by the Iudge whether the Pope hath power to depose the Emperour or no. And the Ecclesiasticall power saith Iacobus Almainus Almain de dâ—minio natur ciu Eccles in probat 2. conclus a famous Doctor of Paris and whom Azor relateth Azor. tom 1. lib. 2. cap. 14. among Classicall Doctors cannot by the institution of God inflict any ciuill punishment as are death exile priuation of goods much lesse of Kingdomes c. Nay nor so much as imprison vt plerisque Doctoribus placet as is the opinion of most or of very many Doctors but it is extended only to a spirituall punishment as is Excommunication and the other punishments which she vseth doe proceed from the pure positiue Law or as Gerson speaketh Gerson de potest Eccles considerat 4. from the grant of Princes And the libertie of the Church of France saith Petrus Pithaeus Pithaeus in Cod. libert Eccles Gallicanae printed at Paris by authoritie of the Parliament in the yeere 1594. whom Antonius Posseuinus the Iesuite commendeth for a man truely learned and a diligent searcher of Antiquitie Posseuinus in verbo Petrus Pithaeus is grounded in this principle which France hath euer held for certaine that the Pope hath not power to depriue the French King of his Kingdome or in any other manner to dispose thereof And that notwithstanding any whatsoeuer Monitions or Monitories Excommunications or Interdicts which by the Pope can bee made yet the subiects are bound to yeeld obedience due to the King for temporals neither therein can they be dispenced or absolued by the Pope Which position is in very deed the whole substance both of our new Oath and also of the late Oath of France which the lower house of Parliament would haue had established for a fundamentall law 13. And to omit now many other learned Catholikes cited by Widdrington Widdrington in his Answere to Fitzherb part 1. that it is a controuersie among Catholikes and approued by many and therefore truly probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose Princes it is so manifest that no learned man vnlesse hee will bee shamefully impudent can denie it and the publike Writings of learned Catholikes on both sides See beneath in the end of this Treatise the Oath of FraÌ„ce the condemnation of Suarez and Bell. Booke and a decree of the Parliament of Paris touching the doctrine of the Popes power to depose the proceedings of the Parliament of Paris against the Bookes of Cardinall Bellarmine of Schulckenius and of Suarez the propounding of the aforenamed Oath by the lower house of Parliament wherein of two hundred Knights and Burgesses there were but fix Protestants besides the complaint of some Doctors of Paris to the Colledge of Sorbon against the Controuersia Anglicana of Becanus and infinite other testimonies of learned men of our owne Nation not only of those who haue taken the Oath or thinke it to be lawfull but also of many others doe most cleerly conuince the same In so much that Cardinall Peron Card. Peron in his speech to the lower house of Parliament compelled by so manifest a truth doth plainly confesse the same and thereupon acknowledgeth that the Pope himselfe doth in France tolerate those Catholikes that hold against him in this point tolerate I say not as publike Vsurers Harlots or other notorious sinners are in some Countries permitted but by admitting them to Sacraments which neither the Pope nor the Prelates of France could lawfully doe if for holding that doctrine those Frenchmen were to bee condemned of Heresie Errour Temeritie or any other damnable sinne So that it is most cleere manifest to any man of iudgment that it is a great controuersie among learned Catholikes and that it is approued by many of them and therefore truly probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose or depriue Soueraigne Princes See also the Authour of the Potestants Apologie for the Roman Church in his Preface from Sect. 19. to the end where you may see his dislike of this doctrine for the Popes authoritie to depose Princes and taxeth them who ouercharge the supreme Pastour with incompetent attributes of Authoritie in temporals and in his owne authentical Manuscript he more particularly and expresly shewed that the Pope hath no Authority in temporals either directly or indirectly which last words it pleased those who had commission to print his Booke to leaue out whereof he greatly complained to a friend of mine And likewise for the dislike which this learned Authour shewed in his Preface of this authoritie of the Pope to dispose of temporals it pleased the Authour who translated his Booke into Latine to leaue out the Preface altogether which neuerthelesse is a chiefe part of his Booke and it deserued to bee put in Latine as much if not
Oath that doe any way appertayne to the Ciuill and Temporall Obedience due to His Maiestie whom hee acknowledgeth for his true and lawfull King and Soueraigne ouer all His Domioions And Martinus Becanus a famous Iesuite in the first Edition of his Controuersia Anglicana writeth thus Becanus in Controuersia Anglic cap. 3. p. 102 And truly to me it is certaine that all the parts and propositions of the Oath are not false if they bee well declared For these are true first that King Iames is lawfull King of England Scotland and Ireland Secondly that in the same Kingdomes he is the Supreme or Soueraigne Lord in Temporalls 2. First therefore if wee consider the end of this Oath which is only to make profession of our temporall Allegiance and to make a true distinction not betwixt Catholikes and Protestants c. the expresse declaration of His Maiestie and the rules before mentioned in the second and third Obseruation it is euident that by those wordes Soueraigne Lord is not to be vnderstood the Kings Supremacie in Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall but only in Temporall and Ciuill causes 3. Secondly it is also euident that albeit by force of the expresse wordes and the plaine and common vnderstanding of the same to which the seuenth branch of this Oath tyeth the swearer wee are bound only to acknowledge that King Iames is lawfull and rightfull King of this Realme and of all other His Maiesties Dominions and Countries and not that Hee is the Soueraigne Lord of the same both for that those words Soueraigne Lord are put only ex parte subiecti and not ex parte predicati and therefore by vertue of the words are not affirmed as likewise he that stileth the Pope most holy and most blessed doth not affirme him to bee most holy and most blessed vnlesse the words most holy most blessed be put ex parte predicati also that if we regard the force and vertue of those words Soueraigne Lord they haue not the same sense which the words lawfull and rightfull King haue seeing that one may be a lawfull and rightfull King and yet not the Soueraigne Lord of His Kingdome as if the Emperour should make the great Duke of Toscan King of Hetruria he would be lawfull and rightfull King of that Countrie and yet not the Soueraigne or Supreme Lord of the same because hee is as a feudarie subiect to the Emperour Neuerthelesse because the lawfull and rightfull King of England is also the Soueraigne Lord of the same by reason and vertue of the matter we may lawfully and if it bee demanded at our hands are bound to acknowledge and sweare that King Iames is not only the lawfull and rightfull King of England of all other His Maiesties Dominions but also the Soueraigne or Supreme Lord of the same And in this sense both the XIII Priests and also M. Greene vnderstood the word Soueraigne in their Protestation and Declaration 4. Neither is it to the purpose which some obiect that the King of England is the Popes Vassall and as a feudarie subiect to him in Temporals and therefore the Pope and not King Iames is the absolute Soueraigne and supreme Lord in Temporals of this Kingdome For although wee should absurdly admit that for the title and clayme of Temporall Soueraigntie which the Pope pretendeth to haue ouer this Kingdome by vettue of some grant of former Kings may bee brought some probable proofe as there cannot seeing that it is euident that no King of England hath authoritie to giue away His Kingdome or make it subiect in Temporals to another Prince without the consent of the Kingdome it selfe and that no colour of any probable proofe can bee brought from any Authenticall Instrument to shew that the Kingdome of England euer consented to any such grant yet considering that no probable title can bee a sufficient ground to depriue any man of that Right Dominion or any other thing which he actually possesseth but such a title must bee most certaine and out of all controuersie as I shewed aboue in the Fift Obseruation it is manifest that notwithstanding any such probable title euery subiect of this Land may lawfully acknowledge by Oath that King Iames is not only the lawful and rightfull King of this Realme and of all other His Maiesties Dominions and Countries but also the Soueraigne or supreme temporall Lord of the same CHAP. II. The Second Branch of the Oath and an Explication thereof ANd that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or See of Rome or by any other meanes which any other hath any Power or Authoritie to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forraigne Prince to inuade or annoy Him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subiects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Maiestie or to giue license or leaue to any of them to beare Armes rayse Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to His Maiesties Royal Person State or Gouernment or to any of His Maiesties subiects within His Maiesties Dominions 1. This Branch supposing the former Obseruations hath in it no difficultie at all although wee should admit that the immediate obiect thereof or which is all one that which in this Branch by force of the words we are bound immediately to sweare is not only our sincere acknowledgement and perswasion but also that absolutely and assuredly the Pope hath not any authoritie to depose the King c. For considering that the whole tenour of this Branch tendeth to practise namely to depose to dispose to inuade annoy beare Armes rayse Tumults offer violence or hurt and to discharge subiects of their Allegiance and also that it is a doctrine approoued by many learned Catholikes and who haue examined all the arguments on both sides and consequently that it is truely probable that the Pope hath no authoritie to depriue Princes or to dispose of their Temporals it is as cleere and manifest that any man whether hee bee the Kings subiect or no what opinion soeuer he followeth in speculation concerning the Popes authoritie to depriue Princes yet hee may as certainly acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to depose the King that is to practize his deposition or any other of those things mentioned in this Branch as it is cleere and manifest that hee may certainly acknowledge and sweare that the Pope hath no authoritie to commit open iniustice and that in a doubtfull vncertaine and disputable case the condition of the possessour is to bee preferred 2. Neither doe temporall Princes or other priuate men that haue any thing in their possessiō greatly regard what learned men who by the subtiltie of their wits can easily finde out some probable colour of a broken and pretended title may speculatiuely dispute in Schooles concerning their titles so that in practice notwithstanding such disputations and speculations they bee secured from
plaine and common signification of the wordes and the rules before alleaged For albeit this word Successour may in generall bee taken for euery Successour who either vnlawfully or vnlawfull doth succeed yet particularly and properly when it is placed in a Law it is vsually taken only for a lawfull Successour wherefore according to that rule of the Ciuill Law before mentioned in the second Obseruation that the doubtfull words of euery Law must be taken in that sense which is without default this word Successours must in this Oath established by His Maiesties Law bee limited only to lawfull Successours and who according to the Lawes of the Kingdome doe succeed For as according to Law Id tantum possumus quod iure possumus We can only doe that which wee can doe lawfully or by Law so according to Law he only is accounted to succeed who by lawfull right doth succed Whereupon the Ciuill Lawyers doe define Inheritance to be a succeding to all the right of one deceased and an Heire who succeedeth him in all his right without adding lawfull succeeding or lawfully succeedeth for that it is alwayes so to bee vnderstood and therefore being necessarily supposed it is not expressed but altogether omitted in the definitions of an Heire and of Inheritance And whensoeuer in the Common or Statute Lawes of this Kingdome any mention is made of the King and his Successours this word lawfull is but few times added although alwayes it ought to be vnderstood 6 Thirdly it is also euident by the former Obseruations that by those words Treasons and Trayterous Conspiracies are only vnderstood true proper and naturall Treasons and which among all Nations what Religion soeuer they professe are accounted Treasons and repugnant to naturall Alleagiance and Temporall and Ciuill Obedience and not such Treasons which in regard chiefly of Religion are by the positiue Lawes of some Nations made Treasons and accounted Treasons onely for that they are punished with the penalties which are due to proper and naturall Treasons as are the comming in of English Priests into this Kingdome made by the Popes authoritie and all reconcilements to the Pope though in matters that concerne Religion For as His Maiestie and the Parliament haue declared the only intent of this Oath is to contayn the profession of naturall Allegiance and such ciuill and temporall dutie and obedience which euery true and well-affected subiect ought by the Law of God to beare to their lawfull Prince and Soueraigne with a promise to resist and disclose all contrarie vnciuill violence For to preuent such hainous attempts and mischiefes which in time to come might be plotted by the example of the Powder-Traytours who vnder colour of Religion attempted that barbarous and deuillish Conspiracie this forme of Oath was framed saith His Maiestie In his Apologie pag. 2. nu 2. to bee taken by all my subiects whereby they should make cleere profession of their resolution faithfully to persist in obedience vnto me acrording to their naturall Allegiance to the end that I might hereby make a separation not only betweene all my good subiects in generall and vnfaithfull Traytours that intended to draw themselues from my Obedience but specially to make a separation betweene so many of my subiects who although they were otherwise Popishly affected yet retayned in their hearts the print of their naturall dutie to their Soueraigne and those who being carryed away with the like fanaticall zeale that the Powder-Traytours were could not contayne themselues within the bounds of their naturall Allegiance but thought diuersitie of Religion a safe pretext for all kinde of Treasons and Rebellions against their Soueraigne Wherby it is apparant that only such Treasons and Trayterous Conspiracies are here vnderstood which are repugnant and contrarie to naturall Allegiance and not such Treasons which are not naturall Treasons but only in regard of Religion are by positiue Lawes made Treasons and to be punished with the ordinary penalties of true proper and naturall Treason And in this sense also those thirteene Reuerend Priests vnderstood the words Conspiracies Attempts and Practises in their Protestation CHAP. IIII. The Fourth Branch of the Oath and an Explication thereof ANd I doe further sweare That I doe from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position That Princes which bee excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer 1. Although this Branch may at the first sight seeme somewhat suspicious in regard of that word hereticall yet if it be duly examined according to the former Obseruations it will easily appeare that it contayneth no such difficultie as some impugners of the Oath would seeme to imagine but that if it bee lawfull to abhorre detest and abiure the aforesaid position as cleerely false and iniurious to Princes which the former Discourse doth plainly conuince it is also lawfull to abiure it as hereticall or which is all one as contayning in it a falshood which is repugnant not onely to naturall reason but also to the Word of God reuealed in the holy Scriptures For as euery Doctrine and position which is agreeable to that truth which God hath reuealed is to be accounted of faith so contrariwise euerie Doctrine and position which contayneth in it a falshood which is repugnant to the Word of God reuealed in the holy Scriptures is to be accounted hereticall and repugnant to faith And in this sence the word hereticall is not onely by all Protestants but also by many learned Catholique Diuines commonly and vsually taken as Widdrington hath shewed at large in his answer to Fitz herbert Widdrington in his Adioinder to the first and second part 5. Neyther is it necessarie that we must take the word hereticall as likewise no other ambiguous word contayned in this Oath in that strict and rigorous sense wherein some Catholickes take the word hereticall to wit for that doctrine which not onely contayneth a falshood repugnant to the holy Scriptures but also which by the Church or a generall Councell which representeth the Church is expresly and particularly declared and defined so to be but it sufficeth that we take the word hereticall in a proper and vsuall signification and wherin Catholickes doe commonly take it especially when this common sense is agreeable to the meaning and vnderstanding of the Law-maker for that according to the approued rule before set downe in the second obseruation in a penall and odious matter when the wordes of any Law are doubtfull or ambiguous and there be many common senses of the same word or sentence we ought to take them in that common sense which is more fauourable especially when it is not against the meaning of the Law-maker 6. Neither also is it necessarie to make any Doctrine or Position to be hereticall that the proposition with all particular circumstances therein expressed must bee contained in the holy Scriptures but it sufficeth that it contain
A NEW-YEARES GIFT FOR ENGLISH CATHOLIKES OR A Briefe and cleare Explication of the New Oath of Allegiance By E. I. Student in Diuinitie For a more full Instruction and appeasement of the consciences of English Catholikes concerning the said OATH then hath beene giuen them by I. E. Student in Diuinitie who compiled the Treatise of the PRELATE and the PRINCE 1. PET. 2. Feare God Honour the King I H S. MATTH 22. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and the things that are Gods to God With licence of Superiours 1620. A BRIEFE SVMMARIE of what is contained in this TREATISE 1. FIrst An Admonition to English Catholiks to examin their cōsciences exactly concerning this New Oath of Allegiance for that by refusing the same if it bee lawfull and ministred by good and full authoritie as this Treatise conuinceth it to bee they hazard not only their temporall estates but also their eternall saluation by disobeying and resisting lawfull authoritie and the ordinance of Almightie God 2. Secondly are set downe a Copie of the new Oath of Allegiance The 13. Priests Protestation Mr. Iohn Colletons Petition wherein hee confirmeth his former Protestation and the Acknowledgement of Mr. Thomas Greene a Religious Priest of the order of Saint Benedict and Professour of Diuinitie concerning his opinion of the said Oath of Allegiance with certaine notes and Obseruations added by the Authour to the said Protestation Acknowledgement 3. Thirdly Certaine generall Obseruations are set downe to know first the nature and conditions of euery lawfull Oath Secondly what rules are to be obserued for the vnderstanding and interpreting of the true sense and meaning of any ambiguous word or sentence contained in any Law and consequently in this Oath of Allegiance established by a Parliamentall Law Thirdly what was the intent and meaning of his Maiestie and the Parliament in framing and proposing this new and vnwonted Oath of Allegiance deuised vpon occasion of that vnwonted Barbarous and Deuillish Conspiracie of the Powder-Traytours to wit not to make a distinction betwixt Protestants Catholikes but between Catholikes Catholikes in point of their loyaltie and ciuill obedience especially concerning the Popes authority to practise the deposition of Princes which was the ground of that dānable Powder-Treason Fourthly to know vpon what assured grounds the Popes authoritie to depose Princes or to practise their deposition may not only be barely denyed but also abiured as damnable impious and hereticall to wit for that it is a controuersie among learned Catholikes whether the Pope hath authoritie to depriue Princes or no and consequently that it is open iniustice in the Pope and manifest Treason in the Subiect to attempt the dispossessing of any Soueraigne Prince by vertue of this pretended authoritie and clayme so long as this Controuersie remayneth a foot and is not decided by a lawfull Iudge and who without all doubt and Controuersie is known so to bee Fiftly page 64. it is shewed that the Pope is no lawfull Iudge to end and decide this Controuersie concerning his own pretēded authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes for that it is a Controuersie among Learned Catholikes and approued by very many famous Prelates Cardinals and Doctours cited by the Authour that the Pope without the consent and approbation of a lawfull and vndoubted generall Councell hath not authoritie to decide determine or define any doctrinal question at all and much lesse in his owne particular cause as is this Controuersie betwixt Him and Christian Princes and that therefore although hee should take vpon him to decide this question yet the Controuersie would still remayne a foote and bee vndecided as it was before 4. Fourthly In the first eight Chapters it is cleerly shewed that there is not any one Clause of the Oath which wanteth either Veritie Iustice or Iudgement and that therefore English Catholikes not only may lawfully but also are bound in conscience to take it when they are vrged thereunto by the Magistrate whom the Prince and State hath appointed to tender the same otherwise they resist lawfull authoritie and the Ordinance of God which whosoeuer resist purchase to themselues damnation Rom. 13. 5. Fiftly In the ninth and last Chapter are cleerly answered the Popes declaratiue Breues forbidding English Catholikes to take the Oath for that it contayneth many things which are manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation which Breues therefore doe not make but only suppose the Oath to bee vnlawfull as contayning in it some manifest falshood or iniustice and therefore abstracting from the Popes Breues some particular clause of the Oath must be proued to be vnlawfull which this Treatise doth euidently conuince to bee vntrue And first in this Chapter it is shewed that it is no disobedience or irreuerence not to obey such declaratiue Breues seeing that they are grounded vpon one of these two or rather vpon both false suppositions to wit that either the doctrine for the Popes power to depriue Princes is certaine of Faith and out of all Controuersie and the contrarie not approued by learned Catholikes which supposition is manifestly false or else that the Popes power to excommunicate to bind and loose and to absolue from Oaths in general and consequently his Spirituall authoritie is denyed in the Oath which also is no lesse vntrue and that therefore English Catholikes not only may lawfully and without any disobedience or irreuerence but also are bound in conscience not to obey them considering that they are so preiudiciall to themselues so scandalous to the Catholike Roman Religion which they professe and so iniurious to their Soueraign Prince who being in reall possession of his Kingdome cannot vpon any controuersed Title or Power with out open iniustice bee dispossessed thereof Secondly it is shewed that albeit diuers Popes haue since the time of Pope Gregorie the VII challenged to themselues authoritie to depriue Soueraigne Princes yet they cannot bee truly said to haue beene for any little time in possession of this their pretended authoritie right and clayme for that they haue euer beene resisted and contradicted by Christian Princes and Subiects in this their pretended right and clayme wheras to possesse authoritie right or clayme to any thing it is necessary according to the approued doctrine of Molina and Lessius both Iesuites and of all Diuines and Lawyers that it bee without resistance and contradiction of the aduerse part but one may truly and really possesse corporall things as Lands Houses Kingdomes although hee that pretendeth to haue right to the same yea and perchance hath true right thereunto contradict and resist neuer so much Thirdly it is shewed that howsoeuer any man may vnder pretence of following a probable opinion thinke himselfe excused in conscience and in the sight of God wherewith Princes in their Tribunals doe not meddle but leaue mens consciences to the iudgement of God the only searcher of all mens hearts by concurring with the Pope to the deposing and dispossessing of his Soueraigne Prince yet
of the Law and declaration of the Law-maker only temporall Allegiance is demanded for that by the end and reason of the Law the ambiguitie of the words saith Suarez Suarez lib. 6. de Legibus cap. 1. nu 19. is chiefly to be determined and it is morally a sure meanes to finde out the will and intention of the Law-maker especially that reason which is expressed in the Law for then the reason of the Law is in some sort a part thereof because it is contayned and supposed therein 8. Fourthly it is to bee obserued that albeit English Catholikes might at the first before they examined particularly the end reason matter and contents of this new Oath iustly suspect it to be vnlawfull and to contayne in it more then temporall Allegiance and that His Maiestie and the Parliament vnder pretence of demanding that temporall Allegiance which by the Law of God and Nature is due to all temporall Princes did intend to haue couertly at leastwise abiured some spirituall obedience which by the institution of Christ is due to spirituall Pastours both for that it is a new vncouth and vnwonted Oath of Allegiance and expresly denyeth the Popes authoritie to depose wherewith other Christian Princes in the ordinarie Oaths of Allegiance which they demand of their subiects doe not in plaine and expresse termes intermeddle and also for that it was deuised by those who are opposite to the Catholike Romane Religion yet this bare suspicion can bee no sufficient cause ground or motiue to condemne it as likewise no man vpon a bare suspicion is to be condemned but only to haue it examined and if after due examination it be found faulty to reiect it if otherwise to approue it But doubtlesse whosoeuer will sincerely and with a pure desire to find out the truth and to yeeld without all partialitie as wel to Kings as to Popes that which is their due examine the occasion end matter and contents of this new and vnwonted Oath will quickly finde that it is condemned by some vpon a bare and naked suspicion and without due examination by others vpon a blind and inconsiderate zeale to the See Apostolike not regarding in like manner the dutie which by the Law of God they owe to their temporall Prince and by all that thinke it vnlawfull without sufficient ground 9. For the occasion of this vnwonted Oath was that vnwonted barbarous Powder-plot of certaine Catholikes who pretended to iustifie their neuer heard of Barbarisme vnder the colour of Religion and the Popes authoritie to dispose of the Crownes and liues of temporall Princes in order to spirituall good and so no maruell that to preuent the like vnwonted crueltie was deuised this vnwonted remedie And albeit the inuenters of this Oath are opposite to the Catholike Romane Religion and are fully perswaded that the Pope by the Law of God hath no authoritie ouer this Kingdome so much as in spiritualls yet there meaning was not as you haue seene aboue to meddle in this Oath with that spirituall authoritie which is granted him by all Catholikes but only to demand a profession of that temporall Allegiance which all the Subiects of this Land of what Religion soeuer they be doe owe to their temporall Prince and not to the Pope 10. And therefore which is carefully to bee obserued this Oath doth not meddle positiuely with the Popes authoritie for that it doth not belong to temporall Princes to declare what authoritie the Pope hath but it medleth positiuely with the Kings temporall Soueraigntie and negatiuely with the Popes authoritie and it doth not declare ◅ what authoritie the Pope hath but only what authoritie hee hath not And what man I pray you can bee so blinde as not to see that whosoeuer expresly affirmeth King Iames to bee his true and rightfull King and Soueraigne in temporalls and to haue ouer him and his other Subiects all Kingly Power Authority and Iurisdiction doth consequently and vertually deny the same of the Pope Wherefore if wee well examine the matter and contents of this vnwonted Oath wee shall find that His Maiestie and the State doe herein deny no other authoritie of the Pope expresly and by name then which not only in the Protestation of those thirteene Catholike Priests but also in all other vsuall Oaths of Allegiance which absolute Princes are wont to demand of their Subiects is vertually couertly and in effect implyed For whosoeuer sincerely and from his heart acknowlegeth any Prince to be his only rightfull King and Soueraigne in temporals which all absolute Princes in their vsuall Oaths of Allegiance demand of their Subjects hee must vertually acknowledge that the Pope is not his Soueraigne Lord in temporals and consequently that he hath no authoritie ouer his Prince or him in temporals and therefore neither to depose his Prince or to dispose of His temporall Dominions for that these are tēporal things for what end cause crime or pretext soeuer either spirituall or temporall they be done 11. Fiftly to know vpon what assured grounds the Popes authoritie to depose Princes or to attempt and practise their deposition is by Catholikes denyed in this Oath it is to be obserued that as Leonardus Lessius a famous Iesuite noteth very well Lessius in his Singleton part 2. nu 38. a power which is not altogether certaine but probable cannot be a sufficient ground or title whereby immediately any man may bee punished or depriued of that right dominion or any other thing which he actually possesseth but such a power or title must bee most certaine and without all doubt or controuersie Wherefore neither can the Pope nor any other Prince without manifest iniustice inuade the Kingdome of another Prince make warre against him or seeke to depose or dispossesse him vpon a probable vncertaine or controuersed title For certes saith the Authour of the Prelate and the Prince and who is knowne to bee a famous Doctor and Professor of Diuinity though masked vnder the name of I. E. Cap. 11. pag. 235. as it is iniustice to put one out of his land or house who hath probable right and and withall possession because poti◅r est conditio possidentis better is the condition of him that is in possession So were it open iniustice in the Pope to depriue a King of his Crowne and Kingdome who hath probable right and withall possession And this also is the receiued doctrine of all Diuines and Lawyers Victoria in Relect de ture belli nu 29. seq Vasquez 1. 2. disp 64. cap. 3. Gregorius de Valentia 2. 2. and Pope Adrian with many others cited by Valentia and grounded in the light of naturall reason and declared by the approued rules of the Law that no man can bee iustly inuaded or be put out of his possession vpon an vncertaine or controuersed title because In causa dubia siue incerta potior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull or disputable cause the condition of the
that false and peruerse opinion shall be held for seditious and to bee censured All Strangers that shall write and publish it for sworne Enemies of the Crowne All his Maiesties Subiects that shall adhere vnto it of what qualitie or condition soeuer they be for Rebels infringers of the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and guiltie of Treason in the higstest degree And if there be found any booke or Discourse written by any Stranger Ecclesiastike or of any other qualitie that containeth any proposition contrarie to the said Law directly or indirectly the Ecclesiastikes of the same Order established in France shall be bound to answere them to impugne and contradict them incessantly without respect ambiguitie or equiuocation vnder paine of being punished with the same punishments as aboue said as abetters of the enemies of this State This Article is in effect and substance all one with our new Oath of Allegiance and the lawfulnesse thereof is manifest by the former Discourse and how greatly Card. Peron was mistaken in impugning the said Article Widdrington sheweth both in his Answere to Fitz-herbert part 3. chap. 11. num 15. seq and in his Discussion of the decree of the Lateran Councell against Lessius part 2. sec 9. and part 3. sec 9. A Copie of the Arrest or Decree of the Parliament of Paris wherein Card. Bellarmine his booke against William Barclay is condemned Taken out of the Records of the Court of Parliament the 26. of Nouember 1610. THis present day the Kings Solicitours Lewis Seruin the Kings Attorney making the Declaration and Lewis Duret the Kings Aduocate subscribing aduertised the Court that it was related to them that some few daies since there hath beene divulged in this city of Paris a new booke entituled Tractatus de potestate Summi Pontificis in temporalibus aduersus Gulielmum Barclaium Auctore Roberto S. R. E. Cardinale Bellarmino Romae per Bartholomaeum Zannetti printed this present yeere out of which booke diuers persons some with a good intent and others with an euill haue divulged many things which they haue collected from thence And because this Booke doth containe propositions which are preiudiciall to the Kings power and authoritie and to the State of France of whom the Author speaketh in the same manner as of other Kings Princes and Common-wealths they haue through their care gotten a Copie thereof which they hauing exactly read and examined thought it their duties to aduertise the Parliament of those things which are against the Powers established by God and especially against this Kingdome Wherefore they haue obserued that Cardinall Bellarmine doth in this new Treatise not only teach those propositions which hee affirmed in his former books as in that booke which is intituled De Romani Pontificis Hierarchia written in the time of Pope Sixtus the V. and dedicated to the said Pope which he hath deuided into fiue books in the last whereof hee maintaineth that the Pope hath temporall power indirectly But they also haue obserued that to this erroneous assertion others no lesse false and tending further are added in the places by them cited which the Parliament if it be so pleased may behould And first the very Title is to be obserued wherein he giueth to the Pope a power in temporals Then hee bringeth diuerse authorities from the writings of Italians French-men Spaniards Germans English Scots beginning with Pope Gregorie the VII who liued in the yeere of our Lord 1073. c. Wherefore to the end that fraud and deceit may for the safegard of true French men be preuented the aforesaid Attorney generall considering that in regard of Conscience and the office which hee beareth in being the Kings Attorney he is bound sincerely to discharge his duty produceth Cardinall Bellarmines booke which was written when our King Henry the Great was liuing in whose raigne none durst aduenture to diuulge the same but published forthwith as soone as he was dead wherein hee hath noted diuers places which the Parliament may peruse especially pag. 37 38. 57. 58. and 76. 77. to which may be added 160. 115. 116. And moreouer he exhibiteth in written hand the requests which the Kings Attorneys doe in the Kings name demand to wit that by Decree of the Parliament it be enacted That none of what qualitie or condition soeuer shall receiue haue keepe print or vtter this booke of Bellarmine vnder paine of Treason ordained against those that shal transgresse the same c. The matter being examined The great Chamber Criminall and of the Edict being assembled THe Court hath decreed and doth decree that no person of what qualitie or condition soeuer vnder payne of Treason ordayned against those that transgresse the same doe receiue keepe communicate print vtter or sell the said Booke which contayneth that false and detestable proposition tending to the subuersion of supreme Powers established and ordayned by God inciting Subiects to rebellion and derogating from the authoritie of Princes animating to attempt against their liues and Crownes and finally to disturbe the publike peace and quietnesse Those that haue Copies of the saide Booke or know any that haue are commanded forthwith to make it knowne to their Iudges that vpon the demand of the Kings Attorneys Inquisition bee made against the Crime and those that be guiltie be punished accordingly It forbiddeth vnder the same punishment Doctours Professours and others to treat dispute write teach directly or indirectly in Schooles Colledges or other places the said proposition The said Court doth ordayne that this Decree bee sent read published recorded and obserued according to the afore said manner and forme in all the Benches subiect to the Iurisdiction of this Court. The Substitutes to the Kings Attorney are commanded to cause forthwith this Decree to be put in execution and to aduertise the Court within a moneth of their diligence Made in Parliament vpon Friday 26. Nouemb. 1610. Signed VOISIN The decree being made the Kings Attorneys were sent for to whom the pleasure of the Court was signified and according to the Decree the said Booke of Bellarmine was deliuered to their hands A Decree of the Court of Parliament made the 26. and executed the 27. of Iune 1614. Against a Booke printed at Collen this present yeare which is entituled Francisci Suarez Granatensis Societatis Iesu doctoris Theologi Defensio fidei Catholicae Apostolicae aduersus Anglicanae sectae errores contayning many maximes and propositions contrarie to the Soueraigne powers of Kings ordayned and established by God the safetie of their persons the peace and quietnesse of their States The Place ✚ where the Kings armes of France and Nauarre are set At Paris By F. Morel and P. Mettayer the Kings ordinarie Printers and Stationers 1614. With his Maiesties Priuiledge Taken out of the Records of the Parment The Court of the great Chamber Criminall and of the Edict assembled hauing seene the Booke printed at Collen this present yeare entituled Francisci Suarez Granatensis Societatis