A COPY OF THE DECREE WHEREIN TWO BOOKES OF ROGER WIDDRINGTON an English Cathotholick are condemned and the Author commanded to purge himselfe AND A Copy of the Purgation which the same ROGER WIDDRINGTON sent to his Holinesse Pope Paul the fift Translated out of Latine into English by the Author whereunto he hath also adioined an Admonition to the Reader concerning the Reply of T. F. c. and the condemnation of Fa Suarez booke by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris He that iustifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the iust both are abhominable before God Prou. 17. IHS Permissu Superiorum 1614. To the Reader THere came forth some few monethes since Christian Reader out of the supreme tribunall of the holy Inquisition a Decree printed at Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber to be published throughout the whol Christian world wherein two Bookes which I wrote with a simple and sincere intention are condemned and the Author commanded to purge himselfe forthwith I haue obeyed their command and made forthwith my purgatition and haue done as much as lyeth in me to send it forthwith to his Holinesse But because that Decree is printed and published in euery place and the purgation which I haue sent is only in written hand lest Catholikes should perchance imagine that I haue not been carefull to fulfill his Holinesse command for purging my selfe I thought it necessarie to Print also and publish that manuscript purgation which I haue sent which otherwise without doubt would come into few mens hands that so the whole world may sincerely iudge as well of my purgation as of that condemnation of my bookes and whether I am to be accounted a Catholike and a child of the Church or an Heretike and an enemie thereof as some men very irreligiously yet vnder pretext forsooth of religion are not afraid I pray God forgiue them to giue forth speeches of me Thy brother and seruant in Iesus Christ ROGER WIDDRINGTON A Copy of the Decree A DECREE To bee published euery where made by the Sacred Congregation of the most Honourable Cardinals of the holy Romane Church specially deputed by our most Holy Lord Pope Paule the fifth and the holy Apostolike Sea for the examination of bookes and their permission prohibition purgation and impression throughout the vniuersall common-wealth THe Sacred Congregation of the most Honorable Cardinals of the holy Romane Church deputed for the examination of Bookes hauing seene a Booke falsly intituled An Apologie of Cardinall Bellarmine for the right of Princes against his owne reasons for the Popes authority to depose Secular Princes in order to spirituall good written by Roger Widdrington an English Catholike in the yeare of our Lord 1611. And another Book of the same Authour intituled A Theologicall Disputation concerning the Oath of Allegiance dedicated to the most Holy Father Pope Paule the fifth printed at Albionopolis in the yeare of our Lord 1613. hath iudged both the Bookes worthy to bee condemned and prohibited and by the commaundement of our most Holie Lord Pope Paul the fifth doth by this present Decree vtterly condemne and prohibite them in what language soeuer they are printed or to be printed and except the Author of them who professeth himself to be a Catholike do purge or cleere himselfe forthwith hee is to vnderstand that he shall bee throughly punished with Censures and other Ecclesiasticall punishments Furthermore it commandeth vnder the penalties contained in the holy Councell of Trent and in the Index of forbidden Bookes that none of what degree or condition soeuer be so bold from henceforth to print the foresaid bookes or cause them to be printed or keepe them with him in any sort or reade them Also it commandeth vnder the same penalties that whosoeuer haue them now or shal haue them hereafter he shall presently vpon the knowledge of this present Decree exhibite them to the Ordinaries of the places where he is or the Inquisitours In testimony whereof this present Decree was signed and sealed with the hand and seale of the most Honorable and most Reuerend Lord the Lord Cardinall of S. Caecilia Byshop of Alba the 10. of March 1614. P. Byshop of Alba Card. of S. Caecilia The place †for the Seale Regist fol. 50. Fr. Thomas Pallauicinus of the Order of Preachers Secretarie Printed in Rome by the Printer of the Apostolicall Chamber 1614. An Admonition to the Reader concerning the Reply of T. F. c. 1 THis Decree of the Sacred Congregation as it is thus translated into English I haue Courteous Reader taken out of M. T. F. lately published whose vnsound and insufficient handling this Controuersie but yet somewhat cunning and colourable and therefore easie to blinde the eyes of the simple I will God willing ere it be long most clearely but modestly discouer In the meane time thou maiest very plainely perceiue the weaknesse of his Discourse to omit his intemperate and vncharitable bitternesse if thou dost but consider the true state of the Controuersie which is betwixt vs and that all his Replies must be either euident demonstrations or inuincible authorities to which no probable answer can be giuen otherwise he onely beateth about the bush and will neuer prooue that which he pretended to conuince and wilt also be pleased but sleightly to reade ouer the Appendix to my Theologicall Disputation wherein I fully answered all the arguments which Fa Suarez bringeth to demonstrate the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be a point of faith which Doctrine as this Authour confesseth is the maine question between him and me and therefore for the better confirmation of his Reply hee nakedly vrgeth all Fa Suarez arguments but concealing his name which I in that Appendix haue already fully satisfied 2 For first I plainely declared the reason of that distinction which I alledged betwixt the Popes power to command temporals and to punish temporally by way of coërtion which distinction seemeth greatly to trouble this Author because he perceiueth that it satisfieth the chiefest Arguments which are vsually brought from the authoritie of many Canons and from the nature and effects of Excommunication to prooue that the Pope hath power not onely by the priuiledges of Princes but also by Christ his institution and by consequence of his Pastorall office to dispose of temporals and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coërcion 3 Secondly I shewed that Marsilius of Padua whom with other enemies of the Church Suarez affirmeth to haue first impugned this Doctrine of deposing temporall Princes by the Popes spirituall authoritie was not by Catholike writers of former times accounted an heretick for that he did impugne this Doctrine neither do those Authours who relate Marsilius his errours as Castro Prateolus D. Sanders and others note this for one that the Pope hath not power to depose Princes which is an euident signe that before this our miserable age that Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes was not
will bee nothing dangerous to handle it probably against an other As for example if it were agreed vpon by all Catholikes that the Pope hath no power to depose his Maiestie then it were dangerous to his Maiestie that any Catholike should call this in question and dispute it probably but if on the contrarie side all Catholikes should agree in this that it were certaine vnquestionable and a point of faith that the Pope hath power to depose his Maiestie and to absolue his Subiects of their allegiance to command them to take armes against him c. then if a Catholike should call this in question or which is all one dispute it probably and maintaine that it is not certaine that the Pope hath such an authoritie but it is questionable and probable that hee hath it not no man of any sense or vnderstanding can affirme that such a manner of disputing this question probably against those Aduersaries who hold it for certaine can be any way dangerous or pernicious to his Maiestie 8 Now behold the manner that I haue taken in handling this Controuersie Card. Bellarmin Gretzer Lessius Becanus Suarez and other Diuines especially of the Society of Iesus whom this Authour doth in euery steppe as though he were their Creature follow haue laid this for a sure and vndoubted ground that it is a point of faith and to be beleeued as certaine and vnder paine of eternall damnation by all Catholikes that the Pope hath power to depose Princes to absolue Subiects from their Allegiance and thereupon to commaund them to beare Armes and raise tumults against their Prince so deposed So that you see that they already haue layd the danger and vndoubted ouerthrow to his Maiesties person and Crowne if the Pope should perchance depose him in that they affirme that all Catholikes are bound in conscience to forsake him and to fulfill the Popes commaund to the destruction of His Maiesties person and State This Doctrine to wit that it is a point of Faith and vndoubted principle of Catholike Religion that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and to inflict all temporal punishments by way of coercion and that all Catholikes are bound in conscience to forsake his Maiestie and to beare Armes against him in case the Pope should depose him I haue taken vpon me for two principall reasons to impugne and do not doubt cleerely to maintaine the same against the clamours of this Authour or any other whatsoeuer My first reason was for that it is against the truth and puritie of the Catholike Church She being the piller and ground of truth that doubtfull opinions and which among Catholikes are onely in Controuersie and by the Parliament of Paris haue beene condemned as scandalous seditious damnable and Pernitious should be enforced vpon English Catholikes as an vndoubted doctrine of the Catholike Faith to the vtter ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posterity by mē who are in no danger to loose but rather to gaine temporall aduancement thereby 9 My second reason was to assure His Maiestie that all English Catholikes may according to the grounds of Catholike Religion be true and constant Subiects and that notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication or depriuation denounced or to be denounced against his Maiestie by the Pope they may with a safe conscience marke well what I say and also in practise they are bound to adhere to his Maiestie and obey him in temporals as still remaining their true and lawfull Soueraigne and to resist any such sentence of Excommunication or depriuation The reason wherefore I affirmed that Catholikes might with a safe conscience adhere to his Maiestie and resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that it is a probable opinion and which with a safe conscience and without danger of Heresie error or temerity may bee embraced by Catholikes that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes nor to inflict temporall punishments by way of coërcion but that the last punishment to which the Ecclesiasticall power is extended are onely Ecclesiasticall and spiritual censures Wherefore that which this Author affirmeth that I confesse that it is probable that the Pope can depose Princes is vntrue vnlesse he meane that I confesse it for disputation sake or as we vsually say Dato non concesso it being giuen not graunted for that it maketh nothing for or against the question which is in hand Therefore positiuely I neither affirme it nor deny it neither with that part of the contradiction Whether it bee probable that the Pope can depose and whether it be probable that the Oath may not be taken doe I intermeddle but whereas our Aduersaries doe with so great violence mayntaine that it is certaine and an vndoubted doctrine of Faith that the Pope can depose and that the Oath cannot bee taken I at this present doe affirme the contrary That it is probable that the Pope cannot depose and that the Oath may lawfully be taken Neither doe I as this Authour imposeth vpon me take probable in that sense as Cicero in his Paradoxes did take it when he affirmed That nothing is so incredible which by arguing may not be made probable taking probable for that which hath som shew or color of probability or do I take probable for that which I hold for probable howsoeuer absurde it be as this Authour absurdly affirmeth that without doubt I doe but I doe take probable in that sense as Diuines doe take a probable opinion and which may be followed with a safe conscience as I declared out of Vasquez and hereafter against this Authour and his confused description of probable which serueth onely to intangle the consciences of the simple I will more at large declare in which sense no Heresie or erroneous doctrine can bee made probable the contrary being decided by the Church as this doctrin for the Popes power to depose neuer was but hath euer beene impugned by Catholike Writers vpon sufficient grounds and now lately condemned by the State of France as pernicious and damnable doctrine 10 But the second and principall reason which I brought for the securing of his Maiestie and which this Author T. F. fraudulently concealeth wherefore English Catholikes not onely may in speculation for the reason aforesaide but also in practise are bound to adhere to his Maiesty and to resist the Popes sentence of depriuation was for that supposing speculatiuely it be vncertaine whether the Pope hath any such power to depose a King or no it is an vndoubted rule among Lawyers and grounded vpon the light of nature and principles of Diuinity that in causa dubia siue incerta melior est conditio possidentis In a doubtfull and disputable case the state of him that is in possession is the better And againe Cum sunt iura partium obscura fauendum est reo potius quà m actori VVhen it is vnknowne which of the parties that are in suite hath right the defendant is to bee preferred before the
accounted by Catholickes to be a point of faith 4 Thirdly that from the time of Gregorie the seuenth who was the first Authour that cleerely taught this Doctrine but after he had first put it in practise and was the first Pope that contrarie to the custome of his Ancestors saith Onuphrius deposed the Roman Emperour for which cause he had much adoe to cleere himself euen with his own friends as appeareth by the Letter which Hermannus Bishop of Mentz his deare friend and follower in all such his proceedings wrote vnto him desiring to be satisfied herein and was by Sigebert who in those dayes was greatly esteemed by the wisest for his singular vertue and learning although Cardinal Baronius and Cardinall Bellarmine doe without sufficient ground call him a Scismatick at that time impeached of noueltie not to say of heresie for so bee Sigeberts words it hath been continually euen to these our daies contradicted by Catholike Authors as appeareth by Ioannes Trithemius a Jn Chronico Monasterii Hir. saug ad annum 1106. and Iacobus Almainus b In lib. a◠dominio naturali c. inprobatione conclus 2 ae there related but especially by the Kingdome of France as witnesseth Petrus Pithaeus c In codice libertatum Eccles Galli canae a man greatly commended by Fa Posseuine the Iesuit for his singular learning and knowledge in Antiquities d In Apparatu verbo Petrus Pithaeus and it is sufficiently confirmed by the late proceeding at Paris against the bookes of Card Bellarmine Becanus Schulckenius and now lastly of Suarez whose booke was for this Doctrine by a solemne Decree of the Parliament of Paris and Printed by the Kings Printer and with the Kings priuiledge condemned and reprochfully burned the 27. of Iune past by the hangman before the great Staires of the Pallace and foure of the chiefest Iesuites of France therein named were enioyned vnder paine of treason in their Sermons to exhort the people to the contrarie Doctrine And doubtlesse this Authour who in all points followeth these former mens steps if his booke had beene printed in Latine would haue quickly perceiued by the fruits of his own labours whether in France there be any Catholikes who doe impugne this Doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie or no And yet this Authour would cunningly perswade the simpler sort of Catholikes therby to perplexe their consciences that I onely am the man who doe impugne this temporall authoritie of the Pope to depose Princes whereas hee cannot be ignorant that besides mee many others of our nation as both the Barclaies Mr Blackwell Mr Warmington Mr. Barret those thirteene Reuerend Priests all by publike writings and many others of the best learned of our Nation both Priests and lay-men I could name who are of my opinion and if it were not for the clamors threatnings and violent proceedings of our Aduersaries I meane not Protestants they vvould publikely professe as much as I haue done and as for the State of France what opinion they be of it is manifest And therefore that Doctrine of Vasquez concerning probable opinions may bee very wel applyed to this my doctrine howsoeuer this Author falsely supposing the Doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to be defined would gladly perswade our English Catholikes to the contrarie 5 Fourthly I shewed in that booke that seeing the Pope is not the Church but onely a principall member thereof their is to bee made a great distinction betweene the facts and practises of Popes and betweene the facts and practise of the Church neither is the practise of many Popes to bee accounted the practise of the Church vnlesse by the vvhole Church it be allowed as that opinion and practise for the Popes power to depose Princes and to inflict temporall punishments by way of coërtion neuer was and therefore although it be and hath beene the more common opinion of Catholikes for some ages past that the Pope hath authority to depose yet that it is certaine and not to bee contradicted but to bee beleeued as a point of faith and the contrary not to be accounted an opinion but rather an heresie is altogether false To the Councell of Lateran which but of late yeares hath been vrged and that onely by some few because Suarez did onely barely relate it and not vrge the wordes thereof I did remit him to the Preface of my Apologelicall Answere wherein I largely discoursed of the Decree of that Councel But because this Author seemeth to stand much thereon as the chiefe pillar and ground of his pretended definition I will at large in my Answere to his Reply treate of that Councell and satisfie all the cauils which neuerthelesse should bee cleere demonstrations if this Author did intend to proue his purpose vvhich hee hath taken out of D. Singletons or rather Fa Lessius his Discussion of the Decree of that Councell and I will shew that it cannot be sufficiently proued first that the Councell by those words temporall Lord did intend to include Soueraign Princes secondly that although it did by those words vnderstand Soueraigne Princes yet that it did not suppose that the Pope had authoritie to depose Soueraigne Princes thirdly that although it did suppose it yet it did not suppose it as a point of faith and an vndoubted doctrine but at the most as probable opinion so that from the authoritie of this Councel it can not bee conuinced that it is a point of faith or an vndoubted doctrine that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Soueraign Princes 6 Lastly thou maist perceiue Good Reader what strange paradoxes this Author dare aduenture to maintaine by this that he blusheth not to affirme would cunningly perswade our State that my manner of handling this controuersie probably concerning the Popes authoritie to depose Princes c. is dangerous pernicious to his Maiestie and therefore that my books deserue to be prohibited no lesse in England then Rome and that wise men in the parts where hee is doe greatly maruell how it can stand with the wisedome of his Maiesties Councell to permit them to bee printed and published in England 7 But if this Author had either sincerely or entirely related my opinion or else had put in minde the Reader against what kinde of Aduersaries I doe oppose he would presently haue perceiued that it is too apparantly shamefully vntrue that my manner of handling this question probably is dangerous and pernicious to his Maiestie as this Author doth endeuor to perswade his Maiesty not for any loue that he is knowne to beare vnto the State but to the end by all likelihood that hee and such like violent spirits may vvrite more freely and without being controuled or contradicted by Catholikes who as hee is perswaded doe little regard the writings and opinions of Protestants concerning this or any other Doctrine For it may be dangerous to his Maiestie to handle a question probably against one Aduersarie which
plaintiffe Seeing therefore that from the very first beginning of this Controuersie concerning the authority of Popes and immunity of Kings that is from the time of Gregory the seuenth who was the first Pope that challenged vnto him this temporall power ouer Kinges this authority of the Pope to depose Kinges call it temporall or spirituall as you please hath beene vncertaine disputable and euer contradicted by Catholikes both Kinges and Subiects and therefore it cannot be said that the Pope was euer in possession of this authority although we should grant that power right or authority may be said to be possessed in that sense as possession is taken in Law whereof in my Answere to this Authors Reply I wil more at large discourse it consequently followeth that what opinion soeuer any Catholike follow speculatiuely concerning the Popes power to depose yet in practise vntill this Controuersie concerning the Popes authority to depose Kings and the immunity of Kings not to be deposed shall be decided as yet it is not he cannot with a good conscience endeuour to thrust out a King so deposed from the Kingdome or Dominions which he lawfully possesseth Wherfore in the end of my Apologie I wrote these expresse words of which also in my Epistle Dedicatory to his Holinesse I made mentioÌ„ And therfore if eyther Pope Prince or any other forainer should attempt to thrust an hereticall Prince out of the Kingdome which he possesseth this Controuersie concerning the deposition of Princes being vndecided he should contrary to the rules of Iustice do himselfe most manifest wrong And much more a Subiect cannot be excused from manifest treason what opinion so uer hee doth speculatiuely maintain concerning the Popes temporall power who practically vnder colour perchance of deuotion to the See Apostolike not duly also considering the bond of his Allegiance towards his Soueraigne should endeuour to thrust his lawfull Prince out of his Kingdome which he possesseth notwithstanding any Excommunication or sentence of depriuation denounced by the Pope against him Wherefore it is apparant that in practise I taught it to bee absolutely false that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes 11 Consider now good Reader first the vnsincere dealing of this Author who concealeth the cheefest part of my opinion in securing his Maiestie of the constant loyalty and allegiance wherein all his Catholique Subiects are in conscience bound vnto him that thereby hee may cause his Maiestie to be iealous of my fidelitie and to account me no good Subiect as this Authour falsely affirmeth that I am neither a good Subiect nor a good Catholike or Childe of the Church But I trust in God that it will appeare to all men that Insurrexerunt in me testes iniqui mentita est iniquitas sibi That false witnesses are risen vp against me and wickednesse hath belyed her selfe â—al 26. and that I will euer prooue my selfe to bee both a good Subiect to his Maiestie and also a dutifull child of the Catholike Church 12 Secondlie consider the reason why this Authour is so greatly offended that I at this present doe onely take in hand by answering probably all the arguments which on the contrary side are to be obiected to shew that it is at least-wise probable that the Pope hath no authority to depose Princes and consequently that any man may with a probable and safe conscience take the Oath for that the doctrine concerning the Popes authority to depose is by this Authours owne confession the maine question betwixt him and me and the cheefe ground wherefore the Oath is iudged to be vnlawfull His reason therefore is for that hee saw right well what great aduantage I had against him and what little aduantage hee had against me in arguing or rather answering in this sort and therefore he calleth it in heat of his zeale The most deuolish deuice that any man could inuent And truly if I should at this first beginning haue treated of this Controuersie in any other manner then by handling it probably in that sense as I haue declared I might worthily haue beene censured of great imprudency in giuing my Aduersary more aduantage against mee then was needfull For this is the State of the question whether it can be cleerely conuinced by the authority of the holy Scriptures Ancient Fathers Generall Councels or by necessary inferences from any of them as our Aduersaries pretend to conuince that it is an vndoubted doctrine of Faith and the contrary not be defended by any Catholike that the Pope hath power to depose Princes and consequently that the oath cannot lawfully be taken This is the question Marke now the aduantage I haue for first I am not to prooue but onely to aunswer to defend not to oppose Secondlie it is sufficient for me that my answers be onely probable but there Replyes must not bee onely probable but also conuincing and which with any probabilitie cannot bee answered So that if I should goe about at the first to proue my opinion to be most true which my aduersary affirmeth not to be questionable I should as it is euident greatly disaduantage my selfe For in such Controuersies as are so violently maintained by the Aduersary that he will not grant the contrary part to bee questionable it is necessary to proceed by degrees first to make the thing questionable and disputable which the aduerse part will not haue to be called in question and after this is once agreed vpon then to examine whether opinion be the truest For perchance it may fall out that as the opinion for the immaculate Conception of our B. Lady before Scotus did oppose himselfe therein against S. Thomas and his followers was scarse accounted probable yet afterwards it was daily more and more followed so that now it is esteemed to be the farre more true opinion and as Alphonsus Salmeron f In cap. 5. â— Rem disp 51. Sect. Dâ— inde and Fa. Suarez g Tom. â— disp 3. sec doe affirme Agreed vpon by the consent almost of the Vniuersall Church and of the Ecclesiasticall writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities and as that opinion which holdeth that the Pope hath not power to dispence in the solemne vow of religious chastitie neither in any lawfull marriage before it be consummate is accounted by very many learned men to bee the farre truer opinion notwithstanding the practise of many Popes to the contrary So it may fall out that in processe of time this opinion that denieth the Popes authority to depose Princes may bee embraced by almost all Ecclesiasticall Writers Bishops Religious Orders and Vniuersities notwithstanding the practise of many Popes and the vehement opposition of the Iesuites at this present time to the contrary 13 Thirdly consider how little beholding are English Catholikes to this Author T. F. who will needes enforce them euen with the temporall ouerthrowe of themselues and of their whole posteritie to defend that doctrine to bee of faith which the
State of France hath condemned for scandalous seditious damnable and pernicious and also endeuoureth to perswade his Maiesty that no Catholick can according to the grounds of Catholike religion be a true and loyall Subiect to his Maiestie but at the Popes pleasure or which is all one so long onely as the Pope shall not depose him which hee may doe at his pleasure But we haue great affiance in his Maiesties singular wisedome and clement disposition wherof we haue had both by his Maiesties gracious Proclamation Published after the discouerie of the Gun-powder treason publike bookes and effectuall deeds sufficient triall that he will not bee drawne by the false suggestion of this Author who would haue all Catholikes to be of the same violent spirit as hee is to haue all his Catholike Subiects in the same degree of iealousie but that he will euer make a distinction betwixt them who are his true hearted Subiects and most loyall in all temporall affaires and wil aduenture all that they haue and are in defence of his Maiesties Royall person and dignitie against any sentence of depriuation whatsoeuer which shall be denounced against him by the Pope i For so much did those 13. Reuerend Priests Mr D. Bishop Mr Colleto the rest by a publik Act bear in date the la◠of Ianuary 1602. promise to Queene Elizabeth the copie wher of thou maist see my Appendix page 346. assuring themselues that it is conformable to the grounds of Catholike Religion which they professe and not repugnant to that spirituall obedience wherein they stand bound to the supreme Pastour of the Catholike Church and those other Catholikes who thinking it to bee a point of faith that the Pope hath authoritie to dethrone Soueraigne Princes will onely defend his Maiestie and yeeld him temporall obedience vntill the Pope after his sentence of depriuation shall command them the contrarie And therefore let this Author T. F. assure himselfe that all his clamorous words and threatning speeches shall nothing discourage mee from defending the truth neither am I prest on to write against him or any other to shew my wit as hee falsely affirmeth or for hope of any temporall lucre or preferment but meerely and sincerely for the loue I beare to God Religion the Catholike truth my Prince and Countrey for which causes I neither am nor euer vvill be ashamed to be prest on to write against this T. F. or any other such like Authour who liuing in other countreyes and out of danger to loose any thing but rather in hope to obtaine aduancement by their writings will presse English Catholikes to defend with danger of loosing all that they haue of incurring their Soueraigne his high displeasure that Doctrine to bee of faith which the State of France accounteth damnable and enioyneth the Iesuites vnder paine of treason to preach the contrarie as thou shalt perceiue by the Decree which followeth which is truely translated out of the French copie printed at Paris vvhich I haue conferred with this English A DECREE Of the Court of Parliament made the 26. and executed the 27. of Iune 1614. AGAINST A Booke printed at Cologne this present yeere entituled Francisci Suarez Granatensis Societatis Iesu Doctoris Theologi Defensio fidei Catholicae et Apostolicae aduersus Anglicanae sectae errores containing diuers maximes and propositions repugnant to the Soueraigne power of Kings ordained and established by God the safetie of their persons and the peace and tranquilitie of their States The place †where are set the Kings armes At Paris By F. Morel and Peter Mettayer the Kings Printers and Stationers in Ordinarie 1614. With his Maiesties priuiledge Extracted out of the Registers of the Parliament THE Court of the great Chamber Tournelle and of the Edict assembled hauing viewed the Booke printed at Cologne this present yeare entituled Francisci Suarez Granatensis è Societate Iesu Doctoris Theologi Defensio Fidei Catholicae et Apostolicae aduersus Anglicanae sectae errores containing in the third book Chapter 23. pages 376. 79. 80. 82. Chapter 29. pages 310 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Chapter 6. page 834. Chap. 8. pag. 844. and in other places many propositions against the Soueraigne power of Kings ordained and established by God the peace and tranquilitie of their States and that it is lawfull for their Subiects and strangers to attempt against their Persons Conclusions of the Kings Atturney Generall All this being considered The said Court hath declared and doth declare the Propositions and Maximes contained in the said booke to be scandalous and seditious tending to the subuersion of States and to induce the Subiects of Kings and Soueraigne Princes and others to attempt against their Sacred Persons and the speeches mentioning King Chlowis and Philip the faire to bee false and slanderous and hath also ordained and doth ordaine that the said Booke of Suarez be burned in the Court of the Pallace by the Executioner of high Iustice And it hath and doth inhibite and forbid all sellers of Bookes and Printers to print fell or disperse any of the said bookes and also all other persons of whatsoeuer calling or condition they bee to haue to write out to retaine or to teach in Schooles or elsewhere or to Dispute the said Maximes or propositions It also ordaineth according to the Decree of the 8 of Iune 1610. that the Decree of the Facultie of Diuinitie made vpon the 4. of Iune the same yeere concerning the renewing of the Doctrinall Censure of the said Facultie bearing date the yeere 1408. confirmed by the Councell of Constance together with this present Decree as also those of the yeere 1578 95. shall yearely be read the fourth day of Iune as vvell in the said Facultie as in the Colledge of the Priests and Schollers of the Colledge of Clermont and of the foure Orders of begging Fryars And that at the request of the Kings Attourney General informations shall bee taken of the contrauentions against the said Decrees and Prohibitions made against writing hauing or keeping the like bookes Giuen in Parliament the 26. day of Iune 1614. Signed Voisin Furthermore it is Decreed that the Fathers Ignace Armand Rector in this Citie Cotton Frorton and Sirmund shall bee summoned the first day to the Court and to them shall be shewed that contrarie to their declaration and Decree of their General of the yeare 1610. the Book of Suarez hath been printed and brought into this Citie impugning the authoritie of the King and against the safety of his Person and State and they shall bee enioined to cause their Generall to renew the said Decree and to publish it and to bring in an Act thereof within these six monethes and to prouide that no Books containing such damnable and pernicious propositions bee made or published by any of their company and also they shall be enioyned in their Sermons to exhort the people to the Doctrine contrarie to the said