with the Titles of impious seditious infamous to Popes ruinous to States c. 96. Yea moreover within these six Moneths a certain Priest of the Hermitage of Caen called Fossart a known Emissary of that society having in his publick acts for a degree in that University advanced this proposition That the Pope has a Soveraign Authority in Temporals as well as Spirituals and that he has power to depose and constitute Kings though to evade a censure he Interpreted his Assertion saying that he understood that power of the Pope to extend only to Tyrants notwithstanding by a Decree of the whole faculty of that University both his proposition and exposition of it was censured to be impious pernicious seditious and in all regards to be detested and as such it was by them condemned And the same Fossart being after this imprisoned was sentenced by the presidial Court of Justice in Caen publickly and bare-headed to acknowledge that the said propositions were false contrary to the holy Decrees of Councels to the fundamental lawes of that Kingdom and to the liberties and rights of the Gallican Church 97. Such is the judgment of the Ecclesiasticks and State of France of this Article of Faith from which was issued rivers of blood during the Ligue there As zealous against the Temporall power of Popes has the State of Venice shewed it self And if other Catholick Kingdomes have not done the like it is because they have not had such dismal occasions and provocations to declare their minds In Spain indeed the Schools are connived at to preserve it from extinguishing because by its assistance a great part of Navarre has been annexed to that crown and some hopes of England too gave it credit there But yet when the Court of Rome would interpose in temporal matters there without the Kings liking he is as boldly resisted as in any other Catholick Kingdome besides 98. And as for the Church and State of England I mean even in former times when Catholick Religion most flourished here and when Church-Men had the greatest power what sign can be shewed that the foresaid Decree and the new article of Faith was admitted either in Parliaments or Synods Yea so far were they from acknowledging the Popes deposing power or Supremacy in Temporals that Statutes were then made and the penalty no less then a Praemunire against any that without the Kings licence should make any Appeals to Rome Or submit to a Legats Jurisdiction Or upon the Popes Summons go out of the Kingdom or receive any Mandats or Briefs from Rome Or sue in a forrain Realm for any thing for which the Kings Courts took Cognisance Or for impeaching a judgment given in the Kings Courts Or for purchasing Bulls from Rome for presentments to Churches anâ—iently sued for in the Kings Courts in the time of all his Progenitors And it is very observable that in the Act where the last Ordinances were made we find this expression To this all the Bishops present and all the procuratours of the absent unanimously assented protesting against the Popes translating some Bishops out of the Realm and from one Bishoprick to another And moreover the ground of their rejecting the Popes usurpations in temporal matters is there thus expressed For that the Crown of England is free and hath been free from earthly subjection at all times being immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same and not subject to the Pope 99. All these lawes and many other of the like kind all the Kings Catholick Subjects knew and willingly submitted to without any prejudice to their beliefe that the Pope was the supreme pastour of Gods Church in spiritualibus And all these Lawes are still in force and the penalty of them no less then a premuniâ—e Our De-fide-men are not much concern'd in all this but sure persons of honour and loyalty and such as have Estates in the Kingdom are very deeply interested 100. And now let any English Catholick judge what reception such a decree or Article of Faith would have had in England in those most Catholick times if they had been proposed Those that were so jealous of the least deminution of the Kings temporal power in matters of the smallest consequence and that imposed the greatest penalty but death upon transgressours that is upon all Factours for the gaining to the Court of Rome any illegal temporal Authority with what indignation would they have heard only the mentioning of the reception of such a Decree And yet those Lawes were made not long after that Councel had been assembled whereby it is apparent that they were ignorant of it Those that would not suffer the least flower of this imperial Crown to be ravished from it would they admit a power and forraign Jurisdiction to take the Crown it self from the Kings head and afterward the head it self from his Shoulders 101. It is true the teaching of such an Artiâ—le of faith brings very great temporal commodities to those few that have the cruelty to their Country to become the preachers and Apostles of it great favour and power they gain thereby abroad and therefore they will take it kindly at the hands of English Catholicks if for a mere Secular advantage of theirs they will be content to Sacrifice their own Estates Honours Families and lives as traytors to the lawâ—s and withall bring an unavoydable scandal to Catholick Religion besides But truly this is too dear a rate to be paid for such a commodity 102. A man would think that such Apostles should be content yea and by their own Doctâ—ine of probability should be obliged to grant this Doctrine of the Popes deposing power to be somewhat less then an Article of Faith The opposition of the whole State Ecclesiasticks of France against their single forces surely may be available to make it pass at least for a probable Opinion But this they must not allow because if it be not an Article of Faith unless infidelity to Princes be de fide it signifies juâ—t nothing neither can it have any effect at all For certainly no Law nor justice wil permit that an Authority only probable and therefore questionable can dispossess Kings of their right to a Supremacy in temporals in which they are actually instated So that such an Authority can only have force to dispossess Princes already dispossessed 103. However they would esteem themselves much bound to any other learned Catholicks among us if they would condescend to grant that it is only probable that it is a point of faith and decree of a General Councel But in vain will they expect such a compliance For by granting only so much it will necessarily follow 1. That all the so rigorous censures given of it by the Parliaments and Vniversities of France have been most temerarious and damnable For what can be more horrible then to call a Doctrine impious seditious detestable c. which probably is a
among them 39. In Queen Elizabeths reign we have the Testimony of Doctour Bilson afterwards Bishop of Winchester whose expressions are these The Oath saith he expresseth not the duty of Princes to God but ours to them And as they must be obeyed when they joyne with the truth so must they be endured when they fall into errour Which side soever they take either obedience to their Wills or submission to their swords is their due by Gods Law And that is all which our oath exacteth Again This is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and which you JESUITES so bitterly detest That Princes be Gods Ministers in their own Dominions bearing the sword freely to permit and publickly to defend that which God commandeth in Faith and good manners and in ecclesiastical discipline to receive and establish such Rules and Orders as the Scriptures Canons shall decide to be needful and healthful for the Church of God in their Kingdomes And as they may lawfully command that which is good in all things and causes be they Temporal Spiritual or Ecclesiastical So may they with just force remove whatsoever is erroneous vitious or superstitious within their lands and with external losses and corporal pains represse the broachers and abbettours of Heresies and all impieties From which subjection unto Princes no man within their Realms Monk Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted And without their Realmes no mortal man hath any power from Christ judicially to depose them much lesse to invade them in open field least of all to warrant their Subjects to rebel against them Moreover intending to explain in what sence Spiritual Jurisdiction seems by the oath to be given to Princes he saith first We make no Prince judge of Faith and then more particularly To devise new Rites and Ceremonies for the Church is not the Princes vocation but to receive and allow such as the Scriptures and Canons commend and such as the Bishops and pastours of the place shall advise not infringing the Scriptures or Canons And so for all other Ecclesiastical things and â—auses Princes be neither the devisers nor Directours of them but the Confirmers and establishers of that which is good and displacers and Revengers of that whiâ—h is evill Which power we say they have in all things and causes be they Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Hereto his adversary is brought in replying And what for Excommunications and absolutions be they in the princes power also To this he answers The abuse of Excommunication in the priest and contempt of it in the people Princes may punish excommunicate they may not for so much as the Keys are no paâ—t of their charge Lastly to explain the Negative clause in the Oath he sayes In this sense we defend Princes to be supreme that is not at liberty to do what they list without regard of truth or right but without superiour on Earth to represse them with violent means and to take their Kingdomes from them Thus Doctour Bâ—lson whose testimony may be interpreted to be the Queens own interpretation of the oath since as appears by the Title page of his book what he wrote was perused and approved by publick Authority And to such a sense of the Oath as this there is not a Catholick Clergy man in France Germany Venice or Flanders but would readily subscribe 40. In the next place suitable to him Doctour Carleton in King James his time thus states the matter Bellarmine saith he disputing of Jurisdiction saith There is a triple Power in the Bishop of Rome first of Order secondly of internal jurisdiction thirdly of external jurisdiction The first is referd to the sacraments the second to inward Government which is in the court of Conscience the third to that external Government which is practised in external Courts And confesseth that of the first and second there is no question between us but only of the third Then of this saith Carleton we are agreed that the question between us and them is only of Jurisdiction coactive in external courts binding and compelling by force of Law and other External Mulcts and punishments beside excommunication As for spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church standing in examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks excommunication of notorious offendours Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and spiritual Cures c. this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give or take from the Church This power hath been practised by the Church without co-active jurisdiction other then of Excommunication But when matters handled in the Ecclesiastical Consistory are not matters of Faith and Religion but of a Civil nature which yet are called Ecclesiastical as being given by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that Consistory and when the censures are not spiritual but carnal compulsive coactive here appeareth the power or the Civil Magistrate This power we yield to the Magistrate and here is the question whether the Magistrate hath right to this power or Jurisdiction c. This then is the thing that we are to prove That Ecclesiastical coactive power by force of Law and corporal punishments by which Christian people are to be governed in externall and contentious Courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Again afterward he sayes Concerning the extention of the Churches Jurisdiction it cannot be denyed but that there is a power in the Church not only internal but also of external Jurisdiction Of internal power there is no question made External Jurisdiction being understood all that is practised in external Courts or Consistories is either definitive or Mulctative Authority Definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power may be understood either as it is with Coaction or as it is referred to spirituall censures As it standeth in spirituall censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was never practised by the Church when the Church was without Christian Magistrates but was alwayes understood to belong to the civill Magistrate whether he were Christian or Heathen After this manner doth Doctour Carleton Bishop of Chichester understand the Supremacy of the King acknowledged in the Oath 41. In the last place Doctour Bramhall Bishop of Derry in our late Kings dayes and now Archbishop of Armagh thus declares both the Affirmative and Negative parts of the Oath touching the Kings supream authority in matters Ecclesiastical and renouncing the Popes Jurisdiction in the same here in England in his book called Schisme guarded c. The summe of which Book is in the Title-page expressed to consist in shewing that the great Controversie about Papal power is not a question of Faith but of interest and profit not with the Church of Rome but with the Court of Rome
c. This learned and judicious writer thus at once states the point in both these respects My last ground sayes he is That neither King Henry the eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the power of the keyes or any part thereof Either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely spirituall which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the key of order or the key of Jurisdiction purely spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the external Regiment of the Church by coactive power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective Branches of it This power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these words or the like That no forraign prelate shall exercise any manner of power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical within this Realm it is not to be understood of internal or purely spiritual power in the Court of Conscience or the power of the keyes VVe see the contrary practised every day but of external and Coactive power in Ecclesiasticall causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and might to be so understood I prove clearly by it Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which act article shall be produced afterward The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with power purely spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the power is political the sword is political all is Political Our Kings leave the power of the keyes and Jurisdiction purely spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express then this so clear a testimony of so judicious a Bishop touching the Kings supremacy in matters Ecclesiasticall acknowledged by Oath Only we must be excused if we assent not to what he affirms touching King Henry the Eighth his not assuming spiritual Jurisdiction 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever our Lawes do deny all spirituall Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that sence that we call the exteriour Court of the Church the spirituall Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the power of the keyes or of any spiritual power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a world of other passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the substance of the Papacy except the substance of the Papacy do consist in coactive power 43. Moreover to warrant these explications of three so eminent men of the Protestant Church who write expresly upon the Subject may be added testimonies yet more authentick and irrefragable of our Princes themselves who are to be esteemed unquestionably authoritative interpreters of their own lawes at least in these cases as afore was observed and besides those the publick Articles of the English Clergy yea the Statutes of Parliaments also 44. In an Act of Parliament made in the fifth year of Queen Elizabeths Raign there is an interpretation of the Oath of Supremacy in an express Proviso That the Oath of Supremacy shall be taken and expounded in such forme as is set forth in an Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions published in the first year of her Raign The which Admonition was made to take away a scruple raised by some as if the Queen had usurped a Jurisdiction purely spirituall which she renounces professing first that by vertue of that Oath no other Authority is to be acknowledged then what was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth This clause is not to be supposed to be any part of the interpretation of the Oath but it is only intended to signifie that this is no new invented usurpation of a Title but that the same had been allowed to those two Kings before her and the same Authority saith she is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this Realm Neither doth she say that she challenges all that those two Kings did as in effect it is apparent she did not but that what she requires had been formerly granted to them And it is evident that if her meaning had been that the Oath should be taken according to that enormous latitude of power allowed and exercised by them such a way of indefinite explication would have been far more burdensome and entangling to conscices then before For that would signifie that all that swear should be obliged to inform themselves in all the clauses of acts of Parliament made by those two Kings and in all the actions performed by them or else they will swear they know not what Her explication therefore is set down clearly and distinctly in the following words by which she declares what that authority is which she challenges and which must be acknowledge in taking the Oath Viz. That is the Queen under God to have the Soveraignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them 45. This clause according to the Queens interpretation confirm'd by act of Parliament contains the true sence of the Oath so that if this clause can be sworn to that is all that is signified in the form of the Oath say Protestants Now that by this Clause only civil power over all persons Ecclesiasticall is challenged appears by a wrong interpretation of the Oath which she complains to have been spred abroad Viz. as if by the words of the said Oath it may be collected that the Kings and Queens of this Realm possessours of the crown may challenge authority and power of Ministry of Divine offices in the Church She renounces all medling with any Offices purely Ecclesiasticall in the Church as also Doctor Bilson by her authority declares in the forecited words she pretends not to administer Sacraments conferr Orders inflict Ecclesiastical censures determine controversies of faith c. But she challenges a supream civil Authority over all those that have right to exercise those Offices as being her Subjects as well as the Laity And this Jurisdiction she will have acknowledged so to be her peculiar Right as that no forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them that is no part of this Regal power whatsoever spiritual Jurisdiction which she medles not withall they may challenge That this is the true sence of this
and accordingly in many particulars practised it to the which several clauses also both in this and following Statutes seem as if they gave warrant yet the Parliament by the said Provizo laid a ground how they might in future and better times shew how they meant no such thing The words are these PROVIDED alwayes that this Act nor any thing or things therein contained shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your grace your Nobles and Subjects intend by the same to decline or vary from the Congregation of Christs Church in any things concerning the very Articles of the Catholick Faith of Christendom or in any other things declared by holy Scripture and the word of God necessary for your and their Salvation but only to make an ordinance by policies necessary and convenient to repress vice and for good conservation of this Realm in peace unity and tranquillity from rapine and spoil insuing much the old ancient customes of this Realm in that behalfe Not minding to seek for any reliefes succours or remedies for any worldly things and humane lawes in any case of necessity but within this Realm at the hands of your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm which have and ought to have an imperial power and authority in the same and not obliged in any worldly causes to any other Superiour By this Proviso never repealed the Parliaments Ordinance is declared to be meerly Political that the Kings Independence on forraign power is in worldly things and humane lawes he being in worldly causes not obliged to any other Superiour 50. Thus far of the sence in which both the most judicious among the English Protestants have declared and have been authorised to declare what power it is that by the Oath is deferred to the Kings of England and renounced to be in any forraign Prince or Prelate to wit a civil Political power wheresoever it can be exercised in any causes Ecclesiastical c. Against this there is not extant a contradictory Testimony of any one Protestant Writer So that the Protestant Subjects of England do intend and judging that they have unquestiónable grounds to judge this only to be the sence of the Oath in this sence only do they take it and require it to be taken by others SECT VII In what sence the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance seem to be taken by Presbyterians Independents c. 51. IT is a wonderfull Mystery how it should come to pass that our English Prebyterians c. should especially now of late with so much willingness and greediness themselves swallow these Oaths and so clamorously not without threatning urge the imposing them upon others Is it because the Oath of Supremacy has so peculiar a conformity to their principles and that of Allegiance to their practises or that they are so ready and pressing to disclaim and condemn all that themselves have done these last twenty years 52. First for ther Doctrinal principles I do not find that any of those Sects of late in England in peaceable times have publickly declared in what sence they allowed his Majesty to have a supreme Jurisdicton in causes Ecclesiastical or Spiritaul as to themselves But as to the oppression and destruction of poor Roman Catholicks they have alwayes shew'd too great a willingness to exalt the Kings Authority and to draw out and sharpen his sword far more then himself was willing I do not find that any of them have busied themselves as a world of Protestants and Catholicks have with making discourses upon the Oathes Their silence in this point wherein they are doubtless much concern'd one way or other is surely very argumentative 53. Who ever knew or heard to flow from the tongue or drop from the pen of a Presbyterian so Christian a positon as is sincerely avouched both by English Protestants and the generall body of Roman Catholicks viz. That even in case a Christian or Heathen Prince should make use of his civil power to persecute truth that power ought not upon any pretences to be actively resisted by violence or force of armes but though they cannot approve they must at least patiently suffer the effects of his misused Authority leaving the judgment to God only How unknown at least how unreceived such a Doctrine has hitherto been among their Brethren abroad will but too manifestly appear in a volume entitled Dangerous positions collected by Archbishop Bancroft out of severall books written by Calvinisticall preachers What judgment their patriarch Calvin made of King Henry the eighths new Title of the Head of the Church we have seen before And what an exception terrible to Princes the French Calvinistical Church hath made in their confession of Faith speaking of Obedience due to the supreme Magistrate appears at least every Sunday in all their hands in print Where they acknowledge such obedience due to them except the Law of God and religion be interested or to use their own expression mogennant que l'empire de Dieu demeure en son entire that is upon condition that Gods Soveraignty remain undiminished Which clause what it means their so many and so long convinced Rebellions do expound 54. And as for their practices in England and Scotland it were to be wished they could be forgotten especially all that has hapned the last twenty years And it may suffiice only in gross to take notice that the most efficacious Engin for begining the late war and engaging their party in the prosecution of it was a publick declaration that their design was to root out Popish Doctrines favoured by the King and Bishops to abolish publick Formes of Church-service and to destroy Episcopacy and Church Government root and branch which had been established in England by the universal authority of the whole Kingdom 55. These things considered is it not a great Mystery that such persons of such perswasions should be so zealous to take and impose generally either of these Oaths To think that they do knowingly directly and formally forswear themselves and force others to do so would be uncharitable Therefore an Evasion they have to secure themselves in their own opinions from perjury How little they deferr to Kings in their own Ecclesiastical matters and Government yea how they declare that none must be excepted from their consistories and Synodical Jurisdictions even externally coercive is evident both in Scoâ—land and elsewhere And it is observable that in the form of an Oath lately contrived in Scotland the word Ecclesiastical is studiously left out How comes it then to pass that they can in England swear that the King is supreme Head and Governour in all causes Ecclesiastical or spirituall Who can reconcile these things together in such a sence 56. Surely it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to imagine any colourable Evasion or pretext for cousening themselves except it be this That both the Oaths were made only against Roman Catholicks acknowledging the Pope to be supreme
wished had never been done or might be blotted out of all mens memories or upon the Decrees of some Councels not received or acknowledged by Catholick Churches but principally upon a Decree of the Councel of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third in which an Ordinance is said to have been framed to oblige not supreme Princes but Temporales Potestates and Dominos which bear Offices in States to take at Oath to root out of their Dominions all Hereticks upon penalty if they do not performe what they swear of being denounced by the pope to be deprived of their Estates c. yet reserving the right of the supreme Lord. 88. All these Allegations have been already unanswerably confuted by several learned Writers of our Nation but because this last Decree of a Councel not so questioned for as much as can be proved to have been decided in it and because it is almost alone suggested to the tongues of some Catholicks among us as the principal pillar of that pretended Article of Faith for the maintaining of which they are exhorted to forfeit their Estates and Lives they are desired sadly to consider 89. First that this pretended decree of faith has been disclaimed by a World of unquestion'd Catholicks and Doctor Bishop the last Catholick Bishop but one in England has written a book purposely against it and no proof can be given that it was ever received or executed by any Catholick Kingdome out of Italy The reasons whereof are 1. Because these Decrees were never published by P. Innocent nor so much as a copy of them extant either in the Body of Councells or the Vatican Library or any where else till a certain German three hundred years after said that he found them in a Manuscript compiled he knowes not by whom being indeed a meer Collection made by some unknown person out of the Decretals of his Nephew Gregory the ninth 2. Because by the testimony of all Historians of those times P. Innocent the third suffred much in his reputation for having convoked such a multitude of Prelates to no purpose Above sixty Capitula were by the Popes order recited in the Assembly and many of them pend in a stile as if they had been concluded for that was the Popes expectation but nothing at all could be plainly decreed they seemed indeed to some PLACABILIA passable to others Onerosa but no conciliary Determinations were made except one or two which was about the recovery of the holy Land and the subjection of the Greek Church to the Roman by reason of a war then begun between them of Pisa and Genua which called the Pope from the Councel 90. Again though it were granted that this was a Conciliary Decree it is far from looking like an Article of Faith which saith Bellarmine and Canus may easily be discerned by the stile Here is nothing proposed to be believed no Anathema fulminated against those that are of a contrary sentiment no signification that the contrary is against the words or sence of Scriptures c. At the best therefore it is a mere Ecclesiastical Ordinance touching external discipline And being such what is more ordinary and by custom permitted then for Princes to refuse the admittance of them we see at this day that the State and Church of France do reject the Decrees of Reformation made in the Councel of Trent This is known at Rome and all Christendom over and yet who dare impute Heresy to them What confusion would follow if all the Ordinanâ—es of the Councel of Trent should be practised among catholicks here in England as about Clandestine Mariages c. 91. Thirdly suppose this were granted to be an Ordinanâ—e established and admitted all Christendom over yet supreme and Independent Princes not being expresly named in it but rather excluded by the expressions of it what can be more palpably injust then without and against their consent to captivate them to such an ordinance Moreover to demonstrate that they were purposely excepted the Emperour Frederike not above five or six years after published an edict to the very same intent and in the very same language and titles by which he intended to oblige only the Feudatary princes and officers of the Empire by oath to root out heresy And yet after all no example can be produced either in the Empire or other Christian States that such an oath was in succeeding times imposed This is the Article of Faith for the maintaining of which it is by one party expected that all English Catholicks should ruine both themselves and their Religion It is not so in Catholick countries abroad VVe know that Charles the fifth by a law of the Empire publickly permitted Lutherans in several provinces and all the Kings of France since Henry the third the Calvinists through their Kingdom and yet the pope never so much as threatned nor they feared a Deposition 93. And as for the Doctrinal point of faith most shamelesly pretended to be involved in that or the like decrees to wit the Popes power of deposing Princes what one Catholick State Kingdom Republick or City can the preachers of it name where it is received or permitted to the people to be taught even as a probable opinion 94. It is well known that in France in the year 1614. a book written by Suarez the Jesuite purposely against this Oath in which that Deposing power was asserted was by a Decree of the Parliament of Paris condemned therefore to be burnt by the publick Executioner as containing propositions scandalous seditious tending to the eversion of States and inducing Subjects to practise against the lives and sacred persons of Kings c. And moreover it was ordained according to a former Edict made A. D. 1610. that a decree then made by the Theological faculty for renewing a Doctrinal Censure of the same faculty A. D. 1408. against the like Doctrine and confirm'd by the Councel of Constance should every year upon a certain day be read in the Schools of the Jesuites and of the four Mendicant orders Besides all this the same Parliament enjoyned the four principal Jesuites in Paris Armandus Cotton Fronto and Sirmond to take order that their General at Rome should renew a prohibition to any of the society to teach and publish the like Doctrines and themselves were commanded in their Sermons to preach a contrary Doctrine all this under the penalty of being proceeded against as Traytors 95. The like fate had several other books written by eminent persons of the same Order as Mariana Bellarmine Santarellus c. which maintained the Popes temporal Jurisdiction and power to deprive Princes and to absolve Subjects from their Obedience And particularly upon occasion of Santarellus his book no less then eight Universities in that Kingdom Paris Valentia Tholouse Poictiers Bourdeaux Bourges Rheims and Caen did of their own accord not expecting any command from the Court in the year 1626. brand the Doctrine of the Popes deposing power