Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	doctrine_n	rome_n	2,813	5	6.6425	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59898	A vindication of a passage in Dr. Sherlock's sermon preached before the honourable House of Commons, May 29, 1685 : from the remarks of a late pretended remonstrance, by way of address from the Church of England, to both Houses of Parliament.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1685 (1685)	Wing S3369; ESTC R202693	19,865	30

of Rome Had he ingenuously acknowledged that the Deposing Doctrine had been decreed and practised by their Popes and General Councils that no Pope or Council since Gregory the Seventh had ever condemned it that the Jesuits do still maintain it and yet in the late Censure of some other Jesuitical Doctrines the present Pope thought fit to let the Deposing Doctrine escape without censure but notwithstanding this they did utterly disown it and would do so though they knew the Church of Rome had defined it or ever hereafter should do so this had been something to the purpose to satisfie both Prince and People of their Loyalty But to say that this is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is to out-face all mankind who have eyes in their heads and skill enough to read the Decrees of their Popes and Councils and to found their Loyalty upon this supposition that the Deposing Doctrine is not the Doctrine of the Church gives too great a suspicion that if this were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome or ever should be so or they should ever be convinced that is so then they would be for the deposing of Princes too and whatever some little inferiour People in Communion with the Church of Rome think of these matters while the governing part of the Church believes otherwise as they certainly do at this day if the Pope and his Adherents are the governing part Princes have no security that Popes will not challenge and exercise this authority but their want of power to do it and this I am sure is wholly owing to the Reformation for till Princes had Subjects who valued not the Popes authority they themselves were the Popes Vassals and must necessarily be so again could they extinguish this pestilent Heresie the great fault of which is that it has given strength and security to Princes by weakening the Pope But our Author proceeds 'T is true some persons in communion with Rome have broached Tenents inconsistent with Loyalty but 't is true likewise their Books have been condemned and burnt as they often tell us by the publick Executioner It is true indeed Mariana's Book de Rege Regis institutione Suarez defensio fid Cath. Sanctarellus Tractatus de Haeresi and it may be some others were condemned to be burnt by the Parliament at Paris but no thanks to the Church of Rome for this who never condemned these Doctrines It is said indeed that Mariana's Book was censured by the Pope and it is true the Pope did censure one of his Books as we learn from Alegambe in Biblioth Script Societ Jesu p. 258. but not that de Rege which was burnt at Paris And as for Sanctarellus his Book was printed at Rome by the express allowance of Vitellescus the General of the Jesuits and when the Parliament of Paris took great offence at it and examined some of the Jesuits what they thought of it Father Coton answered that they disliked it And being farther asked how they could disapprove what their General allowed he replied That their General being at Rome could do no less Upon this they enquire what they would do if they were at Rome the Jesuit frankly answered They should think as they do at Rome as Gramondus relates And how this proves that the Church of Rome is such an Enemy to the Deposing and King-killing Doctrine I cannot tell for it seems that those who upon some prudent considerations may condemn such Doctrines at Paris or London may prove good Catholicks at Rome such influence has a different Climate upon some mens Faith But he addes The Roman Catholicks do frequently declare that it is an Article of Faith in their Church and expresly declared in the Council of Constance that the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes Excommunicated for Heresie is damnable and Heretical as being contrary to the known Laws of God and Nature But whatever the Roman Catholicks declare which we have but one nameless Author's word for the Author of the Roman Catholick Principles who yet assignes this as the chief reason why many Catholicks of tender Consciences refuse the Oath of Allegiance because they cannot renounce the Deposing Doctrine as heretical which is strange if as he says the Council of Constance has condemned it as damnable and heretical I am sure the Council of Constance declares no such thing He directs us to Sess. 15. of that Council where indeed I find this Proposition condemned Quilibet Tyrannus potest debet That any Tyrant may and ought lawfully and meritoriously be killed by any of his Vassals and Subjects by treachery or flattery notwithstanding any Oath of Fealty Non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscunque without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge So that the Council condemns the killing of a Tyrant not of a Heretick and the killing of a Tyrant who is not condemned and deposed not of one who is excommunicated for Heresie And that last clause without expecting the Sentence and Command of any Judge supposes that it is no fault to do it but may be a very lawful and meritorious act to kill such Princes as are deposed by superiour Judges that is by the Pope or Council which is the onely Authority that ever pretended to judge or depose Soveraign Princes and therefore when Suarez was urged with this Decree he answers Where do you find in the Acts of that Council that this extends to Princes Excommunicated or Deposed by the Pope This Council of Constance owns the fourth Council of Lateran for a General Council and Decrees that every new-elected Pope before the publication of his Election shall profess to maintain this among other General Councils to the least tittle with the expence of his life and bloud and therefore what the Doctrine of this Council was about Deposing Princes we may learn from the Council of Lateran which expresly defines That if the Temporal Lord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Country from the filth of Heresie he shall be Excommunicated by their Metropolitan and his Suffragan Bishops and if he neglect to make satisfaction within a year this shall be signified to the Pope that from thenceforth he may declare his Subjects Absolved from their Fealty and expose his Country to be seized by Catholicks who shall possess it without any contradiction and preserve it in the purity of the Faith provided the principal Lord may receive no damage by it if he do nothing to hinder these proceedings and yet the same Law shall be observed as to those who have no principal Lords over them That is all Soveraign Princes and Emperours who are liable to the Sentence of Excommunication and Deprivation if they do not purge their Dominions of Heresie Now this I take to be Deposing Doctrine But we need not go to the Council of Lateran to learn the sence of the Council of Constance in this point