Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
religion_n king_n prince_n subject_n 3,995 5 6.4954 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Doctrine proving it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as erroneous in Faith pernicious to Salvation wicked folly and madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Soveraign Princes and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance and this with the advice and consent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegiance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Cannon-law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last after Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendom have asserted this power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils This is enough in all Conscience if it be well proved as I think truly the greatest part of it is to prove the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and when there is so great and potent a Party among themselves who appear so zealous in this Cause I cannot understand what fault the Doctor committed in charging them with that which they are so ambitious to be charged with If it be a Calumny Popes and Councils Divines and Casuists and Lawyers are the Authors of the Calumny not those who believe it upon their report who are the properest Judges what authority it is they challenge and all the world knows what it is they exercise as often as they can There is indeed an Answer given to this Treatise by one of those Catholick Divines as they call themselves who will not own this to be the Doctrine of the Church I read it over with great zeal and expectation to see it confuted which I profess I should have been very glad to have seen fairly done for I take no pleasure in the Errours and Mistakes of any Church and I think he has proved that those Kings and Emperours who were deposed did not like the Deposing Doctrine as any one would guess and I confess I thought it at first a bold attempt in the Author of that Treatise to prove the contrary which is the onely matter of fact wherein he has apparently the better of his Adversary but as for other matters excepting the Opinions of all Catholick Divines and Casuists before Calvin which may admit of some debate he yields it all and laughs at his Adversary for taking so much pains to prove what no body denies viz. that Popes have taught this Doctrine that Popes and Councils have made such Decrees and have actually executed them upon Kings and Emperours and that their most eminent Divines and Casuists have defended this Doctrine and justified such Decrees and Practices but yet he says all this does not prove it to be the Doctrine of their Church nor de fide Now this does not concern the Doctor who did not meddle with their Church nor Articles of Faith but asserted that the Popish Religion is not Loyal and that in some cases it teaches Subjects to Rebel Now if the Doctrine and Decrees of Popes and Councils be no part of the Popish Religion whether they be in a strict sence Articles of Faith or not if the Decrees of Councils to depose Heretical Princes or the Favourers of Hereticks and to absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance do not teach Subjects to Rebel in such cases then indeed the Doctor may be mistaken especially if it be any comfort to a deposed Prince that he is deposed by vertue of a Decree of Popes and Councils but yet the Popes power of Deposing Princes is no Article of Faith But yet it may be of good use to set this matter in a clear light and to hear the utmost that can be said to vindicate the Church of Rome from teaching so pernicious a Doctrine as this And what the Answerer to the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance says is contained in a narrow compass and I shall reduce it into as easie a method as I can The truth is I generally like what he says very well and think he has proved that it ought not to be the Doctrine of the Church and that no man is bound to believe it whatever Church teaches it but I think he has not proved that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome He frankly acknowledges that this Deposing Doctrine has been taught by Popes and has been decreed by General Councils which our Remonstrancer denies let us hear then how he vindicates the Church of Rome from teaching such a Doctrine and truly I cannot find that he ever attempts it 1. He says indeed this is not the Doctrine of the Church and we believe it is not if by Church he means the Universal Church of all Ages but yet it may be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which teaches a great many Doctrines which the Primitive and Apostolical Churches never heard of and therefore though it be true what he says That all the Ages before Gregory the Seventh were positively against the Deposing Doctrine That this was a Doctrine brought in in the Eleventh Century against the Judgement and Practice of Ten before That the Fathers were not of this mind and a great deal to this purpose yet this does not prove that the present Church of Rome does not teach this Doctrine which is plain matter of fact to be seen in the Decrees of their Popes and Councils as he himself acknowledges Thus he proves That this Doctrine is not an Article of Faith For two things are necessary to make an Article of Faith First That the Point have been originally revealed by Christ And Secondly That this Revelation have been preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform Practice of the Faithful and if any of these conditions are wanting he denies any engagement of the Church in these concerns or that the Church has believed taught or practised this Deposing Doctrine that is to say If any Church teaches such Doctrines as have not the true Characters of Articles of Faith she does not teach true Articles of Faith but yet such Doctrines may be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome though they be not Articles of the Catholick Faith for if no Church can make Articles of Faith for her self which are not Articles of the Catholick Faith then no Church can be guilty
who allow Subjects in any case to rebel contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England and therefore it is as unjust to charge the Church of England with the Treasons and Rebellions which are committed contrary to her declared Doctrine as it is just to charge the Church of Rome with such practices as she her self decrees and teaches If Roman Catholicks be loyal to a deposed and excommunicated Prince no thanks to the Church of Rome for it who forbids them to be so If any in Communion with the Church of England be disloyal this is no fault of the Church which teaches Loyalty And since he has been pleased to mention the Bill of Exclusion I would desire him to tell me at his leisure What Roman Catholick Nation who had all the Power in their hands would have suffered a Protestant Prince to have succeeded quietly to his Throne We know how it fared with Henry the Fourth of France notwithstanding the Parliament of Paris burnt Mariana's Book and what Henrician Hereticks in those days signified But our Church teaches better and the true Sons of the Church practise better and will never repent of what they have done though they be unjustly reproached by Fanaticks for doing it and as unjustly charged by as kind Remonstrating Friends as any Rome affords with opposing it And now I come to his convincing Argument That the Papists do not hold such pernicious Doctrines That he sees so many Kings and Princes in other Countries no less jealous of their Lives and Authorities than others who yet profess and maintain that Religion and think themselves secure by their Principles when they dare not trust the Calvinist The Church of Rome you know Sir never wants Miracles and it may be this is none of the least For my part I dare not pretend to give a Reason Why any man professes that Religion much less Why Princes do so and yet it is not more impossible that men should maintain a Religion against their Interest than believe contrary to their Sences I suppose it is as much against the Interest of Princes to be actually deposed by Popes and Councils as it is to profess a Religion which teaches the Deposing Doctrine and yet when Henry the Fourth was deposed by Gregory the VII and Frederick the Second by Pope Innocent the Fourth in the Council of Lyons and in such other Instances of the actual exercise of this Deposing Doctrine neither the deposed Princes and Emperors nor other Catholick Kings renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome for it and if Kings can be contented to continue in the Communion of that Church which actually deposes Princes nay deposes themselves it does not seem to me so convincing an Argument That the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine meerly because Princes who are jealous of their Lives and Authority hold Communion with it If they can perswade Princes That there is no Salvation to be had in any other Church those who have a mind to be saved must be contented to dispense with some temporal Inconveniencies to save their Souls and indeed they have made the way to Heaven so very easie that it may perswade Princes who love their Pleasures to bear with the Rudeness and Insolencies of Popes And yet no man ever denied but the Papists may be very good Subjects to Popish Princes while they obey the Pope the Pope commands their Subjects to obey them the only danger is when the Pope and the Prince are not of a side whom the Subjects shall obey then the deposed Prince or the deposing Pope and it is no greater wonder that a Popish Prince can more securely trust his Popish Subjects than Calvinists than that a Calvinistical Prince places more confidence in his Calvinistical Subjects than in Papists for generally neither Papists nor Calvinists can endure any Prince but of their own Religion but now any Prince whether Papists or Calvinists may be secure in the Loyalty of the Church of England which reverences the Person and Authority of their Prince whatever his Religion be As for what he adds concerning our present King whom God long preserve there is less reason for him to fear the Deposing Doctrine though he did believe it to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome than for any other Catholick Prince in the World For as the case stands it is FINIS Remonst p. 2. Roman Cathol principles p. 6. Conc. To. 12. p. 144. Suarez Defens fid lib. 6. cap. 4. Concil Constance Sess. 39. Si verò dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesiâ terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac Haeretica faeditate per Metropolitanum caeteros Comprovinciales Episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo pontifici ut ex tunc ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandum qui eam exterminatis haereticis sine ullâ contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure Domini Principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opponat eâdem nihilo minus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos Principales Concil To. 11. p. 148 149. Edit ●abb Concil Const. Sess. 45. Omnes singulos Haereticos hujusmodi necnon Sectatores ipsarum haeresum errorum utriusque sexùs tenentes etiam defendentes eosdem Haereticis ipsis quo modo libet publicè vel occultè in divinis vel alias participantes etiamsi Patriarchali Episcopali Regali Reginali Ducali aut aliâ quâvis Ecclesiasticà vel Mundanâ praesulgeant dignitate Excommunicatos singulos diebus dominicis festivis in praesentia populi nuntietis per alios nuntiari faciatis Et nihil ominus contra eosdem omnes singulos utriusque sexus hujusmodi errores tenentes approbantes defendentes dogmatizantes ac fautores receptatores defensores eorundem exemptos non exemptos quemlibet ipsorum cujuscunque dignitatis status praeeminentiae gradus ordinis vel conditionis ut praefertur existant auctoritate nostrâ diligenter inquirere studeatis eos quos per inquisitionem hujusmodi defamatos vel per confessionem eorum seu per facti evidentiam vel alias hujusmodi haeresis aut erroris labe respersos reperietis auctoritate praedictâ etiam per excommunicationis suspensionis interdicti necnon privationis dignitatum personatuum officiorum aliorumque beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum ac feudorum quae à quibuscumque Ecclesiis Monasteriis ac aliis locis Ecclesiasticis obtinent ac etiam bonorum dignitatum saecularium ac graduum scientiarum quarumcunque facultatum per alias poenas sententias censuras Ecclesiasticas ac vias modos quos ad hoc expedire seu opportunos esse videritis etiam pèr captiones incarcerationes personarum alias poenas corporales quibus haeretici puniuntur seu puniri jubentur aut solent juxta canonicas sanctiones Conc. Const. Sess. 45 To. 12. p. 271. Richerius Hist. Conc. Gener. part 2. p. 162. Concil To. 12. p. 268. P. 18. P. 10. P. 13. P. 14. Answer to the first Treatise p. 5. Ibid. p. 71. Remonst p. 2.