being arrived there, he was no longer under the civil jurisdiction; that the Emperor could not give him a protection beyond the length is Imperial authority went, without prejudicing the Catholick-faith or Ecclefiaftal jurifdiction; which no fafe-guard granted by fecular powers ought to do, especially as the Council had just reasons for the ftep they had taken; that if he (the Emperor) had promised any thing farther than protecting him in his journey to the Council, he had in fo doing gone beyond the extent of his own authority, and engaged for more than he could perform, and therefore was not obliged to keep that promise, especially after doing all that was in his power to fulfil it. Thefe reafons entirely fatisfied the Emperor, who declared to the Commiffioners of the Council, when they addreffed him upon this fubject, That the Council was free in all matters belonging to faith, and might proceed according to the rules against all accused of herefy, and pass judgment upon them after public hearing according as they deferved. Vander Hardt tom. iv. p. 32. Upon this then it was judged proper, as a defence of the Ecclefiastical jurisdiction, and a precedent in future cases, to emit the above decree; the plain naked sense of which is clear and manifeft to every one who confiders the circumstances in which it was given. But fome Proteftants have been pleased to confound the obvious meaning of this decree, in order to find in it a liberty given to Catholicks, to break faith with those whom they esteem hereticks, and to cancel the fealty they owe to a Protestant government. This indeed is a comment with a witnefs! But unfortunately for the comment, the exprefs words of the decree are diametrically

the reverfe; for, it declares the civil magiftrate freed from fuch rafh promise as he has made beyond the limits of his authority only, after he has done all in his power to fulfil it. We fhall by and by see more fully, what was the true doctrine of this Council about the point in question; at present I must fay a word to another of its Canons commonly appealed to by Proteftants, to make out their charge; and alfo, to one of the fourth Council of Lateran used by them for the fame purpose: The answer to both these is very fhort, viz, That they are both fpurious, and never were made by either of thefe Councils. Even Mr Collier himself, our English Proteftant historian, in the fifth book of his firft volume of Ecclefiaftic history, acknowledges, That that of Lateran is not found in any copy coeval with the Council, but is tranfcribed from a later record. In fact it was firft produced to light by a German, fome hundred years after the time of the Council, who found it in a manufcript compiled by fomebody, he knew not who. And, as for the other ascribed to the Council of Constance, it never appeared in any printed or authentic collection of the acts of that Council, it is only transcribed by L'Enfant, the Calvinist historian, who fays, he got it in a copy found in the Vienna library. Both the one and the other are rejected by all Catholicks as fpurious, except Bellarmine and fome few Popifh fchoolmen, who were impofed upon by that of Lateran; but their opinions thereupon are univerfally condemned.

Here then, Gentlemen, you evidently fee, that if the author of the fermon, on the fpirit of the gospel, in appealing to refcripts and Councils, to

prove his charge against the Papifts, has thofe in view which I have here examined, they are just as much to his purpose as if he had cited the Alcoran or Talmud; and befides these, and thefe alone, I challenge him, in the face of the whole world, to produce any one approved divine of the Roman-Catholick communion, any authentic rescript or decree of their Councils, that either holds, appproves, or even infinuates the damnable doctrine which he lays to their charge, viz. That it can ever become lawful to lie, betray or murder, even though they should imagine the good of their Church required it. And, if he cannot produce fuch proof, as I am confidently certain he cannot-Good God! what idea must the discerning public form of his heart, who is capable to af perfe fo numerous a body as the Roman-Catholicks are, in fo horrid a manner, and to poison the hearts of his readers with the moft envenomed averfion against their innocent fellow creatures, by fuch abominable calumnies?

Here then I might reft the whole matter without going further; for furely, in all reafon and equity, till the accufer makes good his charge, the accused have a just right to be deemed innocent; and if the other fails in his proof, he must undoubtedly ftand condemned, in the eyes of every unprejudiced perfon, of the most infamous calumny and defamation. But, as I am engaged in defence of the truth, and writing to those who glory in being her moft devoted votaries, I fhall now proceed to show you, from the most convincing pofitive proofs, that the RomanCatholicks are abfolutely innocent of what our author, with fuch fubtile addrefs, lays to their charge and the principal proof I fhall bring

for this purpose, are the decrees of this very Council of Conftance, which will fet what I advance beyond the reach of contradiction.

About the end of the year 1407, John Sanf peur Duke of Burgundy, having caufed affaffinate Louis of France Duke of Orleans and only brother to the King Charles VI. formed a party for himself and raised a civil war. Among his partizans was one John Petit, a doctor of Paris, who had gained a great reputation for his learning and eloquence. This unhappy man publicly defended the murder of Louis, and among feveral other shocking propofitions which, in his fiery party zeal, he published on this occafion, one of the moft obnoxious was as follows: Any tyrant whatsoever may and ought lawfully and meritoriouf ly to be murdered by any vassal or fubject of his own; even by fecret fnares and fubtile flattery or adulation; and that notwithaftnding any oath given, or agreement entered into with him; and without waiting for the fentence or command of any judge whatsoevert." This fcandalous doctrine was foon after condemned by Jean de Montaigu, then Bishop of Paris; but this not being fufficient to stop the evil, it was delated by the famous Gerfon to the Council of Constance, who, after again and again hearing the partizans in defence of it, at last pronounced this famous fentence of condemnation upon it. "The facred fynod folicitous to combat this error and root it out entirely, declares and defines, that this doctrine is erroneous in faith and in morals; and therefore

+ Quilibet tyrannus poteft et debet licite et meritorie occidi per quemcunque vaffallum fuum vel fubditum, etiam per clanculares infidias et fubtiles bladitias vel adulationes, non obftante quocunque, praeftito Juramento feu confaederatione factis cum eo, non expectata fententia vel mandato judicis cujufcunque.

rejects and condemns it as heretical, fcandalous, and opening a door to frauds, deceit, lies, treachery and perjury. And, moreover, declares and difcerns, that thofe, who obftinately affert this most pernicious doctrine, are heretics; and as fuch are to be punished according to the Sacred Canons ." Here, Gentlemen, we fee the fense of this Council and confequently, of the Roman-Catholick Church in her own words, in her own language; and I the more willingly relate this decree, because it is not only a most authentic proof that the Papists detest and abhor the damnable doctrine with which they are branded by our author, but also clearly demonftrates their innocence in another point, of which they are no lefs currently accused in this country, viz. Of approving, and thinking it lawful to murder fovereigns when they become hereticks or tyrants. Here that doctrine is folemuly condemned by a General Council of that Church, which all her members look upon as infallible in its decrees concerning faith and manners, and to which they are therefore obliged to adhere as to the decrees of Chrift himself. With what face then, can calumny itself dare to accufe them of fuch tenets, after fo full, fo authentic a condemnation of them? And obferve the rea-fons given by the Council for this condemnation, not only because it is heretical and fcandalous in itself to affert it to be lawful to kill even tyrants by private authority; but alfo, because to affert

Adverfus hunc errorem fatagens S. Synodus exfurgere, ipfum que funditus tollere, declarat et definit hujufmodi doctrinam erroneam effe in fide et in moribus, ipfam que tanquam haereticam, fcandalofam, et ad fraudes, deceptiones, mendacia, proditiones, perjuria vias dantem, rèprobat et condemnat. Declarat infuper et difcernit quod pertinaciter doctrinam hanc perniciofiffimam afferentes funt haeretici et tanquam tales juxta canonicas fanctiones puniendi. Act. Conc. Constant. sell. 15.