the rest, have repeatedly avowed that the decrees of general councils are infallible authority, the assertions of one bishop, that Roman Catholics hold as principles of their religion positions directly contrary to these decrees, cannot receive the least degree of credit from any reasonable person. Doctor Copinger asserts, that the subjects of the King of England lawfully may, without the least breach of any Catholic principle, renounce, upon oath, the teaching or practising the doctrine of deposing kings, excommunicated for heresy, by any authority whatsoever; because, if a general council should presume to depose a king, and to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, no Catholic would be bound to submit to such a decree. The fourth Lateran general council does, in express terms, not only teach, but decree, that all the subjects of a prince, excommunicated for heresy, are absolved from their allegiance; and that such prince is deposed, and his dominions transferred to such Catholic potentate as may be able to seize on them. The decrees of this council, are specially recognized, acknowledged, and confirmed, by the subsequent general councils of Basil, Constance, and Trent; they are warranted by the constant practice of the Romish see, ever since their promulgation; they are declared, by all, or the great majority of the principal Ro mish divines, to be infallible authority in points of doctrine and morals. Where, then, is the authority of Doctor Copinger for the above assertion? Surely it is necessary for him to produce such authority, if any credit is claimed to his assertion. It is here remarkable, that Doctor Copinger uses the terms of subjects in general, not Roman Catholic subjects, and of the King of England, not the King of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and as the too plainly avowed design of the Romanists of Ireland is, to sever Ireland from Great Britain, the above omissions are worthy of observation. The king-killing doctrine attributed to the Romish church, is, in this tract, renounced, and stated so to be by the council of Constance; and it is not specially recommended by the fourth Lateran council. Deposition of a prince, decreed by the fourth Lateran council, and assassination, reprobated by the council of Constance, are different transactions; but surely they are very nearly allied in effect. If an attempt be made to depose a prince, and he be a man of spirit, he will fight for his dominion, and may fall in battle: if his enemies vanquish him, and he be taken prisoner, his death is almost always the consequence. case of King Charles the First. Such was the If his enemies make him a prisoner, without a civil war, his death is generally the consequence. Such was the case of King Lewis the Sixteenth of France; such will probably be the case (if not so already) with the Kings of Sweden and Spain, both subjected, at first, to a sequestred, rigid, and gloomy imprisonment to a man of spirit, worse than death. The tract then states, that it is a fundamental truth, in the Romish religion, that no power on earth can licence men to lie, to forswear, or perjure themselves to massacre their neighbours, or destroy their native country, on pretence of promoting the Catholic cause or religion. All this may be true, as between Romanists; but it is proper to examine, what is a lie, and what is forswearing, and perjury, according to the decrees of the fourth general Lateran council, in the case of the transactions of Romanists with those they style Heretics. That council decrees the utter extirpation and destruction of all Heretics, and that all agreements and conventions, made with them, though sanctioned by oaths, are in themselves nullities; if, therefore, any Romanist shall, by oath, swear allegiance to an Heretical Prince, as that is an agreement or convention with an Heretic, to do faithful service to him as as a subject, confirmed by an oath, such oath is in itself not voidable, but absolutely void, as if it never had been taken; and the swearer cannot be bound by that which is in itself an absolute nullity; nay, he is so far from being bound by it, that he is, by the same decree, bound to destroy, by every means in his power, the person to whom he has sworn allegiance, as an Heretic; so that the violation of all oaths and promises, made to such persons by a Romanist, for the performance of any thing whatsoever, is neither a lie, nor perjury; because there can be no violation of what is in itself a nullity. Massacres, and depopulations of countries are justifiable, on the same principles, if executed by Romanists on Heretics: nay, they are absolutely commanded by the same decrees to execute them. Some feeble attempts have been made by Romish casuits to evade the notorious consequences of the above doctrines, contained in the decrees of the fourth Lateran general council; this exposition of Roman Catholic principles is one of them, with how much success let the reader judge. Another mode of argument, Romanists make use of, contains more plausibility: it is thusWe are intitled to the enjoyment of all the privileges, we so ardently desire, provided we take the oaths, which all persons admitted to these privileges are, by law, necessitated to take. These oaths we refuse to take, and consequently deprive ourselves, for conscience sake, from suck. enjoyment; that is, demonstration of our conscientious regard, to the obligation of oaths: the fraud of this argument is easily detected, by recurring to the avowed principles of Romanists. They hold, that the supremacy of the Pope is a point of faith; and that a point of faith cannot be abjured; such abjuration, of any one point of faith, would be an abjuration of all points of faith, and of their religion; and that points, which they esteem points of faith, cannot be altered, or varied, even by a general coun- ̈ cil. (See the famous Pastoral Letter of Doctor. Troy, titular Archbishop of Dublin, published; in 1793, passim ; and the first number, in section. the second, of the above-mentioned tract of Doc-. tor Copinger, in the Appendix to the History.) But it is asserted, by the Romish divines, that the injunctions of the fourth Lateran council, respecting Heretics, and the conduct of Romanists to them, are only matters of discipline, decreed by the church; that such decrees may be altered by another general council, but that they must be obeyed by all Romanists, till they are so altered. From this it directly follows, that all promises of Romanists to, or agreements and conventions with, Heretics, though confirmed by oaths, are, in themselves, nullities; and, consequently, Romanists may make them, and confirm them by oaths, such being nuilities, and N |