directions that no man can observe them as every one swears to do and perform the necessary duties of the Priestly Office together The testimony of Iohannes Diaconus hath been long since answered by Gallonius who hath shewed him to be a very incompetent witness in this matter But they have not at all taken notice of the Testimony of Malmsbury who saith that the Benedictin Order came into England from the Abby of Fleury being brought hither by Oswald who had been a Monk there not long before the Council of Winchester which first made any establishment of it here I do not then deny that this Order was introduced by a particular devotion of some persons in some few places before to which the testimonies of Wilfrid Benedict Biscop and Aldelmus refer but the general reception of it was not before the times of Dunstan and with what confusions and disorders with what severities and injustice to the Canonical and Secular Clergy it was then established may be easily seen in our Histories For Dunstan Oswald and Ethelwald set themselves with all their power which was great by the Favour of King Edgar to drive out the Canons out of the Cathedral Churches belonging to them and to bring in the Monks in their Rooms and other Bishops thought it a good way to preferment to follow their example And from hence forward the Benedictin Monks kept the possession not only of the greater Monasteries but of several of the Cathedral Churches contrary to the design of their Rule if the Cistertian Abbots may be believed who declare their Resolution to keep to the Benedictin Rule and therefore would wholly withdraw from Cities and have nothing to do in Churches that so they might live retired not upon the profits of Churches but upon their own stock and industry according to the intention of their Rule And that this Resolution of the Cistertians was most agreeable to the Benedictin Rule is declared by the many Bulls of Popes which are extant for the confirmation of the Cistertian Order or rather Reformation of the Benedictin according to the first design and letter of their Rule § 7. Thus far Mr. Cressy's resolution to stand to it that Christianity was established in England by the Disciples of S. Benedict hath drawn me to the Discourse of the means and Persons by which England was converted but it may be after all this he may find out a reserve to himself viz. that he did not mean it of the first knowledge of Christianity but of the firm settlement of it But neither can this be his meaning nor if it were is it any truer than the former It cannot be his meaning for his words are that the English Saxons were indeed converted by the Disciples of S. Benedict by which it is plain he speaks of the first Conversion but suppose he did not the establishment or settlement of Christianity is no more owing to the Benedictins than the first Conversion of the Nation For which we are to consider that a sudden Apostasie soon happened to Paganism after the death of the first Princes who professed Christianity For Eadbald King of Kent Son to Ethelbert revolted from it but he soon repented his Apostasie and sent for Mellitus and Iustus out of France again but the state of Christianity remained more desperate in the Eastern parts after the death of Sebert and the Apostasie of his Sons and although some hopes appeared by the Conversion of Erpenwald yet his death happening soon after things were as bad as ever till the return of Sigebert out of France who brought Felix a Burgundian Priest with him who was the great instrument of restoring Christianity in those parts Among the West Saxons Birinus was the first Preacher of Christianity but he was so far from being a Benedictin that Mr. Cressy himself confesseth that he was not by profession a Monk In the Northern parts after the revolt of the Sons of Edwin Christianity was wholly restored in the time of King Oswald by the Scottish Christians among whom himself was Converted and Baptized Bede at large relates the coming of Aidâ—nus and his excellent piety zeal and charity whose good example many others followed till by great diligence in preaching and an excellent conversation they had settled Christianity much more firmly than ever and from thence Christianity was conveyed into the Middle parts of England in the time of Peada by Finanus who carried with him four Pâ—iests Cedda and Adda and Betti and Diuma whereof the last was a Scot and the other English this Diuma was made Bishop and consecrated by Finanus after him succeeded Ceolla a Scot too after him Trumâ—ere consecrated by the Scots after him Iaruman after him Ceadda At the same time saith Bede the East Saxons recovered the Christian faith by the endeavours of King Oâ—wi of Northumberland with their King Sigbert who was likewise Baptized by Finanus and he consecrated Cedda to be their Bishop By which we see that when Christianity was settled and established in England how much more it was owing to the piety and care of the Scottish Christians than to the Roman Missionaries for all the Northern parts the Midland and East Saxons were throughly converted by them the East Angles by Felix a Burgundian the West Saxons by Birinus one sent from Rome but no Monk and only the parts of Kent by the Roman Monks but not Benedictins And hath not Mr. Cr. now very great reason to stand to this assertion That the English Saxons were converted to Christianity by Benedictin Monks § 8. But it may be yet Mr. Cressy thinks they were never true Christians till they had received the Roman customes and that the honour of making them good Catholick Christians belonged to the Benedictins or at least to the Roman Missionaries For all that I can find they were very good Christians in Mr. Cressy's esteem but only in the Customes wherein they differed from the Roman Church For Mr. Cressy confesseth that the Scots Picts and Brittains in all matters of faith agreed with the Saxon that is the Roman Church but it is plain withall that the great zealot for the Church of Râ—me Wilfrid refused to receive Orders among them and gives this as the reason of it because the Apostolical See did not allow thâ—◠〈…〉 on with it for speaking of the 〈◊〉 Scottish Bishops he saith 〈…〉 Apostolica sedes in communiâ—◠〈…〉 neceos qui Schismatâ—cis consenâ—â—â—â— it seems then the Brittish and Sâ—â—â—â—â—sh Churches stood excommunicated at that time by the Church of Rome and therefore he desires to go into France ut sine controversia Apostolicae sedis licet indignus gradum Episcopalem merear accipere so that the Pope would neither allow their Churches nor their Ordinations So William of Malmsbury saith that he would neither be ordained by the Scottish Bishops nor by any ordained by them because the
who so meekly resigned his Crown to the Popes Legat and did swear homage to the Pope declaring that he held the Kingdom in Fee from him upon the annual payment of a thousand Marks And I desire it may be observed that the Oath of Fealty extant in Matthew Paris and the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register which King Iohn made to the Pope hath no other expressions in it than are contained in the Oath which all the Popish Bishops now take at their consecration only with the variation of necessary circumstances And although Sr. Tho. Moor once denyed any such thing as King Iohns Resignation of his Crown yet the matter is now past all dispute by the concurrence of the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register and the Authentick Bull of the Pope and the Epistles of Innocent the third published out of MS. by Bosquet now a Bishop in France wherein the devout Pope attributes thus resignation of his Crown to no less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and saith the Kingdom of England was then become a Royal Priesthood and in another Bull he accepts of the Resignation and declares that whereas before these Provinces were subject to the Roman Church in Spirituals they were now become subject in Temporals too and from hence he requires an Oath of Fealty from himself and all his Successors and charges all persons under severe penalties not to dare to infringe this Charter And although the Parliament 40 Edw. 3. did deny the payment of the Popes Tribute upon the invalidity of King John ' s Charter not being done by the consent of the Barons as the Pope said it was yet we are to consider what Gregory the seventh said to the Princes of Spain that a Kingdom once belonging to the See of Rome can never be alienated from it but although the Use be discontinued yet the Right still continues so that although the thing be never so much null and vain in it self yet it still serves for pretence to usurp the same temporal Power over our Princes when opportunity serves them And it is certain that Henry the third did swear homage and Fealty to the Pope at his Coronation and promised to pay the tribute which was performed several times in his Reign till the King and People protested against it in the Council of Lyons as a grievance of the Kingdom which was extorted by the Roman Court unjustly in a time of War and to which the Nobles had never consented and never would But whatever opinion the Nobles were of the Pope had the Bishops sure to him for upon his Message to them they all set their hands to King John ' s Charter of Resignation which highly provoked the King and made him swear that he would stand for the Liberty of the Kingdom and never pay the Tribute more while he breathed In the same Council the English complained that infinite numbers of Italians were beneficed among them that more money went out of England every year into Italy than the Kings Revenues came to that the Popes Legats grew more intolerable and by reservations and Provisions and one trick or other the Patrons were defrauded of their Right and the Clergy impoverished by unreasonable pensions and whoever would not presently submit his Soul was immediately put into the Devils Custody by Excommunication Notwithstanding all these complaints the Pope goes on in the same way with them and resolved to try how much the Asses back would bear without kicking the English Ambassadours go away highly incensed from the Council and resolved to defend their own rights but they yet wanted a Prince of Spirit enough to head them Before this time the insolence of the Roman Clergy was grown so intolerable to the Nation that the Nobility and Commonalty joyned together in a resolution to free themselves from this Yoke and threated the Bishops to burn their goods if they went about to defend them they sent abroad their Letters to several places with a Seal with two swords between which were written Ecce duo gladii hic in abuse of the Roman Court and it seems they destroyed the goods of several Roman Clergy-men but Matt. Paris saith they were all excommunicated by the Bishop of London and ten Bishops more although Matt. Mestminster saith the Bishop of London was cited to Rome for favouring them and having his Purse well emptied was sent home again It seems the Pope was so nettled at the Remonstrance of the English Nobility at the Council of Lyons that he entred into a secret consultation with the King of France either to depose the King of England or to bring him wholly to his will so that neither he nor his people should so much as dare to mutter against the oppressions of the Roman Court and the Pope offered the utmost assistance of his Power for it but the King of France declined the employment However the Pope goes on with his work and grants a Bull for raising ten thousand Marks out of vacant Benefices in the Province of Canterbury which so incensed the King that he made at Proclamation that whosoever brought Bulls of Provision from Rome should be taken and imprisoned but this did little good saith Matth. Paris because of the uncertain humour of the King The same year a Parliament was called about the intolerable grievances of the Roman Court in which many of the Bishops favoured the Popes party but at the Parliaments meeting at Winchester the Ambassadors were returned from the Pope who gave a lamentable account of their Ambassy viz. that instead of any redress the Pope told them the King of England kicks and playes the Frederick whom he had deposed from the Empire in the Council of Lyons he hath his Council and I have mine which I will follow and withal they say they were scorned and despised as a company of Schismaticks for daring to complain Upon this the King issues out another Proclamation that no money should be sent out of England to the Pope At which the Pope was so enraged that he sent a severe Message to the Bishops of England under pain of excommunication and suspension to see his Money punctually paid to his Nuntio by such a day in London and the King by the perswasion of the Bishop of Worcester and some others fairly yields and gives up the Cause to the Pope After this the Pope sends for a third part of the profits of all Benefices from Residents and half from Non-residents with an Italian Gentleman called Non obstante that had almost undone the Nation the Clergie meet at London about it and make a grievous Remonstrance of their sad condition declaring that the whole Kingdom could not satisfie the Popes demands but it seems the Bishops brought the inferiour Clergie to it against the consent of the King and Parliament The next year the Parliament made
Prince doth challenge in another Princes Dominions contrary to and above the Laws of the Land and what obedience it is that subjects may pay to such a forreign Prince without the privity and contrary to the command of his own Soveraign which cannot be done by a general Answer but by distinct assigning the bounds of the Popes Temporal and Spiritual Power in England and what the full intent of them is that the King may discern whether he hath enough of either to preserve himself and the Peace of the Kingdom 3. That till such time as the Roman-Catholick Subjects of England give as good security to the King for their Fidelity and peaceable behaviour as all his other subject do they have no cause to wonder that they may be made subject to such Laws and restraints as may disable them from being dangerous when they profess to owe obedience to a forreign Prince who doth as much profess not to be a friend to their Countrey and will not declare what that obedience is 4. That the Roman Catholick Subjects of England have a more immediate dependance on the Pope than is allowed in any Catholick Countryes and that those who under pretence of Religion refuse to declare that it is in no Earthly Power to absolve them from their Fidelity to the King do refuse to give as full satisfaction and security for their Allegiance as Catholick Subjects do give for their Fidelity to Catholick Kings there being no French Roman Catholick who dares refuse to do it 5. That there is so much the more reason to require this since the late instance of the Irish Rebellion wherein the Pope absolved the Kings Subjects from their Oaths and took upon himself to be their General in the Person of his Nuntio and assumed the exercise of the Regal Power both at Land and Sea and imprisoned those Catholicks and threatned to take away their Lives who had promoted the peace and desired to return to the Kings subjection and hath since given a severe check to those of the Irish Nobility and Clergie who had declared that the Pope had no Power to dispense with their Fidelity to his Majesty or to absolve them from any Oaths they should take to that purpose and imployed his Nuntio to discountenance and suppress that Declaration and to take care that it should proceed no further and that Cardianl Barbarine at that same time put them in mind that the Kingdom of England was still under Excommunication and since that the Pope hath made many Bishops in Ireland which his Predecessors had forborn to do from the death of Queen Elizabeth to A. D. 1640. And therefore there is no reason to believe that the Court of Rome doth recede from its former principles as to these things § 2. These several particulars carry so much weight along with them as may easily raise the expectation of any one to see what Mr. Cressy will reply to them And in truth he enters the Field like a Champion for he saith his Apologie is published permissu Superiorum and what he writes on this special subject he desires the Person of Honour to consider not as the inconsiderable opinion of one particular person only And he doth assure him that there is not any one Point of Controversie upon which they more earnestly desire to be summoned to give an account before equal Iudges than this Thus he enters the lists and walks his ground and brandishes his sword and makes legs to the Judges with more than ordinary assurance and fails in no point of a Champion but overcoming his Adversary Which he is so far from that after these Bravado's and flourishes he dares not stand before him but looks round about him to discern any way to escape But although it be beneath the Greatness of his Adversary to pursue him over all his Bogs and to draw him out of his Fastnesses yet I shall endeavour to bring him into the Lists again that his Adversary may not go away blushing at so mean a Triumph There are five things which Mr. Cressy offers at by way of Answer to the Discourse of the Person of Honour on this subject 1. That there is no reason to suspect the Catholick subjects of England to be more wanting in Fidelity to their Prince than of other Nations whose Catholick Ancestors were so far from acknowledging any Supremacy of the Pope in Temporals and much less any Authority in him to depose Princes that even in those times when Church-men had the greatest Power in this Kingdom Statutes were made with the joynt Votes of the Clergic upon occasion of some Usurpations of the Roman Court in which the Penalty was no less than a Praemunire against any one who without the Kings License 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 Brieffs from Rome or purchase Bulls for presentments to Churches and which is most considerable the ground of their rejecting Papal Usurpations is thus expressed For 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 to which he saith the Bishops assented and the Lords and Commons declared their Resolution to stand with the King in the cases aforesaid and in all other cases attempted against him his Crown and Regalitie in all points to live and to dye 2. That whatsoever they suffer here in England by vertue of the Poenal Laws it is purely for their Religion and the Catholick faith and therefore he parallels our Poenal Laws with those of the Medes and Persians against Daniel and of Nero Domitian and Dioclesian against the Apostles and their successors and yet Mr. Cressy confesses that the occasion of the Poenal Laws was the treasonable actions of some of their own Religion but he adds that they were scarce one score of persons and abhorred by all the rest for which actions of theirs he confesseth that care is taken of exacting Oaths both of Fidelity and Supremacy from Roman Catholicks as dangerous Subjects and dayes of Thanksgiving are kept for the discovery and prevention of such personal Treasons whereas saith he the whole Kingdoms deliverance from almost an universal Rebellion designing the extinction of Monarchy and Prelacy both and executing the murder of the lawful Soveraign is not esteemed a sufficient motive for such publick Thanksgivings neither it seems is there at all a necessity of requiring from any a Retraction of the Principles of Rebellion or a promise that it shall not be renewed By which we might think Mr. Cressy had been utterly a stranger in his own Countrey and had never heard of the thirtieth of Ianuary or the twenty ninth of May which are solemnly observed in our Church and the Offices joyned
omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum contra Dom. Papam Alexandrum B. Thomam Archiepiscopum quod eorum non recipient literas neque obedient mandatis Et si quis inveâ—tus foret literas eorum deferens traderetur Potestatibus tanquam Coronae Regis capitalis inimicus Here we see an Oath of Supremacy made so long ago by Henry the second and those who out of zeal or whatsoever motive brought over Bulls of the Popes made lyable to the charge of Treason but the Archbishop by vertue of his Legatine Power took upon him to send persons privately into England and to absolve them from this Oath as is there expressed The same year the King being in Normandy sent over these Articles to be sworn and observed by the Nobles and People of England 1. If any one be found carrying Letters from the Pope or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury containing an Interdict of Religion in England let him be taken and without delay let justice pass upon him as upon a Traytor to the King and Kingdom 2. No Clergie-man or Monk or Lay-Brother may be suffered to cross the Seas or return into England unless he have a Pass from the Kings Iustice for his going out and of the King himself for his return if any one be found doing otherwise let him be taken and imprisoned 3. No man may appeal either to the Pope or Arch-bishop and no plea shall be held of the Mandates of the Pope or Archbishop nor any of them be received by any person in England if any one be taken doing otherwise let him be imprisoned 4. No man ought to carry any Mandat either of Clergie-man or Laick to either of them on the same penalty 5. If any Bishops Clergie-men Abbots or Laicks will observe the Popes interdict let them be forthwith banished the Realm and all their Kindred and let them carry no Chattels along with them 6. That all the Goods and Chattels of those who favour the Pope or Archbishop and all their possessions of whatsoever rank order sex or condition they be be seized into the Kings hand and confiscated 7. That all Clergie-men having revenews in England be summoned through every County that they return to their places within three months or their revenues to be seized into the Kings hands 8. That Peter-pence be no longer paid to the Pope but let them be gathered and kept in the Kings Treasury and laid out according to his command 9. That the Bishops of London and Norwich be in the Kings Mercy and be summoned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear before the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in interdicting the Land and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh by vertue of the Popes Mandat and publishing this excommunication without Licence from the Kings Iustices I hope these particulars will give full satisfaction that the Controversie between King Henry the second and Becket was not about some antient Saxon Laws but the very same principles which Gregory the seventh first openly defended of the Popes temporal Power over Princes and the total exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from Civil Iudicatures § 14. 2. This will yet more appear if we consider that the Pleas used by Becket and his party were the very same which were used by Gregory the seventh and his Successors The beginning of the quarrel we have seen was about the total exemption of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Orders from civil punishments which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors and it seems by Fitz Stephen that several of the Bishops were for yielding them up to the Secular Power after deprivation and said that both Law and Reason and Scripture were for it but Becket stood to it that it was against God and the Canons and by this means the Churches Liberty would be destroyed for which in imitation of their High-Priest they were bound to lay down their lives and bravely adds that it was not greater merit of old for the Bishops to found the Church of Christ with their blood than in their times to lay down their lives for this blessed liberty of the Church and if an Angel from Heaven should perswade him to comply with the King in this matter he should be accursed By which we see what apprehension Becket had of the nature of his cause from the beginning of it for this was before the King insisted on the reviving the Antient Customs at Clarendon Where it seems Beckets heart failed him which the Monks and Baronius parallel with S. Peters denying Christ but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance was his Cross-bearer who told him that the Civil Authority disturbed all that wickedness raged against Christ himself that the Synagogue of Satan had profaned the Lords Sanctuary that the Princes had sat and combined together against the Lords Christ that this tempest had shaken the pillars of the Church and while the Shepherd withdrew the sheep were under the power of the Wolf A very loyal representation of the King and all that adhered to his Rights After this he spoke plainly to him and told him he had lost both his conscience and his honour in conspiring with the Devils instruments in swearing to those cursed customs which tended to the overthrow of the Churches Liberty At which he sighed deeply and immediately suspends himself from all Offices of his Function till he should be absolved by the Pope which was soon granted him The Pope writes to the King very sharply for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs and threatens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement and tells him of Saul and Ozias and Rehoboam and parallels his sin with theirs and bids him have a care of their punishments And was all this zeal of the Pope only for the good old Saxon Laws When the Bishop of Exeter begged the Archbishop at Northampton to have regard to his own safety and theirs too he told him he did not savour the things of God he had spoken much more pertinently according to P. W. if he had told him he did not understand the Saxon Laws When the Earl of Leicester came to him to tell him he must come and hear his sentence he told him that as much as his soul was better than his body so much more was he bound to obey God and Him than an earthly King and for his part he declared he would not submit to the Kings judgement or theirs in as much as he was their Father and that he was only under God to be judged by the Pope and so appealed to him Which being an appeal to the Pope in a Civil cause about accounts between the King and him it does plainly shew that he did not think the King had any Authority over
him but that the Pope had a temporal Power over Princes to hear and determine Causes between them and their Subjects And in his Letter to the Pope upon this appeal he saith that he was called as a Laick to answer before the King and that he insisted upon this plea that he was not to be judged there nor by them For what would that have been but to have betrayed your Rights and to have submitted spiritual things to temporal and if he should have yielded to the King it would have made him not a King but a Tyrant And whereas the Bishops pleaded obedience to the King he saith they were bound corporally to the King but spiritually to himself What in opposition to the King about his own Rights which were so plain in this case at Northampton that the Bishop of Chichester charged him both with Perjury and Treason because these things related to the Kings temporal Honour and Dignity and therefore the Bishops were not bound to obey their Archbishop The Pope applauds Becket for what he had done and nulls the sentence against him which was still taking more upon him the exercise of a Temporal Power over the King But Fitz Stephen who saith he was present at Northampton with Becket saith that when the Bishop of Chichester charged him with his Oath at Clarendon he replyed that what was against the Faith of the Church and the Law of God could not lawfully be kept now these customs were never supposed to be against the Faith of the Church till Gregory the seventh had very subtilly found out the Henrician heresie i. e. the heresie of Princes defending their own Rights against the Papal Usurpations and he particularly insisted on this that the Pope had condemned those Customs and he adds that we ought to receive what the Roman Church receives for he knew no difference between the Câ—urt and Church of Rome and to reject what that rejects and concludes all with this that his Oath at Clarendon was an unlawful Oath and could not bind him But what pretence were there for this if he had only contended for the antient Municipal Laws what unlawfulness could there be in swearing to observe the Kings Laws although different from former Laws So that the only way to excuse him from manifest perjury is to suppose that he looked on the Customs of Clarendon as repugnant to the Popes Decrees and therefore not to be kept by him and the Pope tells him that God had reserved him to this time of tryal for the confirmation of Catholick and Christian Truth in which it must be implyed that which Becket defended against the King was a part of the Catholick Faith in the Popes judgement In his Epistle to Robert Earl of Leicester he pleads for the Liberty of the Church which Christ hath purchased with his blood who then saith he dares bring her into slavery who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own Master he ought to stand or fall And all that he adviseth to for making up the breach is their repentance and satisfaction for the injuries done to Christ and his Church And whereas the Bishop of London had told him that the King was willing to submit to the judgement of his Kingdom about his antient Rights Becket replyes Who is there in Earth or Heaven that dares judge of what God hath determined humane things may be judged but divine must be left as they are In his Epistle to all the Clergie of England he saith that at Northampton Christ was judged again in his person before the Tribunal of Pilat for him he understands by the name of President In his Epistle to the King he pleads that the Liberty of the Church which he contended for was purchased by Christs own blood and adds farther to the very hearts desire of Gregory the seventh that it was certain that Kings did receive their power from the Church and not the Church from them but only from Christ from whence he infers that the King could not draw Clergie-men to secular Tribunals or establish the Customs in dispute between them I do not say as Hoveden doth that these words were spoken in a Conference at Chinun for they are a part of the Epistle sent to the King not long after his banishment and written in justification of his opposition to the Rights which the King challenged Therefore I desire to know what theâ—e words can signifie to his purpose unless they do imply such a derivation of Civil Power from the Church that the Church may take cognizance of male-administration or of the Civil Authorities taking to it self any of the priviledges belonging to the Church For if all this related only to the Ceremonies of Coronation it were to no more purpose than for an Archbishop of Canterbury to plead now that the Kings power is derived from the Church because the ceremony of inauguration is performed by him Who would not smile at such a consequence But we know that the Popes temporal Power over Princes was never more asserted than in that Age that Alexander the third at that time challenged and exercised it over the Emperour and other Princes and that no man was more stiff in the Popes Cause nor more eager for the exercise of his Power over our King than Becket was and his actions discovered this to be his opinion why then should men study to find evasions for these words which neither agree with the course of his actions nor with the doctrine of that Age Doth not Becket himself magnifie the Popes power to the greatest height In his Epistle to the Bishâ—p of London he saith that none but an Insidel or Heretick or Schismatick dares dispute obedience to the Popes commands that no one under the Sun can pluck out of his hands And in one of his Epistles to the Pope he makes very profane addresses to him applying what the Scripture saith only of God and Christ to him Exurge Domine noli tardare super nos illâ—mina faciem tuam super nos fac nobiscum secundum misericordiam tuam Salva nos quia perimus and immediately adds let not our adversaries triumph over us yea the adversaries of Christ and his Church quia nomen tuum invocavimus super nos And lest any should think these were addresses to God although contained in a Letter to the Pope it follows Non nobis Domine non nobis sed in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi fac tibi grande nomen repara gloriam tuam For at this time the Kings Ambassadors promised themselves great things in the Court of Rome and boasted of the Favour they had which put Becket into such a Consternation that in the very Agony of his Soul he poured out these prayers to the Pope And we may judge of Beckets opinion in this matter by that of his great Friend Cardinal Gratianus for when the King saw himself
Archbishop as he very punctually tells the Pope how he saluted him at first bare-headed and ran into his embraces how he bare his rebukes patiently and held his Stirrup at his getting upon his Horse if he had but trampled on the Kings Neck too he had been equal to the Pope himself and it might have raised some jealouâ—ie between them But for all this reconciliation Becket supposing himself the Conquerour resolved not to abate one jot of his rigour against those who had sworn to the ancient Customs and therefore procures power from the Pope to excommunicate the Bishops that had done it and to return to their excommunication those already absolved and to absolve none without taking an oath to stand to the Popes command This the Kings Officers upon his return into England told him was against the Customs of the Realm but they promised they should take an oath to obey the Law salvo honore Regni Becket at first said it was not in his Power to rescind the Popes sentence which he knew to be false for the Pope had given him power to do it and he immediately adds that he could absolve the Bishops of London and Salisbury if they took the common oath which was in the Cotton M S. se juri parituros but it is interlined se vestro mandato parituros as the Vatican Copy in Baronius hath it But the Archbishop of York told the other Bishops that the taking such an oath without the Kings consent was against the Kings Honour and the Customs of the Realm And it is observeable that the same time he was so zealous for the Bishops taking this oath to the Pope he peremptorily refused suffering those of his retinue though required to do it by the Kings Officers to take an oath of Allegiance to the King to stand by him against all persons nec vos excipientes nec alium saith he to the Pope neither excepting you nor any other as the Cotton M S. hath it very plainly but Baronius hath Printed it Nos whether agreeably to the Vatican M S. I know not but I am sure not to Beckets sense for he gives this reason of his refusing it lest by that example the Clergy of the Kingdom should be drawn to such an oath which would be much to the prejudice of the Apostolical See for by this means the Popes Authority would be discarded or very much abated in England Judge now Reader whether Becket did not remain firm to the Gregorian principles to the last and whether the immediate motive of his death did not arise from them for upon the oath required of the Bishops they with the Archbishop of York went over to the King in Normandy upon the hearing of which complaint the King spake those hasty words from whence those four Persons took the occasion to go over to Canterbury and there after expostulations about this matter they did most inhumanely Butcher him as he was going to Vespers in the Church upon which Ioh. Sarisburiensis who was his Secretary and present at his murder saith that he dyed an Assertor of the Churches Liberty and for defending the Law of God against the abuses of ancient Tyrants But what need we mention his judgement when the Pope in his Bull of Canonization and the Roman Church in his Office do say that he dyed for the Cause of Christ And what can be more plain from hence than that to this day all those who acknowledge him to be a Saint and a Martâ—r cannot with any consistency to themselves reject those principles for which he suffered any more than they can reasonably be supposed to reject the Republican principles who cry up the Regicides for Saints and Martyrs But this is a subject lately undertaken by another hand and therefore I forbear any farther prosecution of it § 16. After Beckets death the Royal Power lost ground considerably for to avoid the interdict and excommunication threatned the Kingdom the King by his Ambassadours and the Bishops by their messengers did swear in the Court of Rome that they would stand to the Popes judgement for among the terms of the Kings reconciliation by the Popes Legats this was one of the chief that he should utterly disclaim the wicked Statutes of Clarendon and all the evil customs which in his dayes were brought into the Church and if there were any evil before they should be moderated according to the Popes command and by the advice of Religious Persons Thus after so many years contest were the Rights of the Crown and the Customs of his predecessours given up by this great Prince so true was that saying of Becket that their Church had thriven by opposition to Princes And if Petrus Blesensis may be believed this King stooped so low upon the Rebellion of his Son as to acknowledge his Kingdom to be Feudatary to the Pope The Authority of which Epistle is made use of not only by Baronius but by Bellarmin and others to prove that the King of England is Feudatary to the Pope or that he holds his Crown of him upon paying certain acknowledgments which it is hardly possible to conceive a Prince that understood and valued his own Rights so well as Henry the second did should ever be brought so low to confess without the least ground for it For when it was challenged by Gregory the seventh it was utterly denyed by William the Conquerour and never that we find so much as challenged afterwards of any lawful Prince by way of Fee before his time but only in regard of the Popes temporal Power over all Princes Although a late French Monk who published Lanfranc's Epistles wonders it should be denyed because of the Tribute anciently paid to Rome viz. of the Peter-pence which were not so called because paid to S. Peters pretended Successours but because payable on S. Peters day as appears by the Law of Canutus to that Purpose and were only Eleemosynary for the sustenance of poor Scholars at Rome as the late publisher of Petrus Blesensis confesses who withal adds that Henry the second denyed their payment but was perswaded to it again by Petrus Blesensis and him he acknowledges to have been the Writer of the foregoing Epistle And we must consider that he was alwayes a secret Friend of Becket and his Cause in the whole quarrel and being imployed by the King in his straits to write to the Pope to excommunicate his Son he knowing very well the prevalent arguments in the Court of Rome might strain a complement in the behalf of his Master to the Pope for which he had little cause to thank him although it may be Petrus Blesensis expressed his own mind whether it were the Kings or no. And we have no ground that I can find to imagin this to have been the Kings mind in the least for upon his submission a Clause was inseâ—ted that he was no longer to own the Pope
than the Pope treated him as a Christian and Catholick King and as the Popes predecessours had done â—is And after the writing of that Letter and the reconciliation with his Son Radulphus de Diceto Dean of S. Pauls about that time hath an Authentick Epistle of Henry the second to the Pope wherein he acknowledges no more than the common observance which was usual with all Princes in that Age whereas Feudatary Princes write after another Form So that I cannot but think it to be a meer complement of Petrus Blesensis without the Kings knowledge or else a Clause inserted since his time by those who knew where to put in convenient passages for the advantage of the Roman See It is said by some that Henry the second A. D. 1176. did revive the Statutes of Clarendon which the Pope and Becket opposed so much in the Parliament called at Northampton It is true that Gervase of Canterbury doth say that the King did renew the Assise of Clarendon for whose execrable Statutes Becket suffered but he doth not say that he renewed those Statutes but others which are particularly enumerated by Hoveden upon the distributing tâ—e Kingdom into six Circuits and appointing the itinerant Judges who were made to swear that they would keep themselves and make others to observe the following Assises as the Statutes were then called but they all concerned matters of Law and Civil Iustice without any mention of the other famous Statutes about Ecclesiastical matters Whereas at the same time it is said that King Henry the second granted to the Popes Legat though against the advice of his great and Wise men that Clergy-men should not be summon'd before Secular Tribunals but only in case of the Kings Forest and of Lay-fees which is directly contrary to the Statute of Clarendon but some men love to heap things together without well considering how they agree with each other and so make the King in the same page to null and establish the same Statutes But it is observable that after all this contest about the exemption of Clergy-men and the Kings readiness to yield it they were made weary of it at last themselves for as Richard Beckets successour in the See of Canterbury saith in his Letter to the three Bishops that were then three of the Kings Iustices the killing of a Clergy-man was more remisly punished than the stealing of a Sheep and therefore the Archbishop perswades them to call in the Secular Arm against Ecclesiastical Malefactors And now in his opinion the Canons and Councils are all for it and Beckets arguments are slighted and no regard had to the Cause he suffered for when he found what mischief this impunity brought upon themselves But for this giving up their Liberties the Monks revenge themselves on the memory of this Archbishop as one that yielded up those blessed priviledges which Becket had purchased with his blood Notwithstanding the sufferings the King had undergone by his opposing the Ecclesiastical encroachments we may see what apprehension after all he had of the declension of his own power and the miserable condition the Church was in by those priviledges they had obtained by that notable discourse which Gervase of Canterbury relates the King had with the Bishops in the time of Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury wherein with tears he tells them that he was a miserable man and no King or if a King he haâ— only the name and not the power of a King that the Kingdom of England was once a rich and glorious Kingdom but now a very small share of it was left to his Government And then gives a sad account of the strange degeneracy both of the Monks and Clergy and what saith he in the day of judgement shall we say to these things Besides Those of Rome see our Weakness and domineer over us they sell their Letters to us they do not seek justice but contentions they multiply appeals and draw suits to Rome and when they look only after Money they confound Truth and overthrow peace What shall we say to these things how shall we answer them at Gods dreadful Iudgement Go and advise together about some effectual course to prevent these enormities Was this spoken like a Feudatary of the Popes and not rather like a wiâ—e and pious Prince who not only saw the miseries that came upon the Kingdom and Church by these encroachments of Ecclesiastical Power but was yet willing to do his best to redress them if the great Clergy would have concurred with him in it who were a little moved for the present with the Kings Tears and pathetical speech but the impression did soon wear off from their minds and things grew worse and worse by the daily increase of the Papal Tyranny And when this great Prince was very near his end some of the Monks of Canterbury were sent over to him who had been extreamly â—roublesome to himself and the Kingdom as well as to the Archbishop by their continual Appeals to the Court of Rome and they told the King the Convent of Canterbury saluted him as their Lord I have been said the King and am and will be Your Lord Ye wicked Traytors Upon which one of the Monks very loyally cursed him and he dyed saith Gervase within seven dayes § 17. Having thus far shewed that the Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power was accounted a Cause of Religion by the managers of the Ecclesiastical Power and that so far that the great Defender of it is to this day accounted a Saint and a Martyr for suffering in it I now come to shew that the ancient panal Laws were made against that very Cause which Becket suffered for After the death of Henry the second Beckets Cause triumphed much more than it had done before for in the time of Richard the first the great affairs of the Nation were managed by the Popes Legats during the Kings absence and after his return scarce any opposition was made to the Popes Bulls which came over very frequently unless it were against one about the Canons of Lambeth wherein the King and Archbishop were forced to submit no hindrance made to Appeals and even in Normandy the Ecclesiastical Power got the better after long contests In the latter end of Richard the first the Pope began to take upon him the disposal of the best Ecclesiastical preferments in England either by translation or Provision or Collation which Fitz Stephen saith that Henry 2. told those about him after the four Courtiâ—rs were gone for England to murder Becket was the design Becket intended to carry on viz. to take away all Right of Patronage from the King and all Lay-Persons and so bring the gift of all Church-preferments to the Pope or others under him Upon the agreement of King Iohn with the Popes Legat he renounced all right of Patronage and gave it to the Pope but it is no wonder in him
desires it may be noted 11 R. 2. the Commons pray that those that bring in the Popes Bulls of Volumus and Imponimus may be reputed for Traytors 13 R. 2. the Statute of Provisors was again confirmed notwithstanding the Protestations of the Bishops in Parliament against any Statute made in restraint of the Popes Authority and a Praemunire added against those that bring any sentence of excommunication against those that execute it 15 R. 2. the Archbishop of York being Chancellor told the Parliament one of the Causes of calling them was the restoring to the Pope what belonged to him about Provisions but in the same Parliament Sr. William Brian was sent to the Tower for bringing a Bull from Rome against some that had robbed him which Bull being read was judged prejudicial to the King his Council and in derogation to his Laws 16 R. 2. the Commons grant to the King that by the advice of his Lords and Commons he should have power to moderate the Statute of Provisions to the honour of God saving the Rights of the Crown so as the same be declared the next Parliament to the end the Commons may then agree or no. In this Parliament happened an extraordinary thing For William Courtny Archbishop of Canterbury made his Protestation in open Parliament saying That the Pope ought not to Excommunicate any Bishop or intermeddle for or touching any presentation to any Ecclesiastical dignity recovered in any of the Kings Courts He further protested that the Pope ought to make no translations to any Bishoprick within the Realm against the Kings will for that the same was the destruction of the Realm and Crown of England which hath alwayes been so free as the same hath had none earthly Soveraign but only subject to God in all things touching Regalities and to none other the which his protestation he prayed might be entred Then passed the famous Statute of Praemunire upon occasion of the Popes Bulls of excommunication coming into England against certain Bishops who it seems at last were brought to obey the Laws and that which the Archbishop of Canterbury protested was a part of the Statute wherein the Commons not only declared their resolution to live and dye with the King in defence of the Liberties of the Crown against the Papal Usurpations but moreover they pray and in justice require that he would examin all the Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal severally and all the States of the Parliament how they think of the cases aforesaid which be so openly against the Kings Crown and in derogation of his Regality and how they will stand in the same cases with our Lord the King in upholding the Rights of the said Crown and Regality By which it appears that the Commons had a great suspicion of the Spiritual Lords And it seems they had reason for the Temporal Lords declared frankly their concurrence with the Commons and that the Cases mentioned were clearly in derogation of the Crown as it is well known and hath been a long time known Mr. Cressy would make us believe that all the Bishops present and the Procurators of the absent unanimously assented but the very words of the Statute say the contrary for there it is added that the Lords Spiritual did make their Protestation first that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church but it seems by the Records the Archbishop of Canterbury alone spoke plain to the sense of the Parliament and entred his Protestation different from the rest Neither do theâ— declare their assent to the freedom of the Crown of England from all earthly subjection and that it is immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same and not subject to the Pope which they touch not upon but only with several clauses of Reservation about processes excommunications and translations they declare in such and such cases they are against the King and his Crown and in these cases they would be with the King in maintaining of his Crown and in all other cases touching his Crown and Regality as they be bound by their liegeance which are words very ambiguous and imply a secret reservation of salvo Ordine suo jure Ecclesiae or with a salvo to the Oath they had taken to the Pope But however the Act passed and a praemunire by it lyes against all that procure or bring Bulls or any other things whatsoever which touch the King against him his Crown and Regality or his Realm By this Statute the Parliament 1 H. 4. declared that the Crown of England was freed from the Pope and all other foreign Power and it was one of the articlâ—s against Rich. 2. at his deposition that notwithstanding the Statutes he procured the Pâ—pes excommunication on such as brake the last Parliament in derogation of the Crown Statutes and Laws of the Realm And yet we find new Statutes of Provisors made 2 H. 4. c. 3 4. 6 H. 4. c. 57. 7 H. 4. c. 6 8. 9 H. 4. c. 8. In the 1 H. 5. it was again enacted that all Statutes made against Provisors from Rome should be observed § 20. By which we see that although the Parliament shewed a very good will towards the restraint of the Popes Usurpations yet it all signified very little as long as his Authority and Supremacy were acknowledged here for what did Laws signifie when the Pope could null them by a Bull from Rome And it was in those days verily believed by those who did acknowledge the Popes Supremacy and followed the Church-men in their opinions that an Act of Parliament had no power at all upon conscience if it were repugnant to the Laws of the Church i. e. as they then thought to the Popes decretals And we need not wonder at that after the Popes Decretals were digested into a Body of Canon Law and that looked upon by all the hearty Friends to the Church of Rome as the Rule of Conscience in what it determined Which we need not at all to wonder at since Petrus de Marca himself declares That the Constitutions of Princes are in themselves null when they are repugnant to the Canons and received Decrees of Popes and that Bishops have alwayes abstained from the execution of them as much as they durst by which we see that Acts of Parliament were no certain indications of the judgement of the Church or the generality of the People in that time but notwithstanding all the Statutes the good trade of Provisors went on still and the Court of Rome never wanted Chapmen for their forbidden Wares For many of our Bishops dying in the time of the Council of Câ—nstance Martin 5. assoon as he was well settled in his place put in several Bishops by way of Provision at his own pleasure and nulled elections
State of Affairs so mightily changed among them since 1662 Will not the same Reasons â— old good still that the Iesuitical party is not to be trusted in these matters have they made any renunciation since of any of those doctrines which were thought so dangerous then or are they quite gone from us and to use Mr. Cressy's own comparison like Rats have forsaken a sinking Ship It would be great Joy to the whole Nation to hear we were so well rid of them but which way went they in what storm were they carried Was it in the late great Hurrican or were they conveyed invisibly through some passage under ground But they are subtle men they say and full of tricks and therefore may seem to be gone and not be gone even as they please Mr. Cressy it seems hath a a Power beyond Proclamations for he can send away the whole Fry in a trâ—ce but a turn of his hand and not a Iesuit or a man of his principles appears more in England But for all this neither the Benedictins nor Secular Priests can get rid of them so easily they swarm and govern too much for their interests they have too many Colleges in England to forsake them so easily and too rich a Bank to run away and leave it behind them it may be some of the poorer Orders would fain be fingering of it and therefore represent the poor harmless Iesuits as the only dangerous persons to the Civil Government whereas they think themselves as honest as their neighbours and say they hold no doctrines but what other Divines hold as well as they and if they understood themselves they would find to be the doctrine of the Catholick Church for six hundred years only a few temporizing Secular Priests and some others out of spight to them and hopes to get a better harvest to themselves when they are gone would lay all the blame upon the Iesuits whereas the doctrine they own was the general doctrine of their Church and received here in England the Council of Lateran which decrees the Popes power over Princes having been received here by the Council at Oxford A. 1222. and what aâ—do is made now with the Iesuits as though they had been the first broachers and only maintainers of the doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes which hath been decreed in Councils accepted by Churches and only opposed by some out of the passions of fear or hopes from temporal Princes What do ye tell us say they of the Sorbon a Club of State Divines that act as if they believed the King of France 's infallibility though they will not own the Popes What matter is it what some few men say that are over-awed by Secular Princes Shew us the Divines at Rome where men may speak freely that hold otherwise Was the Popes Nuncio that appeared so bravely for the Catholick Cause in the Head of an Army in Ireland a Iesuit or were 〈…〉 adherents that cast off the Kings Authority there Iesuits Are all the Anti-Remonstrants in Ireland Iesuits And what think we are not all those who opposed the Irish Romonstrance very ready to give full satisfaction in these matters Nay in the good humour Mr. Cressy found all English Roman Catholicks it was pitty he had not gone farther and who knows but in so lucky a day the Pope and Cardinal Barbarine might have subscribed the Censures of the Faculty of Paris But well fare the honest Apologist for the Iesuits who answered the Reasons unreasonable and declares that he is no Iesuit yet he saith plainly it would be a temerarious oath to for swear in general terms a deposing Power in the Pope but to detest it as an heresie would be absolutely Schismatical but he gives very foolish Reasons why the effect of that power need not be feared in England because forsooth Constantine left out England in his Donation to the Pope did he so indeed it was a great kindness to the place of his Nativity But withall he adds though there be much talk of King Johns Resignation of his Crown to the Pope yet the Deed of Conveyance lies so dormant in the Vatican that it could never be awaked or produced on any provocation And is this the security the Pope will never exercise his deposing Power in England But do not you think the Pope makes too much of it to shew it to all comers and yet this Apologist need not have gone to the Vatican to have seen that very Bull of the Pope wherein King John 's Resignation is contained for it was â—ately to be seen in England But suppose King John 's Original were burnt at Lions as our Historians think hath the Pope never challenged any Power over Princes but where they were feudatary to hâ—m Alas for his Ignorance the Pope â—or a need hath a threefold claim to this Pâ—wer and he can make use of which he thinks best the feudatary the direct temporal and the indirect temporal The Feuâ—ataâ—y is by voluntary resignation the direct teâ—poral by the Canon Law and the indirect by the Sins of Princes for those if they happen to be of a right kind as Heresie Apostasie Mis-government c. give the Pope a notable title to their Crowns for then they fall to him by way of Escheat as the principal Lord but suppose the Pope should to save quarrels quit the Feudatary Claim what security is there against the two other that may do as much mischief as the first For all that I can see then Mr. Cressy had not sufficient Letter of Atturney to declare in behalf of all the Roman Catholicks that they would subscribe the Censures of the Sorbon for the Popes deposing Power is yet good doctrine among many of them But why did Mr. Cressy take no notice of any difference among them about these points Must we Protestants be still thought such pittiful Animals as not to know that which hath been publickly canvased among them about the full Age of a man viz. near seventy years Alas for us we never heard of Blackwell and Barclay and Widdrington of one side nor of Bellarmin and Singleton and Fitzherbert of the other We have only a little Grammar Learning and can make a shift to understand the Greek Testament and read Calvins Institutions or Danaeus upon Peter Lombard but for these deep points it is well we have ever seen those that have heard others say they have seen the Books that handle them But why should Mr. Cressy so slily pass over the business of the Nuntio in Ireland was that nothing to the purpose Did not the Person of Honour mention it several times that he could not avoid seeing it But we must forget all those things and Cardinal Barbarins Letters about the Irish Remonstrance and whatever is material if it cannot be answered is better let slip Yet is it possible for us to believe that all Roman Catholicks are so willing now to renounce the dangerous doctrines when
declared by the Laws to be the True which is established by them Now if a party appears active and dangerous whose Principles are destructive to the Religion established by Law I appeal to any man of common sense whether it be sufficient ground for the Toleration of it that one objection is taken off when the other remains in its fuil force That which is then to be considered in this case is whether such a party which is dangerous without Toleration will grow less dangerous by it which I think needs no great consideration and it will require as little to shew the danger that will come to the Established Religion by a Toleration of Popery not only by the diligence industry and number of the Priests who will be glad to make new Converts to gain new Residences they being at present so much over-stocked besides their desires to approve themselves to the Court of Rome for preferments by their activity and telling brave stories beyond Seas of their exploits against hereticks as a late Miles Gloriosus among them hath done how many Legions of Hereticks they have blown away by the Power of Principles and Demonstrations but by the obligation that lyes upon them that receive preferments from Rome to persecute Hereticks Schismaticks and Rebels to the Pope to their uttermost which is expressed in the Oath they take to the Pope as appears by the Pontifical so that these men must either be perjured or persecute when it lyes in their Power And can any Nation in the World think it Wise or Safe to give Toleration to Wolfs among Sheep to those that have solemnly sworn to persecute to their power all that own the Established Religion and that look upon all such as in a damned condition that do not submit to their Church Till they abate of their monstrous uncharitableness till they renounce their Oaths to the Pope till they can give good security of their quiet behaviour in not seducing others what pretence can there be for their being allowed a free exercise of their Religion supposing they should take the Oath of Allegiance But as to their dignified Clergy I mean such of his Majesties Subjects whom the Pope hath taken upon him to make Bishops without his consent which was not suffered by some Princes even in times of Popery it ought farther to be considered what security any following Oath can give as to those that have taken a former Oath of Allegiance to the Pope as I have already proved it to be as much as King Iohn's was upon the Resignation of his Crown nay yet farther they are bound now by that Oath to defend all those Provisions and Reservations and Apostolical Mandates which were accounted the intolerable grievances of this Nation long before the Reformation But why may they not enjoy equal liberty with the Sectaries I am not pleading the Sectaries Cause neither would others plead it now but for a farther end nor would I extenuate the guilt of their Separation but they are blind that do not see the difference between the parties if not as to number yet as to interest forreign dependence and danger to the Church of England for surely a man is not in so much danger of being stung to death by Gnats as being poisoned by Vipers I mean in respect of the avowed principle of Persecuting all dissenters in the Roman Church which it were easie to manifest not only from our domestick story and the entertainment in Queen Maries dayes and from the History of the Inquisition abroad but from the Cabal at the Council of Trent between the Popes Legats and the Embassadours of Catholick Princes about the utter extirpation of the Protestant Religion and the defigns that were carried on in prosecution of this in most parts of Europe especially in Germany Flanders and France but I shall not meddle with the secret Intrigues but the open and avowed principles In France Claudius de Sainctes published a Book against Toleration A. D. 1561. wherein he pleads with all his strength for the utter extirpation of Protestants the like did Iacobus Pamelius in Flanders and both of them answer all the common and popular arguments now brought for Toleration the same did Scioppius in Germany and we all know what the dreadful consequences were in all those places But this is a subject too large to enter upon now For my part I am no Friend to Sanguinary Laws on the account of Religion and if the Wisdom of our Law-makers should think fit to change that popular way of publick suffering which the sufferers would have still believed to be for Religion into a more effectual course of suppressing the growth of a party so dangerous to our established Religion I should more rejoice it may be therein than those who are more concerned in it Provided that the pretence of making new Laws more accommodate to our present State be not carried on meerly with the design of leaving our Church without any security by Law at all against so violent and dangerous a party for it is a much easier matter to repeal old Laws than to make new ones And if the objection against the old Laws be that they are not executed it ought to be considered whether the same objection will not lye against others unless they be such Laws as will execute themselves and we have little Reason to believe that they who bid difiance to our present Laws and make sport with Proclamations will be perswaded by gentler means to obey others And is such an affront to Laws a sufficient Motive to Lenity And we have good ground to think that that they look upon all our Laws whatever they be as things of no force at all upon their Consciences as being null in themselves because they are contrary to the Popes Authority and the Constitutions of their Church And I believe if our modern Papists were pressed home the generality of those who are obnoxious to the Poenal Laws would not acknowledge those Ancient Rights of the Crown which were challenged by William the Conquerour William Rufus Henry the first Henry the second before his submission to the Pope and afterwards by Edward the first and Edward the third viz. No exercise of any forreign jurisdiction here without the Kings consent no liberty of going out of the Kingdom though upon the Popes Command without the Kings leave and while they allow this Power to the Pope to command his Majesties Subjects they make him Soveraign over them and make them more fearful of disclaiming his Power No Decrees of Popes or Bulls to be received without the Kings approbation No Bishops to be made by Papal Provisions out of the plenitude of his Power c. Those who will not reject these which were challenged by the Kings of England long before the Reformation as their ancient and undoubted Rights with what face can they plead for the Repeal of the Poenal Laws when the ancient Law of
love left I need make no application of this to Mr. Cressy and I am far from the vanity of supposing this capable of being applyed to my case any farther than as I am one of those who are at present engaged in the Defence of our Church against that of Rome It is the happiness and honour of our Church of England that it hath in it at this day such store of persons both able and willing to defend her Cause as it may be no Church in the World hath ever had together more persons of excellent abilities great Learning and unaffected Piety and I look on my self as one of the meanest of them but it hath been my lot to be engaged more early and more frequently in this Cause than others which hath drawn so great a hatred of my Adversaries upon me but I thank God I have a good Cause and the testimony of a good Conscience in the management of it and so long I neither fear the waspishness of some nor the rage of others § 4. But this is their present design to represent me as one of different principles from the Church of England and not only different but such as if well understood are destructive to it and therefore they very gravely advise our Reverend Bishops to have a care of me if they hope to preserve the Church of England And can we think it is any thing else but meer kindness and good will to our Church that makes them so solicitous for its welfare It is a sad thing saith Mr. Cressy that not one Protestant will open his eyes and give warning of the dangerous proceedings of their Champion Nay it is no doubt a very sad thing to them to see that we do not fall out among our selves I am sure it is no fault of theirs that we do not for they make use of the most invidious and reproachful terms together concerning me that if they cannot fasten on one passion they may upon another but these poor designs have hitherto had but little success and I hope will never meet with greater And yet if nothing else will do Mr. Cressy saith that it is a â—hame that hitherto not one true Prelatical Protestant has appeared as a Defender of the English Church and State against me but on the contrary even some English Prelates themselves have congratulated and boasted of my supposed successful endeavours against the Catholick Church though ruinous only to themselves Alas good man his heart is even broke for grief that our Bishops take no more care to preserve the Church of England The Church he hath alwayes so entirely loved and ventured as much for her as any body while she was in prosperity and there was no danger and only forsook her when she was not able to reward his Love The truth was he gave her for gone at that time and then it was the late Church of England with him and no wonder when he thought her dead that he made Court to a richer Mistress but it was but a swooning fit she is come to her self again and I hope like to hold out much longer than that which he hath chosen And although Mr. Cressy's hands be now tyed and he hath entred into new Vows yet he cannot for his heart forget the kindness he had to her in her flourishing condition because she was then very kind to him he remembers the marks of her favour and the rich presents she made him and therefore something of the old Love revives in him towards her at least so far that he cannot endure to see her ill used when her Guardians neglect her and her Sons prevaricate with her If Mr. Cressy's faith had been as great as his Charity to have made him believe that she would ever have come to her self again I cannot think he would have forsaken her so unhandsomely and left her in a dying Condition but who could ever have thought that things would have come about so strangely But what if all this present shew of kindness prove meer collusion and prevarication in him What if it be only to divide her Friends and thereby the more easily to expose her to the malice of her enemies For as long as the Church of England stands she upbraids him in his own words with malignant ingratitude and it is the plausiblest way for him that was once a Servant and a Lover to compass her ruine with a pretence of Kindness § 5. But wherein is it that I have prevaricated with the Church of England whilst I have pretended to defend her The first thing he instances in is my charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry In very good time Mr. Cressy and is this prevaricating with the Church of England when I have already in two set Discourses at large proved that by all the means we can come to know the sense of a Church this Charge hath been made good against her from the beginning of the Reformation to 1641. and that even then the Convocation declared the same in the Canons then made But what must I do with such kind of Adversaries that will never answer what I say for my self but do run on still with the same Charge as though they had nothing to do when they write but to tell the same story over and over Let Mr. Cressy do with his Readers as he pleases for my part I shall never follow him in that kind of impertinency For there is not one word there used by him which I had not particularly answered before he writ it The like I may say of the second Charge viz. that by the principles laid down by me I destroy the Authority of the Church of England which I have already shewed at large to be a very impertinent Cavil and that I do maintain as much Authority in the Church of England as ever the Church of England challenged to her self And to that Discourse I refer Mr. Cressy for satisfaction If he will not read it I cannot help that but I can help the not writing the same things over again and so this other part of his Epistle Apologetical is wholly impertinent unless he had taken off what I had said for my self already in answer to the very same Objections But all the reason in the World shall never satisfie Mr. Cressy that I aim not at setting up a Church distinct from the Church of England If it be any I assure him it is a very invisible Church for it is a Church without either Head or Members I declare my self to be not only a Member but an affectionate hearty friend to the Church of England I perswade some to it I endeavour what in me lyes to keep others from revolting from it But where lyes this Dr. Stillingfleet's Church which Mr. Cressy makes such a noise with I know none but that of the many thousands in England that have not bowed their knees to Baal and to
prevent any farther suspicion of my meaning I do declare I am for no other Church than that Church of England which is established by Law among us But it must be allowed to those who plead for seeing Visions that sometimes they may dream Dreams Having therefore cut off so much impertinency I shall reduce the matter yet to a narrower compass by casting by the large account he gives of the several Books written by himself in all which tedious Discourse the wisest thing he saith is That Books relating to personal things are scarce ever so long-lived as a yearly â—lmanack and serve only to increase the uncharitableness and injustice of the present Age in which men will be sure to censure all Books and Persons and are indifferent whether they condemn the Plaintiff or Defendant or both I shall not therefore feed so bad a humour by medling with any personal Disputes but come now to the main things which deserve any farther discussion in the passages between the Person of Honour and Mr. Cressy CHAP. II. Of the Charge of Fanaticism and Mystical Divinity § 1. ANd the first thing is about the Charge of Fanaticism which gave the Title to that Book of Mr. Cressy ' s upon which the Person of Honour bestows his Animadversions This Mr. Cressy said he would begin with and particularly that part of my Book which concerns the life and prayer of Contemplation commended and practised only in the Catholick Church it being a State he saith which from the Infancy of the Church hath been esteemed the nearest approaching to that of Glorified Saints and this is that from whence I took an occasion to vilifie him but adds that he is very well content to receive his proportion of scorn with such companions as Thaulerus Suso Rusbrochius Blosius c. But to the end I may not boast he saith of the Novelty of my invention and profanely employed wit he doth assure me that he heard the same way much better acted a long time since but the Actor was obliged to make a Recantation Sermon for it I thank Mr. Cressy for more of his Charity still in that he parallels the representing the Fanaticism of their Church with the histrionical representing the life of our Saviour and his Attâ—ndants it seems there is no great difference to be made between the Reverence due to the Founders of their Monastick Orders and to the Son of God himself I do assure him if I had no better opinion of our Blessed Saviour as to his Wisdom and all manner of Excellencies than as yet I see ground to have of the Founders of their Orders I should be far from that esteem I now have of the Christian Religion but however the Person of Honour hath better informed Mr. Cressy ' s memory viz. That the Recantation Sermon was made upon the account of State-matters and therefore Mr. Cressy very wisely passeth it over in his Epistle Apologetical To this the Person of Honour adds That Mr. Cressy had no such reason to be enraged at me for this Charge since the provocation was given me by my Adversary by whom the beginning of so many Sects Fanaticisms was laid to the charge of the Church of England which unseasonable and untrue reproach made it necessary for me to answer and refell that calumny and as reasonable to let them know that their own Church is much more lyable to that accusation than the other and why this provocation should be so innocent an assault for the one and the defence by the other should prove so heinous an offence will require an impartial Judge to determine To this Mr. Cressy thus answers That my Adversary chanced unhappily though innocently to let drop out of his pen one line or two which has undone us all I know no design of undoing them that any of us have had unless it be as some men think they are undone when they are kept from doing mischief but I hope we may have leave to take care of our own preservation and of that Religion we ought to value above our lives but suppose it were so whom may they thank for it him that gave the provocation or him that did but his duty in Defence of his Church and Religion But come come Mr. Cressy let us not flatter our selves it is not the Fly upon the Wheel that raises the Dust we Writers of Controversies are no great Doers or Undoers of publick business But Mr. Cressy denyes that my Adversary did lay the imputation on the Church of England and craves leave with all due respect to tell the Person of Honour that it was a great mistake in him to say so Of that we may judge by the very words produced by Mr. Cressy viz. Whether the judgement of King Henry viz. in forbidding the Bible to be read in English ought not to have been followed in after-times let the dire effects of so many new Sects and Fanaticisms as have risen in England from the reading of the Scripture bear witness In which words the rise of Sects and Fanaticisms is plainly imputed to the reading the Scripture the reading of the Scripture in English is an effect of the Reformation of the Church of England for it is the Church of England as reformed that is only the subject of the dispute And therefore I appeal to any indifferent person whether the Reformed Church of England doth not in their Opinion bear the blame of all the Sects and Fanaticisms But this is too plain a thing to be insisted upon No saith Mr. Cressy the very naming of Fanaticism and England in the same line was provocation enough for me who seemed with an impatient longing to have watched for such an advantageous opportunity to empty my voluminous store of Collections How strangely may some be deceived by an overweening imagination I was so far from having a Voluminous store of Collections that I never thought of the Subject till it came in my way to answer it and then I remembred some things I had read to that purpose which put me upon a farther search into the history of those things And since Mr. Cressy will have it out this is the true account of the birth of that terrible Mormo that hath brought so many reproaches and execrations upon me § 2. There are two parts of this Charge of Fanaticism which Mr. Cressy thinks himself particularly concerned in and which I shall therefore handle distinctly the one concerns Mystical Divinity and the other the honour of S. Benedict and his Rule and Order these two Mr. Cressy sets himself with all his force to defend and I hope before I have done to make Mr. Cressy repent the heat he hath shewed about them I begin with that concerning Mystical Divinity of which Mr. Cressy still speaks with the greatest Veneration imaginable he had before called it The practice of Christian Vertues and Piety in the greatest perfection this life
Christian faith but certainly not a bare disposition but a desire too is implyed in them and the latter words with the same ingenuity he thus expresses the sense of but that the French Clergy and Bishops their Neighbâ—urs were negligent and void of all Pastoral solicitude towards them whereas methinks desideria eorum cessare suâ adhortatione succendere are words which although they do blame them for present negligence do imply withall a former care for how could they cease to do that which they had never begun And Pope Gregory in his Letter to the Queen whom he calls Aldilberga attributes very much of the success of his Missionaries to her kindness and prudence although considering her zeal and learning it was rather to be wondered that the work was so long in doing but he saith God had reserved the glory of the Conversion of the English Nation as a reward to her vertue and compares her with Helena hoping that by her means the Conversion of the Whole Nation would be made much more easie and he adds that her Fame had already reached as far as Constantinople By which we see how much the knowledge and establishment of Christianity in thus Nation is owing to the care and devotion of this good Queen and that Hadrianus Valesius had some reason to say that the Christianity of England was owing rather to the Franks than the Romans § 4. But supposing we should yield that Augustin and his Brethren were the first who brought Christianity among the English Saxons how comes from thence such a mighty obligation to the Benedictin Order Is it so unquestionable that they were all Benedictins who came over or that any of them were such By all the search I can make this may very well bear a dispute For it is agreed on all sides that Augustin followed the same rule and was of the same Order that S. Gregory himself was of and no meaner a Person than Cardinal Baronius hath utterly denyed that S. Gregory was of the Benedictin Order methinks his Authority might at least have made Mr. Cressy not so peremptory in this matter and not so resolved to stand to it especially considering the Reasons which he gives For he plainly proves from S. Gregories own words in his Dialogues that when he founded his Monastery in Rome he did not take his Abbot from the Benedictin Monks who were then removed by the persecution of the Lombards to the Lâ—teran Church but sent into the Province Valeria for one Valentius whom he called his own Abbot and withal shews not only that the Benedictin Monastery at Rome had a distinct succession of Abbots but that the Monasteries of that Province from whence Valentius was taken were not under the Benedictin Rule and that Joh. Diaconus was much to blame for making S. Gregory a Monk under one Hilarion when himself saith expresly he was under Valentius The freedom of this discourse of Baronius brought a swarm of Benedictin Monks about him Bellottus Const. Cajetanus and others but Antonius Gallonius undertook the defence of Baronius and at large shews that the Benedictins produced nothing but trifles forgeries and lyes to defend themselves and Spondanus confesses that Gallonius had with great strength overthrown the Benedictins arguments But of late the French Benedictins have renewed the quarrel against Baronius who yet make use only of the baffled arguments of the former Benedictins and after all confess that they are but conjectures and that the greatest strength they have lyes in Augustin the Monk and his companions being of that Order If therefore we desire them to prove Augustin to have been a Benedictin they presently fly to S. Gregories being so if we would have them prove Gregory to have been a Benedictin then they say he must be because Augustin was so So that the main proof of the point is that it must needs be so and it must needs be so and they are resolved to stand to it because it is for the honour and advantage of their Order And therefore our English Benedictins have thought themselves more than a little concerned in this Controversie for what would open the purses and hearts of the people more towards them than for them to be accounted the Apostolical Order of England Alas what have the merits of the Iesuits been to theirs They an upstart Order that have converted some in these latter times to Treason and the Gallows but the Benedictins the ancient Apostolical Benedictins were the only Persons who Converted England to the Christian faith and therefore they deserve greater respect than the Iesuits however the others have been too cunning for them Thus we see upon what hinge the Controversie turns and I cannot say the Benedictins have been wanting to themselves for Mr. Cressy hath not been the only Person who hath resolved to stand to it in this matter Reynerius hath published a voluminous Book to this purpose which he calls the Apostleship of the Benedictins in England and he proves it chiefly from the common Tradition of the English Nation And what demonstration can be greater than the Infallibility of Oral Tradition This is proving it in I. S. his Scientifical way As though it were possible for the people to be deceived in a matter of such consequence which Mothers would be sure to teach their Children viz that Augustin the Monk and his câ—mpanions were by no means Equitians or of any other Order but right and true Benedictins I confess Reyner hath luckily hit on the right Mathematical way the very same Mons. Arnauld hath taken for Transubstantiation for saith Reyner I will instance in an Age wherein all the Monasteries and Cathedral Churches possessed by Monks in England were in the hands of the Benedictins viz. in the Age of William the Conquerour for which he quotes many Authors as Mons. Arnauld doth to prove Transubstantiation to have been the faith of the same Age Now since it is evident that the Benedictin Order was then in possession and no time can be instanced in wherein the Benedictin Order was brought into England from the time of Augustin it necessarily follows that Augustin and his Companions brought it in Here is a demonstration in the case which I grant to be altogether as good as that which the men for Oral Tradition do produce for their Articles of Faith Thus he proves it from Testimonies of Authors and the Foundations of Monasteries and the particular Histories of them by which it appearing that they were at such a time of the Benedictin Order and no account being given of any change of the Order he thinks it sufficiently proved that they were Originally Benedictins But is it not possible to suppose that the Histories being afterwards written by Benedictin Monks they would for the honour of their Order conceal any such alteration if it had happened among them We find in other Countries the Benedictins have done the same
was sent for by Eâ—bert King of Kent where he went up and down through his Countrey and then adds cum Regula Benedicti instituta Ecclesiarum bene melioravit he improved the Orders of Churches by the Rule of S. Benedict which is in effect to say that he first brought this Order among them for how could he better their Orders by it if they had it among them before And he presently adds Tunâ— ergo in illis regionibus sancto Episcopo sicut Paulo Apostolo magnum estium fidei Deo adjuvante apertum est as though the â—eceiving the Order of S. Benedict were of as much consequence as believing the Christian Faith After three years by Theodore's means then Arch-bishop of Canterbury he was put into the Archbishoprick Of York and Ceadda deposed he had not been long there but refusing to consent to the making of three Bishops under him he was deprived by Theodore Wilfrid appeals to Rome and hastens thither himself where he was kindly received for Rome from its foundation hath been an Asylum for fugitives especially when their coming helps to increase its Grandeur Pope Agatho with his Council orders his restitution and threatens deprivation and excommunication to those that refuse him Wilfrid returns loaden with Reliques and the Popes Bull the King and the Bishops refuse to obey the Popes command and instead of restoring him the King commits him to Prison and afterwards banished him and he returned not home till the second year of Aldfrid where he continued not long but he was banished again for refusing to submit to the Synodical Constitutions at home Then a Synod was called of all the Bishops of England to which Wilfrid was summon'd where he upbraided the Bishops that they had opposed the Popes command for twenty two years and wondered they durst prefer the Constitutions of Theodore before the Bull of the Pope Was not England in great subjection to Rome at that time when all the Bishops one factious person excepted refused to obey the Pope upon an appeal for two and twenty years together and governed themselves by their own Constitutions in opposition to the Popes express command Notwithstanding the Bishops persist in their resolution and would hearken to no terms unless Wilfrid would submit to their sentence and oblige himself to run no more beyond Sea which he refuses to do and appeals again to Rome upon which Wilfrid and all his adherents were solemnly excommunicated But it is observable that where Wilfrid speaks the most in his own vindication he insists on these things as his great merits that he had been the great instrument of converting the Scots and English following them to the true Easter and the right Tonsure and that he had brought the Monks under the Rule of S. Benedict which no man had brought among them before By which we see that Wilfrid at least in the Northern parts was the first who brought in the Benedictin Order Which passage Eadâ—erus a Benedictin Monk in the liâ—e of Wilfrid thoâ—ght convenient to leave out although he takes most of the rest out of Heddius and so doth Fredegodus in the rumbling Verses of his life published lately by the Benedictins of France but William of Malmsbury hath the very same words in effect of Wilfrid that â—e gloried that he had been the first who brought the Benedictin Order into those parts It is a strange objection of Reyner against this that he would not boast of doing it there unless it had been every where else in England before his time for we have no mention at all of this Rule here before his time and he might think he had cause to glory to begin that Order in the North and to give an example to others and if our Historians say true he brought it into the Midland parts for he had a great hand in the consecration of the Abby of Evesham which Pope Constantin in his Bull saith it was to be under the Benedictin Rule quae minus in illis partibus adhuc habetur which is yet very little known in those parts So that the coming in of the Benedictin Order into those parts of England is not a matter of so great obscurity as those Learned Persons supposed and that some time after the death of Augustin and his Companions but it hath been therefore thought so obscure because only this Author who was never yet printed makes so express mention of it the Benedictins afterwards thinking it made for their honour to conceal it § 6. The greatest difficulty seems to be about our Church of Canterbury of which Mr. Selden saith that it was alwayes supposed to be of the Benedictin Order from its first Foundation by Augustin For saith he since there were alwayes Monks there and no other Order named we have reason to believe them to have been Benedictins for the name of Monk being set without addition of Family he supposes in the Western parts to have implyed a Benedictin as in the Eastern one of S. Basils Order Supposing this were granted of the latter times after that the Benedictin Order prevailed in the times of Dunsâ—an when the Concordia Regularis Anglicâ— Nationis was generally received after the Expuâ—sion of the Canonâ—cal and Secular Clergy out of most Cathedrals yet I can see no reason at all for it before when there were so many different Rules of Monks both here and in Italy and France All those who lived after the Monastick way whether they lived by Rule or only unâ—er the Government of a Superiour had equally the name of Monks given to them But of all sorts of Monks of that time those whom Augustin brought with him and were setled at Canterbury seem to be the farthest from the Benedictin Ruâ—e for any one that looks into that will easily see that it was intended for illiterate persons who were to imploy themselves in Work when the Office of the â—â—oire was over and for such who lived at a distance from Cities and consequently were to have all conveniencies within themselves and all the Monks in their Course were to go through the Office of the Kitchin and such like But those whom S. Gregory sent over with Augustin were Clergy-men and to be constantly imployed in preaching and other duties of their Function and when Augustin sent to Gregory for directions after he was made Bishop how he should live among them Gregory takes not the least notice of the Benedictin Rule which on such an occasion he would certainly have done if they had been of that Order but only tells him he ought to live with his Clergie after the custom of the Primitive Church which was to have all things in common From which it is very plain that he considered them as Clergy-men who if they had been tyed to the Benedictin Rule could have had very few hours of the day either for study or their other imployments Only
with that of the fifth of November and are purposely intended for that very thing which he denyes to be taken notice of by us in such a manner What must we say to such men who openly and to our faces deny that which the whole Nation knows to be true These stories might have passed abroad where they have been wont to lye for the Catholick Cause but to have the impudence to say such things here which every Boy can confute is not the way to advance the Reputation of their Church among us And what doth Mr. Cressy think the Renuntiation of the Covenant was intended for if not to prevent the mischief of the former Rebellion And is it possible for any man who knows the Laws of his Countrey concerning these matters to dare to say in the face of the Kingdom That it seems there is no necessity at all of requiring from any a Retraction of the principles of Rebellion or a promise it shall never be renewed If this be the way of defending the innocency of Roman Catholicks I had rather be accounted guilty than have my innocency thus defended 3. He saith We also confidently affirm so we have seen he hath done too much already that by vertue of the Spiritual Iurisdiction inherent in the Pope the Temporal Rights and Power of the King or even of the meanest of his Subjects are not at all abridged or prejudiced Which assertion he saith hath been alwayes maintained in France the Pope not contradicting it from whence it follows that it is agreeable to Catholick Religion After this I expected he should speak home to the purpose and say this is all the Power challenged by the Pope as to England or owned by any Roman Catholicks here which finding what he had affirmed about other matters I thought he would have made no scruple of but I see he durst not either for conscience or meer shame But how then doth he get over this difficulty Why English Catholicks saith he should be suspected not to be as tender of the just Rights and precious lives also of their Soveraign as the Catholick Subjects of any other Kingdom and why they should be thought to be willing to acknowledge any Temporal Power director indirect to be inherent in the Pope over the King or Kingdom to which not any Catholick Gentleman or Nobleman would submit I cannot imagine I am very much to seek for the sense of this and know not what the submitting relates to but I suppose something left out or struck out by his Superiours who did not take care to leave sense behind But is this indeed all the security Mr. Cressy offers that he cannot imagine it should be otherwise here than in France We find when he pleases he can imagine strange things and is this only out of the reach of his imagination What doth he think of the Kingdoms being under Excommunication at Rome as Cardinal Barbarine takes care to put the Irish Nobility in mind for some good end doubtless Is the Kingdom of France so What doth he imagine of Bulls from Rome prohibiting the taking the Oaths required Are there any such things in France What doth he think of the Popes Nuntio appearing in the Head of an Army and absolving the Kings subjects from their Allegiance I confess it was not much better in France in the time of the Holy League but what opinion had they of the Popes temporal Power then Cannot Mr. Cressy imagine that there are such people in England as Iesuits and it is not many years since their Reasons were therefore shewed to be Unreasonable in pleading an exemption from the Sanguinary Laws because they did hold the Popes power of deposing Princes and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance And do not the Iesuitical party still plead that their opinion is the common doctrine of their Church confirmed by General Councils and approved by multitudes of Divines of all sorts and that the contrary is only asserted here by a very inconsiderable party whereof some are excommunicated at Rome for their zeal in this matter And do not we know how much greater sway the Iesuitical party hath among the Nobility and Gentry than the despised Secular Priests I do not at all question but the Nobility and Gentry of England would do as much to preserve the just Rights and precious lives of their Soveraigns as of any Nation in the World and have as great a sense of their own Honour as well as Interest and of the Duty they owe to their Countrey But ought not the Laws to take so much the more care to keep their Consciences untainted in these things they being such Persons whose Loyalty cannot be corrupted but under a pretence of Conscience and their Consciences being so much in danger by being under the direction chiefly of those who are the sworn servants to the Papal Power 4. He offers by way of satisfaction concerning their Fidelity that they will subscribe the French Declaration lately made by the Sorbon or the Censure of the Faculty of Paris A. D. 1626. and that very few if any at all would refuse subscription to that Form prescribed by the State in case that unlucky word heretical were left out As though all those who had hitherto refused to take that Oath had done it only upon this nicety that the word heretical were to be taken not in the sense of the Givers but of the Takers of the Oath whereas Mr. Cressy himself saith that common Reason teaches that all Oaths Professions and Promises are to be understood in the sense of those who frame and require them and not of those upon whom they are imposed But if this were all the ground of refusing this Oath among any of them Mr. Cressy therein charges them with the want of common Reason whereas I shall make it appear in the progress of this Discourse that this was far from being the true and only reason of Roman Catholicks refusing the Oath of Allegiance 5. That since Ordination abroad doth not in the least render English Priests defective in their duties to the Civil Magistrate it will follow that whatsoever penalty is inflicted on them on such an account is not inflicted according to the Rule of Iustice and by consequence that whatsoever blood shall be shed the guilt of it before God will be imputed to the whole Kingdom since it is shed by vertue of the whole Kingdoms votes and consent given long since upon motives long since ceased And therefore he charges it deeply upon my conscience to endeavour to free the whole Kingdom from such a guilt This is the substance of what Mr. Cressy saith upon this very important subject as himself calls it and by vertue whereof he hopes the poenal Laws may be repealed and those of their Religion may enjoy the Liberty of their Religion and all the Rights of Free-born Subjects Which are things too important to be debated in
to the Crown of England on condition that he should hold it in Fee from the Papal See but I find no such thing mentioned by Ingulphus or Gulielmus Pictaviensis who understood the Conquerors affairs as well as any being about him at that time neither would Gregory the seventh have omitted it but however Bertholdus Constantiensis or rather Bernaldus an Author of that time and the Popes Poenitentiary affirms confidently that William King of England made this whole Nation tributary to the Pope which there is no pretence for but only that he after some demurr caused the antient Eleemâ—synarie Peter-pence to be sent to Rome So careful had Princes need to be of the continuance of Gifts to Rome which in time are looked on as a Tribute and that Tribute an acknowledgement of Fealty and that Fealty proves a Subjection in Temporals But this was not the only dispute between these two Conquerors for Gregory the seventh at the same time that he sent Hubert his Legat to England about the Oath of Fealâ—y he sent Hugo to keep a Council in France against the investitures of Bishops by Lay-hands and afterwards in a Council at Rome solemnly condemned them and threatned deposition to all that received them and the vengeance of God upon those that gave them The bottom of which lay not in the pretence of Simony but because it was too great a token of their subjection to the Civil Power and Gregory the seventh was as Bertholdus saith a most zealous defender of Ecclesiastical Liberty i. e. the total exemption of Ecclesiastical persons from subjection to the Civil Power and Eadmerus saith that the Bishops made their homage to the King before they received investiture by the Staff and the Ring But notwithstanding all these Decrees and Threatnings William the Conquerour as that Author tells us would never part with the Rights of the Crown in this matter and he declares that he would not only keep the antient Saxon custom of investiture as Ingulphus and other Authors shew it to have been but all the antient customs of his Predecessors in Normandy relating to Ecclesiastical affairs So that all Ecclesiastical as well as Civil things saith Eadmerus were under his command These customs were 1. That none should be acknowledged Pope but whom the King pleased 2. That no Bulls should be received but such as were approved by the King 3. That nothing should be decreed in Provincial Councils but by his Approbation 4. That no Persons about the King should be excommunicated without his knowledge but besides Pope Gregory charged him with two more enormities viz. 5. Hindering all appeals to Rome of Bishops and Arch-bishops which was such a thing he saith that a Heathen would not have done it 6. Seizing upon the person of his Brother Odo being a Bishop and imprisoning him which he said was plainly against Scripture Qui vos tangit tangit pupillam oculi mei Nolite tangere Christos meos which no doubt were understood of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Patriarchal and Iewish Church But I do not find that King William did at all recede from the Rights of his Crown although the Pope according to his skill quoted Scripture against them and although the Bishop of Baieux was clapt up on the account of Treason as our Historians agree yet in Pope Gregories opinion he suffered for Religion and the preservation of Divine Laws and such men as Mr. Cressy might have compared such Laws with those of Nero and Domitian but I think they durst not have done it in the Conquerours time who at the Council of Illebon in Normandy declared his resolution to maintain the customs of his Predecessors relating to Ecclesiastical affairs § 5. After the death of Gregory the seventh there was no Pope acknowledged in England for eleven years because of the Schism between Urban and Clement and our King had declared for neither of them And william Rufus told Anselm who would fain have gone to Urban the second for his Pall that he had not yet acknowledged him for Pope and therefore he should not go And saith he if you own him without my Authority you break your faith to me and displease me as much as if you did endeavour to take away my Crown Anselm however stands upon it that himself had owned him for Pope and would do so whatever came of it and would not depart from his obedience for an hour A Parliament being called at Rockingham upon this occasion the Nobility and Bishops all advised him to submit to the King Anselm notwithstanding cryes Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. Qui vos tangit tangit pupillam oculi as Gregory the seventh had done before him and to as much purpose but no such things saith he are said of Kings or Princes or Dukes or Earles and therefore he resolved to adhere to the Pope The King being acquainted with his answer sends some of the Nobles and Bishops to him to let him know that the whole Kingdom was against him and that hereby he endeavoured to take away one of the Flowers of his Crown from him by depriving him of one of the antient Rights of it and withal that he acted contrary to his Oath to the King Anselm if we may believe Eadmerus who lived in his time and was his constant companion stood upon his priviledge that an Archbishop of Canterbury could be judged by none but the Pope and so by that means was wholly exempt from the Royal Power and he bore all the affronts he met with patiently out of his firm devotion to the Papal See The Bishop of Durham whose advice the King asked in this matter told him that Anselm had the Word of God and Authority of S. Peter of his side The King said he would never endure one equal to himself in his Kingdom and therefore took off his protection from him and commands the Nobility and Bishops to disown him and banishes his Counsellors and gives him time for a final answer The mean while the King tryes by several arts to gain him viz. by sending to Urban secretly for the Pall and acknowledging him to be Pope and at last they brought it to this issue that he should receive the Pall at the Kings hands which he utterly refused to do and would take it no otherwise but off from the Altar of Canterbury After this he desires leave to go to the Pope the King denyes it he persists in his intreaty the King absolutely denyes it he resolves to go however because saith he it is better to obey God than men As though God had commanded him to disobey the King in this matter When the Bishops had disswaded him from it and told him they would keep their fidelity to the King Go saith he then to your Lord and I will hold to my God Did he mean the same
Orders upon any crime whatsoever were to be delivered over to be punished by the Secular Power And what could such a pretence arise from but only from Gregory the sevenths principles of Government viz. that the Civil Power had nothing at all to do with Ecclesiastical Persons and that all the Subjection and Obedience they owed was only to the Pope as their Soveraign and that this was the Liberty which Christ purchased for his Church with his own blood as Paschal the second answered the Emperours Ambassadors and as Becket very frequently expresses it in his Epistles A blessed Liberty and worthy the purchase of the Blood of Christ viz. a Liberty to sin without fear of punishment or at least any punishment which such persons would be afraid of for the utmost Becket could be perswaded to in the case of the Canon of Bedford convicted of murder was only to confine him to a Monastery for a time which was a very easie expiation of Murder So that the Benefit of Clergie was a mighty thing in those dayes But it is impossible to give any tolerable account of Beckets actions unless we suppose this to have been his Ground and Principle that God had exempted by his Law all Clergy-men by vertue of being such from any subjection to Civil Power For if they owe any subjection they are accountable for their breaches of the Laws to that power to which they are subject if they are not accountable for any crimes they must be supposed to be wholly independent on the Civil Government § 11. Neither is there any ground for such an exemption by the ancient Municipal Laws of England either in the Saxon or Norman times and I cannot but wonder to see the Laws of Princes concerning Ecclesiastical Persons brought to prove their total exemption from the power of Princes which was that Ecclesiastical liberty which Becket did plead for For according to his principles neither Alured nor Edward nor Canutus nor any other Prince had any thing to do to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons but their judgement was to be wholly left to their own Superiours And supposing there had been such Laws among the Saxons Becket would not have valued them at all but rather have thought them a prejudice to his Cause and an encouragement to Hen. 2. to have repealed those and made others in their place For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ecclesiastical Laws as they saw convenient but Becket understood his business better than so He would not upon any terms be brought to the tryal whether they were ancient Customes or no which the King contended for the King offered it very frequently and by any fair ways of tryal and declared he would renounce them if they did not appear to be so he appealed often to the judgement of the Church of England about it and would stand and fall by it and none of these things would be accepted of by which it is evident that either there were no Laws could justifie Becket or he thought the producing them would be hurtful to his cause for not one of all the Customs he excepted against was in his opinion so bad as for Princes to take upon themselves to determine Ecclesiastical causes and to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons For then he knew the King need not to stand upon the proof of his other Customes this one Right of the Crown would put an end to the whole dispute For if Henry 2. had the same Power that Edgar had when he said that the tryal of the manners of Ecclesiastical Persons belonged to him and therefore gave Authority to Dunstan and the rest to expell criminal Clergy-men out of Churches and Monasteries why might not he punisht Ecclesiastical persons And then to what purpose had Becket contended with the King if he had allowed him as much power as the Saxon Kings did make use of And what if the Saxon Laws did appoint the Bishops to examin Clergy-men and pass sentence upon them in criminal causes was not the punishment already established by the Kings Laws and the Bishop only the Minister of the Kings Iustice upon Ecclesiastical Delinquents And even in the Laws of Edward the Confessour in case of default in Ecclesiastical Courts a liberty is allowed of going to other Courts and in the Laws of the elder Edward any one in Orders is appointed to make compensation according to the nature of his crime and without sureties he was to go into prison but in case of a capital offence he was to be taken that he might undergo penance from the Bishop for his fault Where by capital offence we are not to understand such as were punished with death but the Poenitential Canons of Egbert tell us by capital crimes were understood Pride Envy Fornication Adultery Perjury c. But the Laws of Canutus appoint degradation for murder by a Clergy-man and compensation and banishment withal which were Civil punishments after degradation the very thing which Becket denyed and in case this compensation were not undertaken within thirteen days then the Person was to be out-Law'd which to be sure was a civil punishment By the Laws of King Alured if a Priest killed a man he was to lose his priviledges and the Bishop was to expel him out of the Temple being already degraded unless due compensation were made i. e. if he did not undergo the Civil punishment For then the greatest crimes excepting murder of a Prince or Lord by his Subject or Vassal or killing any in a Sacred place or Treason might be expiated by pecuniary Mulcts and Ecclesiastical Penance according to the Poenitential Canons For it appears by the old Poenitential Canons of Theodore and Egbert that murder had so many years penance appointed for its expiation which had been a vain thing if it had been punished with death now in this case it was but reasonable that the guilty Person should be delivered to the Bishop to receive his Penance whether he were a Clergy-man or Lay-man And the Laws of Princes did inforce them to submit to Ecclesiastical Penance So King Alured commands in case of perjury that the Person be taken into the Kings custody for forty dayes that he might undergo the Penance which the Bishop shall impose upon him and if he escaped he was not only to be anathematized but put out of all protection of the Law and by the Laws of King Edmund any Person guilty of Murder was not to come into the Kings presence till he had undergone the Penance enjoyned him by the Bishop And from hence I suppose it was that in the Saxon Times the Bishop and the Sheriff sate together in the same Court as appears by the Laws of Edgar and Canutus not barely to instruct the people in the Laws of God and man but as the Sheriff was to appoint
another Remonstrance of the grievances of the Clergie and People of England which they sent to the Pope and Cardinals wherein they declare that it was impossible for them to bear the burdens laid upon them that the Kings necessities could not be supplyed nor the Kingdom preserved if such payments were made that the goods of all the Clergie of England would not make up the summ demanded but all the effect of this was only a promise that for the future the Kings leave should be desired which saith Matthew Paris came to as much as nothing By which we may judge of the miserable condition of this Nation under the intolerable Usurpations of the Court of Rome § 18. After so long tryal of the Court of Rome by Embassies Remonstrances and all fair wayes and no success at all by them at last they resolved upon making severe Laws the last Reason of Parliaments and to see what effect this would have upon the Clergie for the recovering the antient Rights of the Crown For we are to consider that the Controversie still was carryed on under the same pretence of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and it is a fooâ—ish thing to judge of the sense of the Ruling Clergie at that time by the Acts of Parliament and Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire For by this time the Pope had them in such firm dependence upon him and they were fed by such continual hopes from the Court of Rome that they were very hardly brought to consent to any restraints of the Papal Power and in the Parliament 13 Rich. 2. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York for them and the whole Clergie of their Provinces made their solemn Protestation in open Parliament that they in no wise meant or would assent to any Statute or Law made in restraint of the Popes Authority but utterly withstood the same the which their Protestations at their requests were enrolled as that Learned Antiquary Sr. Robert Cotton hath shewed out of the Records of the Tower By which we see the whole Body of the Clergie were for the most exorbitant Power of the Pope and would not consent to any Statutes made against it So that what Reformation was made in these matters was Parliamentary even in that time and I do not question but the Friends to the Papal interest made the very same objections then against those Poenal Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire that others since have done against the Laws made since the Reformation And all that were sincere for the Court of Rome did as much believe it to be meer Usurpation in the Parliament to make any Laws in these matters For was the King Head of the Church might he not as well administer Saâ—raments as make Laws in deregation of the Popes Authority and Iurisdiction What was this but to make a Parliamentary Religion to own the Popes Sovereign Power no farther than they thought fit If any thing were amiss they ought humbly to represent it to his Holiness and to wait his time for the Reforming abuses and not upon their own Heads and without so much as the consent of their Clergie to make Laws about the restraint of that Power which Christ hath set up in his Church How can this be done without judging what the Pope hath done to be amiss and who dares say that his Holiness can so much err as to aim at nothing but his own profits without any regard to the good of the Church What! are they not all members and will they dare take upon them to judge their Head What! Sons rise up against their Father and Secular men take upon them to condemn the things which Christs Vicar upon earth allows What! and after all the Sufferings and Martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury that ever we should live to see a Parliament of England make Laws against that good Old Cause for which he dyed This is but to increase the number of Confessors and Martyrs as all those will be who suffer by these Laws For do they not plainly suffer for Conscience and Religion although the Parliament may call it Treason What an honour it is rather to suffer than to betray the Churches Liberty for which Christ dyed or to disobey the Head of the Church who commands those things which the Parliament forbids And must we not obey God rather than men After this manner we may reasonably suppose the Roman Clergie and their adherents at that time to have argued but it is well Mr. Cressy at least allows these Stasutes of Provisors and Praemunire and boasts of the Loyalty of those Ancestors that made them but I fear he hath not well considered the occasions and circumstances of them and what opposition the Papal Clergie made against them or else I should think he could not afterwards have declaimed so much against the injustice and cruelty of our Poenal Laws But even those antient Statutes were passed with so much difficulty and executed with so little care that they by no means proved a sufficient salve for the sore they were intended for as will appear by this true account of them § 19. In the time of Edward the first who was a Prince both wise and resolute the grievances of the Kingdom by his connivance at the Papal encroachments for a long time grew to that height that some effectual course was necessary to recover the antient Rights of the Crown which had now been so long buried that they were almost forgotten but an occasion happened which for the time throughly awaked him to a consideration of them Bonif. 8. out of a desire still to advance Ecclesiastical Liberty had made a Constitution strictly forbidding any Clergie-man paying any Taxes whatsoever to Princes without the Popes consent and both the payers and receivers were to fall under excommunication ipso facto not to be taken off without immediate Authority from the Court of Rome unless it were at the point of death Not long after this the King demands a supply in Parliament the Clergie unanimously refuse on account of the Popes Bull the King bids them advise better and return a satisfactory Answer at the time appointed Winchelsea then Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of the whole Clergie declares That they owed more obedience to the Pope than to the King he being their Spiritual and the King only a Temporal Soveraign but to give satisfaction to both they desire leave to send to the Pope At which saucy answer the King was so much provoked that he put the whole Clergie out of his Protection and seized upon their Lands for which an Act of Parliament was made to that purpose saith Thorn And although many of the Clergie submitted and bought their peace at dear rates yet Winchelsea stood it out ready saith Knighton to dye for the Church of Christ which if he had done there might have been a S. Robert as good a Martyr as S. Thomas of Canterbury For our Historians say
made by Chapters so that in two years time he put in thirteen Bishops in the Province of Canterbury in spight of all the Statutes of Provisors and made his Nephew Prosper Colonna Arch-Deacon of Canterbury at fourteen years of Age who afterwards had as many Benefices granted him in England as came to five hundred Marks Besides he granted Appropriations Dispensations c. as he pleased without regard to the English Nation These things the English Ambassadours complained of in the Council of Constance and at last the Pope came to an Agreement with them which were called the Concordates between Martin 5 and the Church of England in which no manner of regard was had to the Statutes of Provisors although so often repeated only some agreements were made between the Pope and the English Bishops about Unions of Churches the capacity of English Bishops for any Offices of the Roman Court and such like But other Ambassadours who came a little after these pressed the matter somewhat harder upon the Pope against Provisions and Aliens and the Kings Supplies out of the moneys raised for the Court of Rome the Pope giving them no favourable answer they replyed unless he did presently satisfie their demands the King would make use of his own Right because it was not necessity but respect that made them seek to him and pray that they might enter this Protestation before the Cardinals by the Kings Command At this same time the States of France renewed their Statutes against the Popes Usurpations and added that they would not acknowledge him Pope till he consented to them and the Rector of the University of Paris was proceeded against as a Traytor for appealing from the Kings Edicts to the Pope Notwithstanding all this the same Pope sends his Nuncio into England to raise moneys who was called Ioh. Opizanus but he was cast into Prison for his pains for which the Pope expostulated very sharply with the Duke of Bedford about it H. 5. being then dead Archbishop Chiâ—helâ— was in that time no friend to the Popes continual encroachments upon which as appears by the Records he was cited to Rome and the Commons make it their request to the King that he would write to the Pope on his behalf but we are told by a considerable Lawyer that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops offered the King a large supply if he would consent that all the Laws against Provisors might be repealed but it was rejected by Humphry Duke of Gloucester who had lately cast the Popes Bull into the fire This is certain that Card. Beaufort then Bishop of Winchester incurred the penalties of the Statutes of Provisors 10 H. 6. for which he was questioned in Parliament but at last had his Pardon granted by the King with the consent of all the Estates By which we see that not one of all the Papal encroachments was ever cut off by the severity of the Poenal Laws as long as the Popes Supremacy was allowed for never any thing was more vigorously attempted more frequently enacted more severely threatned than this business of Provisors yet in despight of all the Laws it continued still as long as the Pope was allowed to have a Power above Laws and that he could null abrogate or dispense with them as he pleased And thus far I have given an impartial account of the ancient poenal Laws of England The like to which have been made in France Spain Italy Flanders and other parts of Europe as might be easily proved if it were necessary but I forbear that § 21. And come to compare the ancient poenal Laws of our own Nation with the modern as to the Reasons and Occasions of them that by them we may judge whether those who allow the ancient Laws to be just can have any ground to charge the present with injustice and Cruelty which can be only on one of these two grounds 1. Either that the Occasions of the present Laws were not so great Or 2. That the old Laws did not relate to the exercise of their Religion as the latter do I shall consider both of them 1. For the occasions of the present poenal Laws Mr. Cressy confesseth them to have been Treasons not consequentially only when an act may be declared to be Treason which in it self is not so but such Treasons as all Mankind acknowledge to be such viz. depriving Soveraign Princes of their Crown and Dignity endeavouring by open Rebellions and secret conspiracies to take away their Lives if these be not Treasons theâ—e are none such in the world And that these were the Occasions of the present poenal Laws I shall not produce the Testimony of the Lord Burleigh in his Book published on occasion of the poenal Laws called The Execution of Iustice in England not for Religion but for Treason imprinted at London A. D. 1583 but I shall make use of the Testimony of Persons less lyable to the exception of our Adversaries viz. The Secular Priests who printed their Important Considerations A. D. 1601. wherein their whole design is to shew that the poenal Laws considering the many Treasons which were the occasions of them were very just and merciful For they acknowledge 1. That the State of Catholicks was free from persecution the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth and that Parsons and Creswel confessed as much 2. That themselves were the true Causes of the change that was made towards them by Pius 5. moving a Rebellion here by Ridolphi exciting the King of Spain abroad to joyn his Forces and denouncing a Bull of Excommunication against the Queen and absolving her Subjects from their subjection on purpose to foment their Rebellion for depriving her of her Kingdom which they prove by particular circumstances 3. That they could hardly believe these things themselves till they saw them expressed and owned in the Life of Pius Quintus printed and allowed 4. That notwithstanding these things and the Rebellion breaking forth 1569. the Prisoners were only under greater restraint but none were put to death on that occasion but only such who were in actual Rebellion wherein they confess the Queen did no more than any Prince in Christendom would have done 5. That upon these occasions a Parliament was called 1571. and a Law made against the bringing any Bulls from Rome Agnus Dei's Crosses or Pardons and against all persons that should procure them to be brought hither which Law although they think it to have been too rigorous yet they cannot but confess that the State could not without the imputation of great carelesness of its own safety have omitted the making some Laws against those of their Religion And although they were in their opinion too severe yet they acknowledge 1. That the occasions were extraordinary most outragious as they expressed it 2. That the execution of them was not so Tragical as was represeuted 6. They believe that neither this Law nor any other would have been
of finding the guilty As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Rebellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of as for instance I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced I desire to know whether if the Law made it poenal for men not to put off their hats only out of consideration of the Treasonable doctrines and practices they were guilty of should that man who were taken because he did not put off his Hat be said to sufâ—er on that account and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole intent and design of the Law is expressed to be to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her by giving assistance to them and endeavouring what in him lay to deprive the Queen of her Crown therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedience to the Pope is adjudged Treason as well as to any other Prince State or Potentate And where there is an equality of Reason why should there not be an equality in the punishment If any other Prince should have engaged Persons in the same actions which the Pope did there is no question they had been Treasonable actions the Question this whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it ceases to be Treason when the Pope allows or requires it If it doth so then the Pope must be acknowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes and they are all but his Vassals which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Treason then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason if the Law-makers think fit to make it so By no means for in this case there was an apparent tendency to disobedience and Treason in promising obedience to the Pope but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion considered as such but when Priests have been known to be the common instruments of Treasons as they were then by the confession of the Secular Priests then those actions which are performed by such persons and are proper only to themselves are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law designs to punish So that if we do allow that the Law of the Land can declare Treason in any sort of Persons and punish Persons for being guilty and appoint a certain means of discovering the guilty then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity alwayes supposing that some notorious Treasonable actions and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasions or antecedent Motives of those Laws which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses viz. the Secular Priests And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it viz. Whereas divers persons called or professed Iesuits Seminary Priests and other Priests which have been and from time to time are made in the parts beyond the Seas by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church have of late comen and been sent and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose as it hath appeared as well by their own examinations and confessions as divers other manifest means and proofs not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty but also to stir up and move Sedition Rebellion and open Hostility within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person and to the utter ruine desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented For reformation whereof be it ordained c. Can any thing be plainer from hence than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable attempts though masked only under a pretence of Religion If the design had been against their Religion the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion which it doth not But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Supremacy then it seems all the Religion they suffer for must be contaiâ—ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy And is this at last the suffering for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iurisdiction here But who were the men that first rejected that Authoâ—ity and Jurisdiction here Former Princes long before the Reformation did it as far as they thought fit and made no scruple of restraining it as far as they judged convenient and upon the same Reasons they went so far H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther For the reason they went upon was the repugnancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown and was there any other ground of the casting out the Popes Supremacy when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpoâ—e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent while the Head and Body were sound But who were the zealous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it and if they were not in good earnest they were notorious Hypocrites as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience with Bonners Preface wherein very smart things are said and with good Reason against making the Supremacy challenged by the Pope any part of Catholicâ— Religion Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time Fisher excepted joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass and hangs on a very slender thread If there be no more in Christian Religion than what is rejected by the Oath of Supremacy it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing for it filled the World with perpetual broils and confusions and produced dreadful effects where ever it was entertained and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen speaks out in this matter and saith plainly that it