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
this Constitution of the Pope was procured by Winchelsea's means and he caused it to be pulished in all Cathedral Churches After this the King sends a prohibition to the Bishops against doing any thing to the prejudice of himself or his Ministers and another against all excommunications of those who should execute this Law and herein he declares that the doing such a thing would be a notorious injury to his Crown and Dignity a great scandal to the people the destruction of the Church and it may be the subversion of the whole Kingdom and therefore he charges them by vertue of their Allegiance that they should forbear doing it At the same time he issued out Writs for apprehending and imprisoning all such persons as should presume to excommunicate any of his Subjects on the accont of this Bull of Pope Boniface and our Learned Lawyers mention out of their Books a Person condemned for Treason in this Kings time for bringing a Bull of excommunication against one of the Kings subjects but although they do not mention the time it seems most probable to have been upon this occasion Parsons laughs at Sr. Edw. Cook for saying this was Treason by the antient Commâ—n Law before any Statutes were made but it doth sufficiently appear by the foregoing Discourse that this was looked on as one of the antient Rights of the Crown that no forreign Authority should exercise any jurisdiction here without the Kings consent Besides this King revived another of the antient Customs forbidding all Persons of the Clergie or Laâ—ty to go out of the Kingdom without his leave and so stopt the freedom of Appeals to the Pope and by the Statute of Carlisle 35 Edw. â— All Religious Houses were forbidden sending any Moneyes over to those of their Order beyond Sea although required to do it by those Superiours whom they thought themselves bound in conscience to obey And it appears by the Statute of Provisors 25 Edw. 3. that the first Statute of this kind was made in this Kings time at the Parliament at Carlisle notwithstanding that the Pope challenged the liberty of Provisions as a part of the plenitude of his Power But although this Statute were then made yet it had the fortune of many good Laws not to be executed and therefore in Edward the thirds time the Commons earnestly pressed for the revival of it 17 Edw. 3. upon which they sent for the Statute of Carlisle and then sayes the Record the Act of Provision was made by the common consent forbidding the bringing of Bulls or such trinkets from the Court of Rome and in the next Parliament it was enacted that whosoever should by process in the Court of Rome seek to reverse judgement given in the Kings Courts that he should be taken and brought to answer and upon conviction to be banished the Realm or be under perpetual imprisonment or if not found to be out-lawed But notwithstanding these Laws the Commons 21 Edw. 3. complain still that Provisions went on in despight of the King and judgements were reversed by Process in the Court of Rome and therefore they pray that judgement may be executed upon delinquents and this matter brought into a perpetual Statute as had been often desired the King grants their desire and the Commons bring in a Bill to that purpose extant in the Records but the Statute of Provisors did not pass till 25 Edw. 3. which is the common Statute in the printed Books yet soon after we find that the Commons pray for the execution of it and the Kings answer was that he would have it new read and amended then 27 Edw. 3. passed that other Statute of Praemunire against Appeals in Civil Causes to the Court of Rome which we have seen Becket made a considerable part of the Churches Liberty which Christ had purchased and practised it himself at Northampton appealing from King and his Parliament to the Pope in a meer Civil Cause of Accompts between the King and him Yet after all these Statutes 38 Edw. 3. a Re-enforcement of them was thought necessary in another Statute made that year against Citations to Rome and Provisions wherein are grievous complaints that the good antient Laws were still impeached blemished and confounded the Crown of our Lord the King abated and his person very hardly and falsly defamed the treasure and riches of the Kingdom carryed away the inhabitants and subjects of the Realm impoverished and troubled the Benefices of the Church wasted and destroyed Divine Services Hospitalities Alms deeds and other Works of Charity withdrawn and set apart the Great men Commons and Subjects of the Realm in body and goods damnified And yet Sr. R. C. saith that in the Record are more biting words a Mysterie he saith not to be known of all men In 40 Edw. 3. It was declared in Parliament by common consent that if the Pope should attempt any thing against the King by process or other matters in deed that the King with all his Subjects should with all their force and power resist the same Yet still so deep rooting had the Popes power gotten in this Nation that 47 Edw. 3. The Commons beg remedy still against the Popes provisions and complain that the Treasure of the Realm was carryed away which they cannot bear and 50 Edw. 3. A long Bill was brought in against the Popes Usurpations as being the Cause of all the Plagues injuries famine and poverty of the Realm and there they complain notwithstanding all former Laws that the Popes Collector kept his Court in London as it were one of the Kings Courts transporting yearly to the Pope twenty thousand Marks and commonly more and that Cardinals and other Aliens by reason of their preferments here have sent over yearly twenty thousand Marks and that the Pope to ransom the Kings enemies did at his pleasure levy a Subsidy of the Clergie of England and that to advance his gain he did commonly make translations of Bishopricks and other Dignities within the Realm and therefore again the Commons pray the Statutes against Provisors may be renewed which they repeated 51 Edw. 3. but all the answer they couâ—d get was that the Pope and promised redress the which if he do not the Laws therein shall stand but upon another Petition promise was made that the Statutes should be observed In 1 R. 2. the Commons are at it again upon the same complaints and it is declared to be one Cause of calling the Parliament 3 R. 2. and an Act then passed wherein as Sr. R. C. observes the Print makes no mention of the Popes abuses which the Record expresly sets down and that the Pope had broken promise with Edward the third and granted preferments in England to the Kings enemies 7 R. 2. another Statute was made against Provisions wherein the Print differs from the Record as the same Person
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
God which the Gloss upon the Canon Law speaks of our â—ord God the Pope and it is hard to conceive any other could be meant in this case The King sends some of the Bishops and Barons to him to put him in mind of his Oath to observe the Laws and Customs of the Realm he told him they were to be understood with the reservation of being according to God and that it was not so to keep him from going to the Pope and therefore he would not observe it and so takes his leave of the King to be gone and the King after his going seizes upon all his profits I desire to know of such as Mr. Cressy whether the King or Anselm were in the right in all this affair And if the King had used greater severity to him whether Anselm had suffered on the account of Religion Or Treason But he complains to the Pope that the Law of God and Authority of the Pope and Canons were overwhelmed by the Customs of the Realm and therefore he resigns his Archbishoprick to him and desires the Pope to put one into it which was contrary to the antient Rights of the King The Pope in a Council at Rome solemnly excommunicates all Lay-persons that gave Investitures of Churches and all that received them and all Ecclesiastical persons that paid Homage to Princes saying it was very unfit that they who made their God should put their hands into the obscene and cruel hands of Princes as Eadmerus relates it who was present in the Council § 6. After the death of Rufus Anselm returns for England the new King Henry the first demands the accustomed Homage from him he denyes it and gives the late Council at Rome for his reason adding further if the King would submit to the Decrees of that Council there would be peace between them otherwise he would be gone again The King was very unwilling to part with the Rights of his Predecessors in the Investiture and Homage of Bishops for saith Eadmerus it seemed to him as much as to lose half his Kingdom and yet was afraid to let Anselm go lest by his means the Pope should have set up his Brother Roberts Title against him the King being in this strait endeavours to gain time and sends Ambassadors to the Pope to try if he could procure his consent to let him enjoy his own Rights Pope Paschal the second in his long Epistle to Henry absolutely condemns them as inconsistent with God with justice or with salvation and adds that to the wit of his predecessors that it was a monstrous thing for a Son to beget a Father or a man to make a God but Urban gave that as a reason against it because Priests were men that did make a God now Priests saith he in Scripture are called Gods and are not Princes or Secular Powers The King not at all moved with this Bull requires from Anselm either to pay him homage and to consecrate those that had received investitures from him or immediately to be gone out of the Kingdom and withal declares that he would preserve the Rights of his Predecessors nor would endure any in his Kingdom that would not do him homage the Nobility and the rest of the Bishops joyn with the King and used all perswasions to keep him from submitting to the Pope The King hoping to compose this matter sends three Bishops to the Pope to let him know saith Eadmerus that if the King did not enjoy his Rights he would banish Anselm and renounce the Pope But Brompton hath the smart Letter the King sent upon this occasion wherein he tells him he would not fail of that respect and obedience which his predecessors had shewn to the Popes on condition that all the Honors Uses and Customs which his Father had in his predecessors times might be freely enjoyed by him and that by the help of God none of them should be lessened in his time and if saith he which God forbid I should be so base to let them go yet my Nobility nay the whole people would by no means suffer it The Pope told them he would not yield to the King in this matter to save his Life and writes word to the King that by the judgement of the Holy Ghost he had forbidden all investitures by Princes and encourages Anselm in his opposition to the King with some impertinent texts of Scripture For of all men the Popes notwithstanding their pretence to infallibility have been very unhappy in applying Scripture in their Bulls and it would be one of the strangest Commentaries that ever the World saw to set down the places of Scripture produced by them with their interpretations of them but that is not my present business The King called together the Great men of the Nation in Council at London and sends some of them to Anselm to know whether he would observe the customs of his predecessors or be gone The Bishops pretending private instructions contrary to the Popes Bulls Anselm desires time to know the Popes mind and still stands to the Popes Letters upon which the King told him he would bear these delays no longer Quid mihi de meis cum Papa what have I to do with the Pope about my own Subjects What Rights my Predecessors had are mine too whosoever would take them away from me is my enemy and every one that is my Friend knows it Anselm tells him that to save his life he would not contradict the Popes decrees unless he were absolved by him The King would not so much as hear of the Popes Bulls nor suffer others to do it which grieved Anselm much and away he goes again to receive comfort from the Pope The King sends an Ambassadour to the Pope who told him his Master would lose his Kingdom rather than the Investiture of Bishops the Pope very graciously replyed Before God I will lose my head rather than he shall quietly enjoy them But at last the Pope was content he should enjoy other customes excepting this of Investitures the King was not at all satisfied with this but sends word to Anselm he must not set foot on English ground unless he would promise to observe the former customs of the Realm which he still refused to do and after several endeavours to compose this difference the King was at last forced to yield up the ancient Right of Investiture and retain only homage which the Pope and Anselm were at present contented with but this Agreement held not long for notwithstanding the Pope did lay so much weight on this business of Investitures as besides what is mentioned already he said that Christ dyed in vain if Lay-investitures were allowed yet the King was certainly informed that this same Pope had yielded Investitures to tâ—e Emperour Henry 5. as Florentius Wigorniensis and Malmsbury report and therefore Anselm writes to the Pope that the King
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
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
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
England makes them guilty of violating the Rights of the Crown If they say the Case is not the same now upon the Change of Religion I desire to know of them whether any ancient Rights of the Crown are lost by casting off the Popes Authority if they be not they are good still and what are they then that deny them if they be lost then our Kings have lost some of their Soveraign Rights which their Ancestors valued above half their Kingdoms and how could they lose them by casting off the Pope if they did not receive them â—rom him If they received them from him then they make the Kings Power to be so far at least derived from the Pope for if it were independent upon him how could they lose any Power by casting off the Popes Authority If it be said that these were priviledges granted by the Popes I utterly deny it for our Kings challenged them in spight of the Popes and exercised them in direct opposition to their Bulls and Decrees even the Decrees of Councils as well as Popes as is fully manifested in the foregoing Discourse How then can such men plead for the repeal of Poenal Laws whose principles do so directly contradict the ancient acknowledged Rights of the Crown of England For others that will not only own these ancient Rights but give sufficient security without fraud and equivocation of their sincerity in renouncing the Popes power of deposing Princes and other Principles destructive to Government since it was never the intention of our Laws to persecute such they need not fear the enjoyment of all Reasonable Protection by them But it doth not become me to discourse of such points which are far more proper for the Wisdom and Council of the whole Nation And I know no true Protestant would envy the quiet and security of innocent and peaceable men where there is sufficient assurance that by favour received they will not grow more unquiet But we cannot take too great care to prevent the restless designs of those who aim at nothing more than the undermining and blowing up our established Church and Religion Which God preserve Thus much may serve for an Answer to these points of Mr. Cressy's Book the rest I leave to a better hand And now My Lord what reason have I to beg pardon for so tedious a Discourse But I know your Lordships love to the Cause as well as to the Person concerned will make you ready to excuse and forgive My Lord Your Lordships most humble and obedient Servant Edw. Stillingfleet Caramuel Commentar in Regul S. Bened. n. 831. Prefaâ—e n. 33. p. 23. P. 7. P. 17 19 â—0 Epistle Apologetâ—cal sect 1 2 3. from p. 6. to p. 39. P. 6. P. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Mat. 5. 22. 11. 29. Eph. 4. 31. Exod. 32. 19. P. 11 12 13 15 16. P. 7. Mr. Crâ—sâ— Ep. Dedicat. P. 35. P. 52. P. â—2 Postscript p. 1â—1 P. 2. P. 3. Epist. dedâ—c Preface to the Reaâ—der P. 63. Preface to Faâ—at 〈◊〉 Epistle Apologetic p. 12. Prâ—face to Idolatry Preface to the first part of the Answer Epist. Apologet from â— 16. to â— 24. Answer first part from p. 260. to p. 291. Epist. Apologet from p. 72. to â— 84. From n. 53. to n. 72. Fanaticism sect 2. n. 10. P. 23. Aâ—madvers p 26. Epist. Apologet sect 26 â— 27. ib. Fanaticism p. 1. P. 11 P. 181. Epist. Apologet n. 37. Maximil Sandaei Clavis Mystica c. 3â— Carol Hâ—râ—â—â—nt Comment in Dioâ—ysâ—de Mystiâ—â— Theolog Prâ—â—fat Româ—â— Churches Devotions vindicated Sect. 1. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. 〈…〉 â— 16. c 6. â— 11. Sect. 1. c. 4. n. 14. Sect. 61. Sect. â— Epist. Apolog n. 37â— 1 Cor. 2. 14 Tract Apologâ—t intâ—g Societ de Roâ—eâ— Cruce dâ—fendens A. 1617. P. 17. V. Ioh. à Iesu Maria Thâ—olog Mystiâ— c. 6. p. 64. 1 John 5. 3. 4. 20. 12. Joh. 14. 15. 15. 14. O. N. Roman Deâ—votions vindicated sect 7 sect 51. Fanatâ—â—sm p. 49. P. 41. Aâ—imadv p. 58. Roman Devotions vindicated sect 9 10 11. Roman Devotions vindicated sect 16. S. Teresa 's Life p 2. c. 1. Eâ—iâ— 16 1. at Aâ—â—â—p c. 4. p. 16. P. 17. C. 5. p. 25. P. 26. C. 6. p. 28. P 32. P 33. P. 38. C. 10 11 12 c. P â—0 P. 62. P. 111. P. 113. P. 122. P. 140. P. 141. P. 142. P. 148. P. 149. P. 150. P. 42. P. 18â— P. 66. 176. p. 236. P. 181. P. 194. p. 180. P. 18â— P. 181. P. 184. P. 185. P. 187. P. 204. P. 215. P. 216. P. 221. P. 224. P. 225. P. 226. P. 228. P. 234. P. 229. P. 232. P. 233. P. 238. P. 240. P. 237. P. 240. P. 241. P. 242. P. 244. P. 245. P. 246. P. 247. P. 261. P. 323. P. 324. Roman Churches Devotions vindicated p. 23. 2 Cor. 12. 1 2 5 6. P. 364. P. 312. O. N. sect 13. O. N. â—â—ct 19 20 21 22 23. O. N. sect 29. O N. sect 13. p. 20. O. N. sect 14. Baâ—on A. D. 173 n. 7. 25 Euseb. Eccl. histor l. 5. c. 16. C. 17. Epiphan harâ—s 48. sect 2. Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Psal. 115. 11 Diâ—inarum gâ—atiarum Cor â—atio oâ—rium Reâ—â—laâ—ionâ—m mat riam a eriens Venet 1626. p. 14. P. 34. Sâ—ct 7. Sect. 10. Hieroâ—yâ— prafat in Nahuâ— Prafat in Habac. 1 Cor. 14. 30. Vâ— 33. Pâ—afat in Isai. l. 1. â— 1. in Isai. 33. S. 〈◊〉 in Psa. 45. 1. In 1 Cor. 12. hom 29. S. Basil in Isai. 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 O. N. p. 16. Tâ—rtull de Aâ—imâ—â—9 O. N. sect 6. Diaâ—o de Diano â— 24. O. N. p. 13. O N. from sect 32. to sect 40. Aug. â— Fortunat Tom. 6. Confess l. 7. c. 2. C. 1. L. â— c. 4. L. 10. c 40. L. 7. c. 10. L. 9 c. 10. De quantit anim c. 33. De Mâ—rib Eccles Cathol c. 31. C. 32. Ioh. Boâ—a de discret Spirituum c. 14. n. 4. Lut. Paris 1673. Paul Zacch Quaest. Mâ—dico-legal l. 4. tit 1. q. 6. n. 4. Plato in Coâ—viv in orat Alâ—ibiadis p. 220. ed. Serâ— A. Gâ—ll. Noct. Attâ— 1. c. 1. cajâ— t. iâ—â— 2. 7. 175. aâ—t 1. Proâ—lâ—â— c. 30. Bâ—rniers Memoires par 2 p. 136 〈…〉 c. 4. 2. 2. q. 175. art 1. corp art Card. Bona de dâ—ser Spirit c. 14. n. 5. Ioh. à Iesu Maria Theolog Myst. c. 8. Cajet in 1. 2. q. 17. art 7. Sanct. Sophia tr 3. sect 4. c. 3. n. 11. Fortunat. Sâ—acch de not sign Sanct. sect 8. c. 3. 〈…〉 Sanct Soph. â— 19. Boâ—a ib. p. 250. Caset â— 12 2. q. 173. art 3. 〈…〉 Carol Clâ— not in Gaâ—â— ab 〈◊〉 c. 3. Paul Zacâ—h quâ—st Medico lâ—g l. 4. 〈◊〉 1 qu. 7. Paâ—l Zacch l. 4. tâ—t 1. q. 6. n. 33. Bona de disâ—ret Spirit c. 20. p. 411. Scacch p. 612. Saâ—cta Sophia Tr. 3. sect 3. c. 6. n. 22. Bona ib. p. 415. Saâ—cta Sophia Tr. 3. sect 4. c. 3. n. 10. 14. Ioh. Ã
Lords do Why be not under your Bishops visitation and léege men to our King Why make yée men believe that your golden Trental sung of you to take therefore ten shillings or at least five shillings woll bring souls out of Hell or out of Purgatory if this be sooth certes yée might bring all the souls out of paine and that woll ye nought and then yée be out of charity Why make ye men believe that he that is buried in your habit shall never come in Hell and ye wéet not of your self whether ye shall to Hell or no if this were sooth ye should sell your high houses to make many habits for to save many mens souls Why covet ye shrift and burying of other mens Parishens and none other Sacrament that falleth to Christian folk Why busie ye not to hear to shrift of poor folk as well as of Lords and Ladies sith they may have more plenty of shrift fathers than poor folk mow Why covet you not to bury poor folk among you sith they béen most holy as ye sayn that ye béen for your poverty Fréer when thou receivest a penie for to say a Mass whether sellest thou Gods body for that penie or thy prayer or else thy travel If thou saiest thou wilt not travel for to say the Mass but for the penie that certes if this be sooth then thou lovest too little méed for thy soul and if thou sellest Gods body other thy prayer then it is very simonie and art become a chapman worse than Judas that sold it for thirty pence Why bearest thou God in hand and slanderst him that he begged for his meat sith he was Lord over all for then had he béen unwise to have begged and have no néed thereto Fréer after what Law rulest thou thée where findest thou in Gods Law that thou shouldst thus beg what manner men néedeth for to beg for whom oweth such men to beg Why beggest thou so for thy Brethren If thou saiest for they have néed then thou dost it for the more perfection or else for the least or else for the meane If it be the most perfection of all then should all thy Brethren do so and then no man néeded to beg but for himself for so should no man beg but him néeded And if it be the least perfection why lovest thou then other men more than thy self For so thou art not well in charity sith thou shouldst séek the more perfection after thy power living thy self most after God And thus leaving that imperfection thou shouldst not so beg for them And if it is a good mean thus to â—eg as thou dost then should no man do so but they béen this good mean and yet such a mean granted by you can never be grounded on Gods Law for then both lerid and leard that ben in mean degrée of this world should go about and beg as you do And if all should do certes well nigh all the world should go about and heg as ye done and so should there be ten beggers against one Yever Why wilt thou not beg for poor bedred men that ben poorer than any of your Sect that liggen and mow not go about to help himselfes sith we be all Brethren in God and that Bretherhed passeth any other that ye or any man could make and where most néed were there were most perfection either else ye hold them not your pure Brethren but worse but then ye he unperfect in your begging Whos 's ben all your rich Courts that ye han and all your rich Iewels sith ye séen that ye han nought ne in proper ne in common If ye sain they ben the Popes why gather ye then of poor men and Lords and so much out of the Kings hand to make your Pope rich And sith ye sain that it is great perfection to have nought in proper ne in common why be ye so fast about to make the Pope that is your Father rich and put on him imperfection sithen ye saine that your goods ben all his and ye should by reason be the most perfect man it séemeth openlich that ye ben cursid Children so to slander your Father and make him imperfect And if ye sain that the goods be yours then do ye ayenst your rule and if it be not ayenst your Rule then might ye have both plow and cart and labour as other good men done and not so beg by Cosengery and idle as ye done If ye say that it is more perfection to beg than to travel or to work with your hand why preach ye not openly and teach all men to do so sith it is the best and most perfect life to the help of their fouls as ye make Children to beg that might have béen rich heirs Why hold ye not S. Francis his Rule and his Testament sith Francis saith that God shewed him this living this Rule certes if it were Gods Will the Pope might not fore do it or else Francis was a lier that said in this wise Why will ye not touch no coined money with the Cross ne with the Kings head as ye done other Iewels both of Gold and Silver certes if ye despise the Cross of the Kings head then ye be worthy to be despised of God and the King and sith ye will receive money in your hearts and not with your hands it séemeth that ye hold more holiness in your hands than in your hearts and then be false to God Why have yée exempt you from our King's Laws and visiting of our Bishops more than other Christian men that liven in this Realm if ye be not guilty of traitorie to our Realm or trespasâ—es to your Bishops Fréer what charity is this to the people to lie and say that ye follow Christ in poverty more than other men done and yet in curious and costly housing and fine and precious clothing and delicious and liking féeding and in treasure and jewels and rich ornaments Fréers passen Lords and other rich worldly men and soonest they should bring their cause about be it never so costly though Gods Law be put a back Fréer what charity is this to prease upon a rich man and to entice him to be buried among you from his parish Church and to such rich men give letters of Fraternity confirmed by your general Seal and thereby to bear him in hand that he shall have part of all your Masses Mattens Preachings Fastings Wakings and all other good déeds done by your Brethren of your Order both whilest he liveth and after that he is dead and yet ye witten never whether your déeds be acceptable to God ne whether that man that hath that letter be able by good living to receive any part of your déeds and yet a poor man that ye wite well or supposen in certain to have no good of ye ne given to such letters though he be a better man to God than such a rich man nevertheless this poor man
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
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
was in defence of these Which I shall the rather do since I find his Life very lately published in French with a high character of him and dedicated to the King of France but especially because I find that those among us of that Religion who disown Gregory the sevenths principles are willing to believe him a Martyr upon other grounds viz. that his quarrel with the King was upon the account of the antient Municipal Laws of England which had a respect to the immunities of Clergie-men I shall therefore prove 1. That the matters in Dispute between the King and Becket were the very same that Gregory the seventh and his successors contended about with Christian Princes 2. That the pleas made use of by Becket and his party were no other than those which Gregory the seventh and his successors used so that they had no relation at all to the Municipal Laws but to the controversie then on Foot between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power In both which I hope to make some passages clearer than they have yet been having had the advantage of perusing several MSS. relating to this matter and especially that Volume of Epistles which Baronius accounts an unvaluable Treasure and as far as I can perceive the Cotton MS. is more compleat than the Vatican which Baronius made use of 1. For the matters in Dispute between them The whole controversie might be reduced to two heads 1. Whether Ecclesiastical Persons were unaccountable to the Civil Power for any misdemeanours committed by them 2. Whether the Pope had the Soveraign Power over Princes and all under them so that he might contradict the Kings Laws and Customs and command his Subjects against his consent to come to him and whether the Kings Subjects in such cases were not bound to obey the Pope let the King command what he please These in truth were the points in debate and the most weighty particulars in the Customs of Clarendon were but as so many branches of these In that Copy of them which is extant in the Cotton MS. and was drawn up by the Kings own Order the occasion of them is set down to have been the differences which had happened between the Clergie and the Kings Iustices and the Barons of the Kingdom about the Customs and Dignities of the Crown the most considerable of those which the Pope condemned were concerning 1. The Tryal of Titles of Advowsons and Presentations in the Kings Courts 2. The Tryal of Clergie-men before the Kings Iudges and the Churches not defending them after conviction or confession 3. That neither Archbishops Bishops or others should go out of the Kingdom without the Kings consent and giving security to the King that in going staying or returning they will do nothing to the prejudice either of the King or Kingdom 4. The profits of Ecclesiastical Courts upon absolutions for they demanded not barely personal security of all excommunicated persons to stand to the Churches judgements but Vadium ad remanens as the Law term was then which implyes real security or so much money laid down which was to come to the Court if they did not perform the conditions expressed For it was one of the things the Kings Ambassadour complained of to his Mother the Empress that the matters in controversie were not things of advantage to mens souls but to their own purses and that the Faults of Offenders were not punished in the Ecclesiastical Courts by the injoyning of Penance but by the giving of money And the Empress her self in her discourse with Nicholas de Monte the Archbishops Friend insisted on these pecuniary mulcts for sins as one of the great occasions of the troubles which made people suspect this pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty to be only a cloak for their own profits But however the good Pope whether he understood this Vadium ad remanens or no at all adventures condemned it For what should the Court of Rome do without exchanging Money for Sins 5. That no Person who held of the King in capite or belonged to him should be excommunicated or have his Land interdicted without making the King acquainted with it or his Iustice in his absence 6. That in matters of Appeal they were to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and from thence to the King and not to proceed further without his express leave These were the main things in dispute and what do they all amount to but the very same Rights of the Crown which the Kings predecessors did insist upon and what could be the sense of Becket in opposing them but that Clergie-men were not accountable for their Faults to the Civil Power and in case of the Popes command whether upon appeal or otherwise Bishops and others were to go to his Court in spight of the King as Anselm and Theobald had done before It is agreed by Baronius himself that the quarrel brake out upon the Arch-bishops denying to deliver up the Clergie-man that was accused and convicted of Murder after Ecclesiastical Censure to the Secular Power which the King earnestly desired and Becket as peremptorily denyed And upon what principle could this be done but the highest pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty that ever Gregory the seventh or any other asserted And it is plain by this that the King did not deny the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction nor hindered the proper Censures of the Church upon offenders but the Question was meerly this Whether Ecclesiastical persons having committed crimes against the publick peace were only to be punished with Ecclesiastical Censures and never to be delivered over to Civil Iustice Which was the main hinge of the Cause and which Becket stood to to the last And that this was the true State of the Controversie appears by the representation made of it to Alexander the third by the whole Clergie of the Province of Canterbury who confess that the peace of the Kingdom was very much disturbed by the insolence and crimes of some of the Clergie for upon the account of this exemption any Villains were safe if they could but get into any kind of Orders the King for the safety of his people pressed the Bishops after their Censures to give such guilty persons up to the Laws because bare degrading was by no means sufficient punishment for wilful murder which was all the Church censures reached to This all the Bishops at first opposed as derogatory to the Churches Liberty but afterwards Becket excepted the rest saw a necessity of yielding at present for as they confess themselves this liberty was extended even to a Lector or Acolythus and the Empress Matildis said that the Bishops gave orders very loosely without titles by which we may easily imagine what a miserable state the whole Kingdom might be in if these things were suffered So that we see the plea insisted upon at the beginning of the quarrell was that no persons in any Ecclesiastical
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
the civil penalty so the Bishop was to enjoyn penance according to the nature of the Fault and one of these did not exclude the other but he that did pay such a pecuniary mulct to the Sheriff did undergo so many years penance besides Therefore the Laws which mention persons being delivered to the Bishop for Penance do by no means imply that they were excused from any Civil penalty either before or after it as might be proved from the Laws of the Empire and the Capitulars if it were needful So that in the Saxon times if a Clergy-man were guilty of wilful murder the poenitential Canons imposed ten years penance upon him of which seven were to be spent in banishment but besides this the legal compensation was to be made as is evident by the Laws of Edward and Canutus from whence it appears how very slender the pretence is of Beckets contending for the ancient Saxon Laws when he denyed the giving up a Clergy-man convicted of murder to the Secular Power after Ecclesiastical Censures But where â—s there the least Foundation in the Saxon times for such open defiance of the Civil Power as to the punishment of offenders of what degree or order soever and that was the case of Becket the King only desired that Iustice might be executed indifferently on all Persons and the ancient Customs revived but he would not yield as to either of these not upon the pretence of former Laws but the repugnancy he supposed to be in them to that Ecclesiastical Liberty which he said Christ had purchased with his Blood § 12. After the Norman Conquest the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts were first separated as appears by the Grant of William the Conquerour to Remigius Bishop of Lincoln and many others to the same purpose but I find no particular exemption of a criminal Clergy-man from the Civil Power established The main plea is from the confirmation of the Saxon Laws but to how little purpose that is is already shewed By the Laws of Henry 1. if a Bishop committed murder he was to be deposed and undergo twelve years penance seven of which were to be with bread and water if a Priest or Monk he was to lose his Order and to undergo ten years penance if a Deacon to lose his Orders and to have seven years penance if a Clerk only i. e. in inferiour Orders six years penance and then it follows if a Lay-man five years penance which was very prudently left out with an c. by P. W. because it marrs all the rest for if according to these Laws Clergy-men had an exemption from Civil Iustice so had the Laity too and upon better terms for their penance is but half that of a Priest or a Monk and not half of a Bishop But after Henry 1. the penance was turned into a pecuniary mulct as King Henry 2. complained and men committed the greatest crimes at a certain rate by which means abundance of villanies and murders and rapines were daily committed and in Henry 2. time the Kings Iustices complained of it to the King who commands them to punish all offenders severely and if any Clergy-men were convicted they were to be delivered to the Bishop to be degraded by him in the presence of the Kings Iustice and so to be returned to the Court to be punished but in the case of the Canon of Bedford Becket utterly denies the delivering him up to the Kings Iustice after degrading Fitz Stephen gives more instances which exasperated the King one whereof was of a person who had destoured the daughter and murdered the Father whom Henry 2. would have punished according to Laâ— but the Archbishop would not suffer him to be delivered up to the Kings Iustice. Yet methinks it might bear a dispute how far a person degraded is capable of Ecclesiastical immunities but Becket it seems extended them to all that were or had been such or it may be the indelible character preserved still some title to a legal impunity in sinning The King apprehending the very bad consequences of such an exemption of all sorts of Clergy-men from Civil punishments and not knowing what the late encroachments upon the Civil Power by the Ecclesiastical might come to for so Fitz Stephen saith some about the King told him if these things were suffered and the Archbishop let alone his Royal Authority would come to nothing and the Clergy would make whom they pleased King as they had shewed their power and will already in the case of King Stephen therefore the King resolves to resume all the Rights of his Ancestors and to have a solemn recognition made of them in Parliament But first he treats with all the Bishops at Westminster to know whether they would observe the Ancient Customs they gave him a shuffling answer that they would do it salvo ordine suo jure Ecclesiae which the King took for a denyal and was extremely inraged at it The Bishop of London confesses that they all agreed in the denyal and gave this as the reason because their yielding to those Customs was repugnant to the Liberty of the Church and the Fidelity they owed to the Pope which was a plain confession of the true state of the Controversie whether the King or the Pope were to be obeyed in those matters Baronius tells us that Becket sent over an express to the Pope being thâ—n at Sens to know what they were to do in the straits they were in the Pope encourages them to stand up for Ecclesiastical Liberty to the utmost notwithstanding this the King resolves to have a recognition of these Customs at Clarendon where the Authors of the Quadripaarite History say the whole Kingdom was present and they confess that Becket with the rest of the Bishops did promise the King to observe them Bona Fide which they parallel with S. Peters fall in denying Christ But the Bishop of London in his Epistle to Becket gives a more particular account of it which is worth our notâ—ce Three dayes he sayes all the Bishops withstood the Kings desire and no threats could move them but they resolved rather than to yield to dye upon the spot for Christ and his Church as he speaks at last Becket withdrew from them and coming in again used these words to them It is the Kings pleasure I should forswear my self at present and I will do it and repent afterwards were not these brave Heroick words for a Saint and a Martyr at the hearing of them he saith they were all astonished and their hearts failed them and so they all promised in verbo veritatis to observe the ancient Customs Thus saith he was the Controversie then ended between the Kingdom and Priesthood and so Israel descended into Egypt But notwithstanding this solemn promise in a few dayes Becket breaks his word and attempts to go beyond Sea without the Kings leave at which the King was extreamly troubled and
as the Bishop of London saith had rather he had wounded his body than his reputation by such an escape into forreign parts where he was sure to be represented as a Tyrant and persecutor of the Church Becket was driven back by a Tempest the King takes no notice of it uses him kindly and bids him take care of his Church Not long after a Controversie happened about some Lands which Becket challenged as belonging to his Church the King sends to him to do justice to the Person concerned in it notwithstanding complaints are brought to the King for want of it the King sends a summons to him to appear before him that he might have the hearing of the Cause Becket refuses to obey the summons and sends the King word he would not obey him in this matter at which saucy answer the King was justly provoked as a great disparagement to his Royal Authority Upon this he calls the Parliament at Northhampton where the People met as one man the King represents his case with becoming modesty and eloquence however he consented that his fault should be expiated by a pecuniary mulct after this the King exhibited a complaint against him for a great summ of money received by him during his Chancellorship which he had never given account for it was 44000 Marks as the Bishop of London told the Cardinals who were sent by the Pope afterwards to end the Controversie Becket pleaded that he was discharged by his promotion as though as the Bishop of London said promotion were like Baptism that wiped away all Scores But this being a meer civil Cause as the Bishop tells Becket yet he denyed to give answer to the King and appealed to the Pope as the judge of all men living saith sarisburiensis and soon after in a disguise he slips over the Sea and hastens to the Pope who received him with great kindness and then he resigns his Arch-bishoprick into the Popes hands as our Historians generally agree because he received investiture from the King and takes it again from the Pope This is the just and true account of the state of the Controversie as it is delivered by one of the same time that knew all the intrigues and which he writes to Becket himself who never answered it that I can find nor any of his party and by one who was a Person of great reputation with the Pope himself for his Learning Piety and the severity of his Life And is it now possible to suppose that Gregory 7. if he had been in Beckets place could have managed his cause with more contempt of Civil Government than he did when he refused to obey the Kings summons declined his Iudicature in a Civil Cause and broke his Laws against his own solemn promise and perjured himself for the Popes honour If this be only defending ancient priviledges of the Church I may expect to see some other moderate men of the Roman Church plead for Gregory 7. as only a stout defender of the ancient Canons and an enemy to the Popes temporal Power But men are to be pittyed when they meet with an untoward objection such as that from Beckets Saintship and Martyrdom is to prove the doctrine of Ecclesiastical Liberty and the Popes temporal Power to be the sense of their Church if they cannot find that they endeavour to make a way to escape and I hope the Persons I now deal with have more ingenuity than to think this new pretence any satisfactory plea for Beckets Cause And as the Bishop of London tells Becket it is not the suffering but the cause which makes a Martyr to suffer hardship with a good mind is honour to a man but to suffer in a bad cause and obstinately is a reproach and in this dispute he saith the whole weight of it lay upon the Kings power and some Customs of his Ancestors and the King would not quit the Rights of his Crown which were confirmed by Antiquity and the long usage of the Kingdom This is the cause why you draw your sword against the Sacred Person of the King in which it is of great consequence to consider that the King doth not pretend to make new Laws but as the whole Kingdom bears him witness such as were practised by his Ancestors And although it appears that he wished well to the main of Beckets Cause yet he blames him exceedingly for rashness indiscretion and insolency in the management of it and bids him remember that Christ never entred Zacchaeus his house till he came down from the Sycamore Tree and that the way of humility did far better become him and was likely to prevail more with the King than than which he took § 13. But Becket being out of the Kings reach and backed by the King of France and favoured by the Court of Rome made nothing of charging the King with Tyranny as he and his party do very frequently in the Volume of Epistles and because the Empress his Mother pleaded for some of the Customs as antient Rights of the Crown she is said to be of the raâ—e of Tyrants too The King finding himself thus beset with a swarm of Horneâ—◠〈…〉 of his own Power to 〈…〉 farther attempts upon his Crown and Royal Authority which was exposed to such publick ignominy in forreign parts and therefore sends this precept to all the Bishops to suspend the profits of all such Clergie-men as adhered to him Nosti quam male Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus operatus â— est adversus me Regnum meum quam male recesserit ideo mando tibi quod Clerici sui qui circa ipsum fuerint post fugam suam alii Clerici qui detraxerunt honori meo honori Regni non percipiant aliquid de redditibus illis quos habuerant in Episcopatu tuo nisi per me nec habâ—ant aliquod auxilium nec consilium a Te Teste Richardo de Luci apud Marlebergam After this the King commands the Sheriffs to imprison every one that appealed to the Court of Rome and to keep them in hold till his pleasure were known and he causes all the Ports to be watched to prevent any Letters of Interdict from the Pope and if any Regular brought them he was to have his feet cut off if in Orders he was to lose his eyes and something else and if he were a Lay-man he was to be hanged Accordingly the Popes Nuntio was taken with Letters of the Popes coming over for England and imprisoned by the Kings Order But the difference still growing higher and the King being threatned with excommunication and the Kingdom with an interdict the King commands an Oath to be taken against receiving Bulls from the Pope or obeying him or the Archbishop and the penalty no less than that of Treason which is so remarkable a thing I shall give it in the words of the MS. A. D. MCLXIX Rex Henricus jurare facit
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
deluded by the Pope he expressed his resentment in some threatning words upon which the Cardinal said Sir do not threaten we fear no threatnings for we are of that Court which hath been wont to command Emperours and Kings And because Becket suspected the Cardinal of Pavia a former Legat to be too favourable to the King he begins his Letters to him with wishing him Health and Courage against the insolence of Princes and saith that the Church gained her strength by opposition to Princes We have no reason therefore to question Beckets meaning in the former expression to be according to the sense of Greg. 7. it being not only most agreeable to the natural sense of the words but to the course of his actions and nature of his quarrel and his expressions at other times In another of his Epistles to the King he complains that in his Kingdom the daughter of Sion was held captive and the Spouse of the great King was oppressed and beseeches him to set her free and to suffer her to reign together with her Spouse otherwise he saith the most Mighty would come with a strong hand to deliver her as one of his Friends writ to him that the Church could not have peace but with a strong hand and stretched out arm Again he tells the King that his Royal Power ought not to intermeddle with the Churches Liberties for Priests ought only to judge Priests and that the Secular Power had nothing to do to punish them if they did not offend against faith It seems then in case of heresie only the Secular Arm is to be called in for help and is not this very agreeable to Becket's principle that Kings receive their power from the Church for their assistance is only to be uâ—ed for their own interests but by no means in case of Treason or Murder or any other Crimes but if Princes have an inherent Right or Power in themselves methinks they might be allowed to take care of their own and publick safety against all offenders It is the office saith he of a good and Religious Prince to repair old and decayed Churches and to build new ones it seems the King was only to be Surveyor General and to hâ—nour the Priests and to defend them with all Reverence But that they had nothing to do with the judgement of them he endeavours to prove after his fashion and he makes use of the very same arguments the Popes had done before in his Grandfathers time and almost in the same words about the relations of Fathers and Children Masters and Scholars and the power of binding and loosing Nay he doth not let go Qui vos odit me odit qui vos tangit tangit pupillam 〈…〉 which were Gregory 7's beloved places and served him upon all occasions And then after his exact method he thunders out the examples of Saul Ozias Ahaz and Uzza and again saith that Secular Powers have nothing to do in the affairs of the Church but that if they be faithful God would have them be subject to the Priests of his Church and yet further Christian Kings ought to submit their acts to the Governours of the Church and not set them above them for it is written none but the Church ought to judge of Priests and no human Laws ought to pass sentence upon such and that Princes ought to submit to the Bishops and not to sit as Iudges over them Which he thinks he cannot repeat too often And after all uses the very same argument to Henry 2. which Gregory 7. had done to William the Conquerour That Princes ought to be subject to the Priests because they are to give an account of them to God and therefore he ought to understand that Princes are to be governed by them and not they brought to the Wills of Princes for saith he some of the Popes have excommunicated Kings and some Emperours I do not think that ever the Hildebrandine doctrine as some call it was delivered in plainer terms and pleaded for by more arguments such as they were than by Becket and his party as appears by the Whole Volume of Epistles relating to his quarrel out of which I have selected these passages It would be endless to reckon up all the places wherein they declare it was the Cause of God and his Church which they defended that however ancient the Customs were they ought not to be observed because contrary to Gods Law that they were not only unlawful but heretical pravities that those who defended them were Henricians and not Christians that they were Balaamites Aegyptians Samaritans nay Satanites and what not and that themselves were the poor of Christ and the persecuted ones and such as waited for the Kingdom of God And if these things will not satisfie men that the Controversie between Henry the second and Becket was not about ancient Municipal Laws but about the Gregorian principles of Ecclesiastical and Civil Government I know not what can ever do it § 15. But it is still pleaded on his behalf or rather on their own who allow him to be a Saint and a Martyr and yet deny the Gregorian principles that those principles were not the immediate motive of his death but only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures but upon a certain condition to some Bishops after the King was reconciled to him It is no doubt a great piece of subtilty to find out another cause of his death than he thought of himself for he declared that he dyed for God and Iustice and the Liberty of the Church i. e. in prosecution of the same cause which he had undertaken from the beginning For Becket knew well enough there never was a perfect reconciliation between the King and him and that only the necessity of his affairs and the fears of being served as the Emperour was by the Pope i. e. deprived of his Kingdom by excommunication which Becket pressed with the greatest vehemency and the jealousie he had of the rest of the Bishops several of whom kept great correspondency now with Becket and the favour of the People to his cause forced the King to those shews of reconciliation for that they were no more on either side is manifest by this that the main Controversie was not taken notice of about the ancient customs each party hoping for better circumstances afterwards all that the King consented to was laying aside any personal displeasure against Becket for what was passed and allowing him freely to return to his Church in expectation of a better behaviour towards him for the future All which appears from Beckets own Letters to the Pope upon and after this reconciliation for he saith expresly the Customs were not once mentioned between them and that the apprehensions of the Popes interdict and Fredericks condition was that which moved him to this reconciliation The King indeed failed in no point of complement to the
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
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
is a part of Catholick Doctrine that heretical Princes being excommunicated by the Pope are to be deprived of their Kingdoms and their Subjects immediately upon excommunication are absolved from their Allegiance which he saith is not only the doctrine of Aquinas and Tolet and of the Canon Law but of the Council of Lateran and as he endeavours to prove of Scripture too and that War for Religion is not only just but honourable and for the deposing of Princes he brings several instances from Gregory the seventh downwards particularly King John and Henry the second and saith that the promise of obedience to Princes is only a conditional contract and if they fail of their faith to God they are free as to the faith they promised them This I confess is speaking to the purpose and the only way in appearance to make them suffer for Religion for no doubt these were the principles which led them to those treasonable practices for which they suffered But the main question remains still whether Treason be not Treason because a man thinks himself bound in Conscience to commit it and whether Magistrates have not reason to make severe Laws when such dangerous and destructive principles to Government are embraced as a part of Religion If there be any such thing as Civil Government appointed by God it must be supposed to have a just and natural Right and Power to preserve it self but how can it maintain it self without a just power to punish those that disturb and overthrow it if it have such a Power it must have Authority to judge of those actions which are pernicious and dangerous to it self and if there be such a natural inherent Right Power and Authority antecedently to any positive Laws of Religion either we must suppose that Religion left Civil Government as it was and then it hath the Power of judging all sorts of actions so far as they have an influence on the Civil Government so that no pretence of Religion can excuse Treasonable actions or we must assert that the Christian Religion hath taken away the natural Rights of Government which is very repugnant to the doctrine of Christianity and all the examples of the Primitive Church The substance therefore of what I say about suffering for Religion or for Treason is this that whatever principles or actions tend to the destruction of the Civil Government are in themselves Treasonable antecedent to Laws that Laws may justly determine the nature and degrees of punishment that those who are guilty of such actions let them be done out of what principle soever are justly lyable to punishment on the account of Treason and in the judgement of the Law and Reason do suffer on that account what ever private opinions they may have who do these things concerning the obligations of Conscience to do them and where there is just suspicion of a number of persons not easily discerned the Laws may make use of certain Marks to discover them although it happens that those marks prove actions of Religion which actions are not thereby made the Cause of their suffering but those principles or actions which were the first occasions and Motives of making those Laws From which it is I suppose evident that if the antient Poenal Laws were just and reasonable our modern Laws are so too because the Occasions of making them were of as high a Nature and the guilt as proportionable to the penalty and that men did no more suffer for Religion by these than by the Antient Poenal Laws § 23. 2. But supposing these Laws were acknowledged to be just and reasonable as to the Actors of those Treasons the Question is Whether they continue just as to other persons who cannot be proved actually guilty of those Treasons And here I confess as to the principles of natural Reason the case doth vary according to circumstances For 1. In a jealous and suspicious time when many Treasons have been acted and more are feared by virtue of bad principles the Government may justly proceed upon the tryal of the principles to the conviction of Persons who own them without plain evidence of the particular guilt of the outward actions of Treason For the very designing of Treason is lyable to the severity of the Law if it come to be discovered and where the safety of the publick is really in great danger the greatest caution is necessaâ—y â—or the prevention of evil and some actions are lawful for publick safety which are not in particular cases Especially when sufficient warning is given before-hand by the Law and men cannot come within the danger of it without palpable disobedience as in the case of Seminary Priests coming into the Nation when forbidden to do it under severe penalties In which case the very contempt of the Law and Government makes them justly obnoxious to the force of it He that owns the principles that lead him to Treason wants only an opportunity to act them and therefore in cases of great danger the not renouncing the principles may justly expose men to the sentence of the Law And if it be lawful to make any principles or declared opinions or words treasonable it cannot be unjust to make men suffer for them 2. In quiet times when the apprehension of present danger is not great it hath been the Wisdom of our Government to suffer the course of Law to proceed but not to a rigorous execution For the Law being in its force keeps persons of dangerous principles more in awe who will be very cautious of broaching and maintaining those principles which they hold and consequently cannot have so bad effects as when they have full liberty to vent them but in case Persons have been seized upon by the legal wayes of discovery who yet have not been actually seditious it hath been the excellent moderation of our Government not to proceed to any great severities 3. There can be no sufficient reason given for the total repeal of Laws at first made upon good grounds where there is not sufficient security given that all those for whom they were intended have renounced those principles which were the first occasions of making them These things I yield to be reasonable 1. That where there is a real difference in principles the Government should make a difference because the reason of the Law is the danger of those principles which if some hearâ—â—â—y renounce there seems to be no ground that they should suffer equally with those who will not but since the Law is already in being and it is easier to preserve old Laws than to make new ones whether the difference should be by Law or by Priviledge becomes the Wisdom of our Law-makers to determine 2. That such who enjoy such a Priviledge should give the greatest satisfaction as to their sincerity in renouncing these principles for if there be still ground to suspect their sincerity in renouncing by reason of ambiguous phrases aequivocations in words or
use of the same Cycle the Britains did of eighty four and reckon'd from sixteen to twenty two Was it that according to their way different Easters would be kept the same year but why should this be worse with the Britains and Scots than with the Eastern and Western Churches which differed sometimes a month in their Easter as besides what hath been mentioned already appears by the antient Laterculus Paschalis first published by Bucherius in which he shews that within the compass of it viz. an hundred years the Easter of the Latins was kept a month sooner than the Alexandrians viz. A. D. 322 349 406. And A. D. 387. a threefold Easter was kept some March 21. others April 25. others April 18. as appears by S. Ambrose's Epistle written on that occasion Again A. D. 577. a threefold Easter was kept some keeping it the eighteenth of April as those which followed Victorius others the twenty fifth of April viz. those which followed the Alexandrian Canon and others again even in Gaul as Greg. Turonensis saith on the 12. Kal. of April March 21. the very day of the Vernal Aequinox So he tells us they did in complyance with the Spaniards who it seems thought it no heresie so to do even after the decree of the Council of Nice But I suppose the main fault of the Brittish and Scottish Churches was that at some times it would so happen that they might keep their Easter day on the fourteenth of the Moon and so comply with the Iews Was this it in truth which unchurched them all and rendred their Ordinations null The Apostles I am sure did far more in complyance with the Iews than this came to as to matter of Circumcision and other things and even in this point if Ecclesiastical History may be credited and yet I hope their Ordinations were good and the Churches Orthodox which they planted Methinks it might have been called complyance with the Apostles as well with as the Iews and will indeed complyance with an Apostolical practice unchurch whole Nations it must be surely only with the Church of Rome that it can do so And yet did not the Church of Rome it self comply with the Iews in the use of their Cycle and in the beginning of their Lunar Month on the fifth and not on the eighth of March as the Alexandrians And why should one sort of complyance unchurch people and not another If every complyance doth it farewell to the Church of Rome it self and her Ordinations even after the Nicene Council But what if after all this the Church of Rome after the embracing the Alexandrian Cycle did comply more with the Iews than the Brittish Churches did in keeping their Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon for by that Canon they were to keep it on the fifteenth and that was the great Festival day among the Iews for on the evening of the fourteenth they did eat their bitter herbs but the next day was the solemn Festival and I would â—ain understand whether it were not a greater complyance with the Iews to feast the same day they did than to keep that for a Festival on which they eat their bitter herbs and began the Passeover only on the evening Besides they who kept it on the fifteenth must celebrate the memory of Christs passion before the fourteenth which certainly was as great an incongruity as could happen by keeping it on the fourteenth But supposing it were a complyance with the Iews it is plain it was not a studied and designed complyance with them for they kept their Easter on the Lords day in opposition to them only it happened once in seven years saith Mr. Cressy that the fourteenth of the Moon and Easter met and then they kept it with the Iews If this were it which unchurched them how hard was it for such Britains and Scots to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Or rather how hard is it for such who can Unchurch whole Nations of Christians on such pittiful accounts as these S. Paul would have said I will keep no Easter while the world stands rather than destroy whole Churches of such for whom Christ dyed But what do we meddle with S. Paul they are only the Usurpers of S. Peter's Chair that dare so easily in their own opinion send whole Churches to Hell viz. for doing no more in effect than themselvs had done not long before Nay to conclude all it is very probably supposed by two learned Persons that what the Brittish and Scottish Churches at that time accounted the fourteenth of the Moon was in truth the sixteenth whether by the correction of Sulpitius Severus as Bishop Usser supposes or the shortness of the Cycle as Bucherius is no matter at all And I hope all persons shall not be presently sent to Hell that do mistake in the Computation of Easter according to the Judgement of the Roman Church for then God have mercy on all those that do not follow the Gregorian Accompt And I think the difference as great and a weighty now as it was in the famous Dispute between Wilfrid and Colman But if notwithstanding this difference the Brittish and Scottish Christians were very good Christians and so many English Churches were planted by them Mr. Cressy must harden his forehead in standing to it that the English Saxons were converted by Benedictin Monks CHAP. V. Of the Poenal Laws against Papists § 1. I Am now come to that which Mr. Cressy looks upon as a very important subject and deserving serious consideration which is how far those who acknowledge subjection to a forreign Power as all English Catholicks do can give satisfaction to the State of their Fidelity to his Majesty Which he saith the Person of Honour repeats in several places and is most accurately descanted upon in his nine Questions near the conclusion of his Book I shall therefore give a short account of what the Person of Honour saith upon this subject and then consider what Mr. Cressy offers by way of Reply to it 1. He saith that the Personal Authority of the Pope was that and that only which first made the Schism and still continues it and is the ground of all the animosity of the English Catholicks against the Church of England and produced their separation from it and if they will renounce all that Personal Authority in the Pope and any obedience to it within his Majesties Kingdoms they will purge themselves of all such jealousie or suspicion of their Fidelity as may prove dangerous to the Kingdom and against which the Laws are provided because it is their dependance on a forreign Jurisdiction which makes them or their opinions taken notice of by the Politick Government of the Kingdom 2. That it is necessary for the personal security of Kings and Princes and for the peace and quiet of Kingdoms that it may be clearly made manifest what the Authority and Power is that a forreign
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