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
would resume his too and it is evident he did so for Matth. Paris and Westminster say expresly that the King invested the next Archbishop of Canterbury with a staff and a ring after the ancient custom which was after the Lateran Council wherein the Pope again revoked the Emperours priviledge about investitures which he saith is contrary to the Holy Ghost and the Canonical Institution But where was the Holy Ghost then when he granted this priviledge After this the Pope complains of the King for retaining the other ancient Rights of hindering Appeals to Rome and not receiving Legats but at last Pope Calixtus yielded to the King the enjoyment of the Customs which his Father had in England and Normandy Was not this Pope very kind to the King who so patiently yielded to those customs which his Predecessors had condemned as contrary to Religion and making Christs death to no purpose The same Callisâ—us 2. in the Council of Lateran A. D. MCXXII put an end to the Controversie of investitures in the Roman Empire yielding to the Emperour the right of Investitures so it were performed without Simony and by a Scepter and not by a staff and a Ring because forsooth if it had been done by a ring it made it a kind of marriage and so made a spiritual Adultery between the Bishop and his Church as the former Popes very learnedly proved in their Epistles against Investitures § 7. This Controversie being at an end the Popes bethought themselves of a more subtle way of effecting their design which was by engaging the Bishops by oaths of Fidelity and obedience to themselves as well as taking away their homages and Fealty to Princes that so with less noise and more security they might compass the design of Ecclesiastical Liberty or rather slavery to the Pope Gregory 7. Urban 2. and Paschal 2. did all forbid Clargy-men to give any homage to Princes as Petrus de Marca proves from the Authentick acts of their several Councils instead of which they required an Oath of Fealty to themselves For it was not a bare oath of Canonical obedience which the Popes required but as much an oath of Fealty and Allegiance as ever Princes require from their other Subjects which will be made appear by comparing the oaths together The most ancient form of Allegiance I meet with is that prescribed in the Capitular of Charles the Great which is contained in very few words Promitto ego partibus Domini mei Caroli Regis filiorum ejus quia fidelis sum ero diebus vitae meae sine fraude vel malo ingenio as it is in the old Edition of the Constitutions but in the latter out of Sirmondus his Copy it is somewhat larger Promitto ego quod ab isto die in antea fidelis sum Domino Carolo piissimo Imperatori pura mente absque fraude malo ingenio de meâ parte ad suam partem ad honorem regni sui sicut per drictam debet esse homo Domino suo The ancient Form used in this Nation ran thus Tu jurabis quod ab ista die in antea eris fidelis legalis Domino nostro Regi suis haeredibus fidelitatem legalitatem ei portabis de vitâ de membro de terreno honore quod tu eorum malum aut damnum nec noveris nec audiveris quod non defendes pro posse tuo ita te Deus adjuvet Now let us compare these with the Oath made to the Pope I shall take that form which is published out of the Vatican MS. by Odoricus Raynaldus which was taken by Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury Ego Edmundus c. ab hac hora in antea fidelis obediens ero S. Petro S. R. E. D. Papae Gregerio suisque successoribus canonicè intrantibus Nonero in facto neque in consilio aut consensio ut vitam perdant aut membrum aut capiantur malâ captione Consilium vero quod mihi credituri sunt per se aut per nuntios suos sive per liter as ad corum damnum mesciente nemini pandam Papatum Romanum Regalia Sancti Petri aajutor eis ero ad retinendum defendendum salvo meo ordine contra omnem hominem c. This is enough to shew that if the other were properly Oaths of Allegiance to Princes this is so to the Pope and thereby they are bound to the very same obedience to the Pope as their Soveraign as anymen are to their own Princes For here is no exception at all of the Rights of Princes and the duty they owe to them not the least notice being taken of them as though they did owe them any allegiance which we plainly see was never intended should be paid by those who first imposed this Oath That Learned Gentleman Sir Roger Twisden supposes this oath to have been framed by Paschal 2. and it is certain that Rodulphus being made Archbishop of Canterbury in his time is the first we read among us that took an oath of Fidelity to the Pope with that of Canonical obedience after whose time we frequently meet with it but not before but in truth it is the very same oath only applying it to Church-men which Richard of Capua took by way of Fealty to Gregory 7. as may appear to any one that compares them together where there are the same expressions word for word by which we may see the strictest allegiance to the Pope is understood by it without the least reservation of any other Princes Rights And considering the doctrine and design of the first imposers of it it cannot be questioned but their intention was hereby to exempt the takers of it from all Allegiance to any other than the Pope But lest this design should be too easily suspected at first it went only along with the Pall to Archbishops then it came to Bishops shops and at last as the Gloss upon the Canon Law tells us to all that receive any dignity consecration or confirmation from the Pope and now the oath in the Pontifical is much larger than it was and by it the takers are bound to observe and defend the Papal reservations Provisions and mandates and to persecute to the utmost of their Power all Hereticks Schismaticks and Rebels to the Pope Much kindness then is to be expected from all who are sworn to persecution and much allegiance to Princes from those who own the Pope to be their Soveraign in as express terms as any Subjects can do their Princes and so Cassander takes notice that several passages in this Oath relate to meer civil obedience which we owe to Princes and not to the Pope and for what relates to the Papacy if by it be understood the Papal Tyranny as no doubt it is be utterly condemns it as an unlawful oath and I extreamly wonder at those who make
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
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
places Our Saviour and S. Iohn Baptist do express great zeal against the Scribes and Pharisees but let Mr. Cressy consider they were a sort of sowre ill-natured hypocrites that would allow none a good word nor so much as hopes of salvation that were not of their way that were full of malice and envy and all evil passions and at the same time pretended highly to mortification and more devotion than others I find nothing like Invectives in all the writings of the holy Apostles unless it were against the opposers or corrupters of Christianity and when Mr. Cressy proves me to be guilty of either of those I will lay my self open to the darts of the most Venomous Tongue among them But instead of that I know no other cause in any Books I have written that should expose me to the rage of these men beside the zeal I have therein discover'd for the honour and purity of the Christian Religion against the fopperies and corruptions of the Roman Church And for such a Cause as this I am prepared to suffer whatever their fury and malice can raise up against me This this is the Cause which I hope I should not be ashamed nor afraid to own and defend although Mr. Cressy's Power were as great as his Charity The Church of England I do from my heart honour and esteem notwithstanding all the base suggestions of Mr. Cressy to the contrary even in this Epistle Apologetical but I do therefore so much esteem it because in it the Christian Religion is preserved free from the frantick heats of Enthusiasm and the dotages of Superstition If they will undertake to convince me that the things I condemn in the Church of Rome were any parts of the Christian Religion delivered by Christ or his Apostles I shall diligently weigh and consider what ever they have to say but if they only give hard words and betray impotent passions if they shuffle and shew tricks instead of reasoning if all their charity towards me lyes only in bitter invectives they will do but little good upon me and I think not much to their own Cause § 3. But I am mistaken all this while Mr. Cressy doth not write this Apology to give me satisfaction but the Person of Honour and the genuine Learned Protestant Clergy of the English Church and if these he saith after impartial considering the motives and grounds of his invectives shall determine that in his late to him alas unusual manner of treating with me he hath offended against Christian Charity or purposely intended to fix any dishonourable brand on the English Protestant Church or Discipline of it established by Law he will be ready without any reply to suffer whatsoever censure or punishment they shall think fit to inflict upon him What! no offence against Christian Charity to charge me with deriding and blaspheming the Saints in glory with having a hatred horribly poysonous against the Catholick Church militant and that will not spare the Church Triumphant no offence at all to call me Theological Scarron and to say that I act the Theological Zani that all my Book except twenty or thirty pages consists of Scurrilous Buffoonries petulant revilings of Gods Saints and in effect by his Epigram out of Martial to charge me with downright Atheism and twice in the same passage with impiously and profanely employed wit none at all to say That I had a heart brimful of the Gall of bitterness that I writ with Ink full of Gall and poyson that I gave free scope to all unchristian and even inhumane passions That my Book wholly composed of malignant passions and new-invented Calumnies against Gods Church was only the private design of a malicious brain on purpose to feed the exulcerated minds of a malevolent party among us that all the weapons I make use of pierce into the very bowels of the persons fortunes and condition of English Catholicks whose destruction I seem to design What! none at all to charge me so often with prevaricating with the Church of England and designing to destroy her under a pretence of defending her These are some of the flowers of Mr. Cressy ' s Charity towards me which I have picked out of some few pages of his Book and he hath taken abundant care to prevent any unlikeness in the parts of it And doth Mr. Cressy in good earnest think it is no breach of Christian Charity to charge me upon such pittiful grounds with no less than carrying on blasphemous Atheistical treacherous and cruel designs But if this be his Christian charity what would the effects of his malice be Let now any indifferent person judge whether the Person of Honour had not reason to say That he never observed so many personal reflections and invectives fuller of causless passions and of bitterness and virulence in so little room in any Book But whatever the Person of Honour thinks Mr. Cressy makes his appeal to the genuine Learned Protestant English Clergy If he had been a Clergy-man who had done me that great kindness then Mr. Cressy would have appealed to Persons of Honour and surely such are the most competent Judges in cases of affronts and injuries but herein lyes Mr. Cressy's art which runs throughout his Epistle that he would fain separate me from the Church of England and make my cause distinct from hers I do not wonder that they would part me from my company and deprive me of my shelter when they have such a mind to run me down But these arts are easily understood and the design is too fine to hold and too apparent not to be seen through Mr. Cressy knows very well the Use that was made at Athens of the Fable of the Dogs and the Sheep and what good words and fair promises the Wolf made to the Sheep if they would but consent that the Dogs might be given up to be destroyed And no doubt the crafty Wolf would have made a very fine speech to the Sheep to have perswaded them that he had no manner of ill will to them for he had known them long and loved them well and alwayes looked upon them as a company of very innocent and harmless creatures but for those Dogs that were set to watch them he knew how different their principles were and how destructive to them if occasion served and for all that he knew these Dogs might have Covenanted together to worry them upon a fair opportunity and therefore for his part he could not but wonder at their patience that some of the stoutest Rams among them did not set upon those pestilent Currs or at least he hoped they would not be so regardless of their own safety as not to suffer some well-wishers to the flock to take them quietly and destroy them For alas at the best they do but make a noise and disturb the repose of the Sheep and if they were gone there would be nothing but unity and
made by Chapters so that in two years time he put in thirteen Bishops in the Province of Canterbury in spight of all the Statutes of Provisors and made his Nephew Prosper Colonna Arch-Deacon of Canterbury at fourteen years of Age who afterwards had as many Benefices granted him in England as came to five hundred Marks Besides he granted Appropriations Dispensations c. as he pleased without regard to the English Nation These things the English Ambassadours complained of in the Council of Constance and at last the Pope came to an Agreement with them which were called the Concordates between Martin 5 and the Church of England in which no manner of regard was had to the Statutes of Provisors although so often repeated only some agreements were made between the Pope and the English Bishops about Unions of Churches the capacity of English Bishops for any Offices of the Roman Court and such like But other Ambassadours who came a little after these pressed the matter somewhat harder upon the Pope against Provisions and Aliens and the Kings Supplies out of the moneys raised for the Court of Rome the Pope giving them no favourable answer they replyed unless he did presently satisfie their demands the King would make use of his own Right because it was not necessity but respect that made them seek to him and pray that they might enter this Protestation before the Cardinals by the Kings Command At this same time the States of France renewed their Statutes against the Popes Usurpations and added that they would not acknowledge him Pope till he consented to them and the Rector of the University of Paris was proceeded against as a Traytor for appealing from the Kings Edicts to the Pope Notwithstanding all this the same Pope sends his Nuncio into England to raise moneys who was called Ioh. Opizanus but he was cast into Prison for his pains for which the Pope expostulated very sharply with the Duke of Bedford about it H. 5. being then dead Archbishop Chiâ—helâ— was in that time no friend to the Popes continual encroachments upon which as appears by the Records he was cited to Rome and the Commons make it their request to the King that he would write to the Pope on his behalf but we are told by a considerable Lawyer that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops offered the King a large supply if he would consent that all the Laws against Provisors might be repealed but it was rejected by Humphry Duke of Gloucester who had lately cast the Popes Bull into the fire This is certain that Card. Beaufort then Bishop of Winchester incurred the penalties of the Statutes of Provisors 10 H. 6. for which he was questioned in Parliament but at last had his Pardon granted by the King with the consent of all the Estates By which we see that not one of all the Papal encroachments was ever cut off by the severity of the Poenal Laws as long as the Popes Supremacy was allowed for never any thing was more vigorously attempted more frequently enacted more severely threatned than this business of Provisors yet in despight of all the Laws it continued still as long as the Pope was allowed to have a Power above Laws and that he could null abrogate or dispense with them as he pleased And thus far I have given an impartial account of the ancient poenal Laws of England The like to which have been made in France Spain Italy Flanders and other parts of Europe as might be easily proved if it were necessary but I forbear that § 21. And come to compare the ancient poenal Laws of our own Nation with the modern as to the Reasons and Occasions of them that by them we may judge whether those who allow the ancient Laws to be just can have any ground to charge the present with injustice and Cruelty which can be only on one of these two grounds 1. Either that the Occasions of the present Laws were not so great Or 2. That the old Laws did not relate to the exercise of their Religion as the latter do I shall consider both of them 1. For the occasions of the present poenal Laws Mr. Cressy confesseth them to have been Treasons not consequentially only when an act may be declared to be Treason which in it self is not so but such Treasons as all Mankind acknowledge to be such viz. depriving Soveraign Princes of their Crown and Dignity endeavouring by open Rebellions and secret conspiracies to take away their Lives if these be not Treasons theâ—e are none such in the world And that these were the Occasions of the present poenal Laws I shall not produce the Testimony of the Lord Burleigh in his Book published on occasion of the poenal Laws called The Execution of Iustice in England not for Religion but for Treason imprinted at London A. D. 1583 but I shall make use of the Testimony of Persons less lyable to the exception of our Adversaries viz. The Secular Priests who printed their Important Considerations A. D. 1601. wherein their whole design is to shew that the poenal Laws considering the many Treasons which were the occasions of them were very just and merciful For they acknowledge 1. That the State of Catholicks was free from persecution the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth and that Parsons and Creswel confessed as much 2. That themselves were the true Causes of the change that was made towards them by Pius 5. moving a Rebellion here by Ridolphi exciting the King of Spain abroad to joyn his Forces and denouncing a Bull of Excommunication against the Queen and absolving her Subjects from their subjection on purpose to foment their Rebellion for depriving her of her Kingdom which they prove by particular circumstances 3. That they could hardly believe these things themselves till they saw them expressed and owned in the Life of Pius Quintus printed and allowed 4. That notwithstanding these things and the Rebellion breaking forth 1569. the Prisoners were only under greater restraint but none were put to death on that occasion but only such who were in actual Rebellion wherein they confess the Queen did no more than any Prince in Christendom would have done 5. That upon these occasions a Parliament was called 1571. and a Law made against the bringing any Bulls from Rome Agnus Dei's Crosses or Pardons and against all persons that should procure them to be brought hither which Law although they think it to have been too rigorous yet they cannot but confess that the State could not without the imputation of great carelesness of its own safety have omitted the making some Laws against those of their Religion And although they were in their opinion too severe yet they acknowledge 1. That the occasions were extraordinary most outragious as they expressed it 2. That the execution of them was not so Tragical as was represeuted 6. They believe that neither this Law nor any other would have been
of finding the guilty As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Rebellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of as for instance I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced I desire to know whether if the Law made it poenal for men not to put off their hats only out of consideration of the Treasonable doctrines and practices they were guilty of should that man who were taken because he did not put off his Hat be said to sufâ—er on that account and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole intent and design of the Law is expressed to be to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her by giving assistance to them and endeavouring what in him lay to deprive the Queen of her Crown therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedience to the Pope is adjudged Treason as well as to any other Prince State or Potentate And where there is an equality of Reason why should there not be an equality in the punishment If any other Prince should have engaged Persons in the same actions which the Pope did there is no question they had been Treasonable actions the Question this whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it ceases to be Treason when the Pope allows or requires it If it doth so then the Pope must be acknowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes and they are all but his Vassals which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Treason then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason if the Law-makers think fit to make it so By no means for in this case there was an apparent tendency to disobedience and Treason in promising obedience to the Pope but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion considered as such but when Priests have been known to be the common instruments of Treasons as they were then by the confession of the Secular Priests then those actions which are performed by such persons and are proper only to themselves are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law designs to punish So that if we do allow that the Law of the Land can declare Treason in any sort of Persons and punish Persons for being guilty and appoint a certain means of discovering the guilty then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity alwayes supposing that some notorious Treasonable actions and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasions or antecedent Motives of those Laws which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses viz. the Secular Priests And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it viz. Whereas divers persons called or professed Iesuits Seminary Priests and other Priests which have been and from time to time are made in the parts beyond the Seas by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church have of late comen and been sent and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose as it hath appeared as well by their own examinations and confessions as divers other manifest means and proofs not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty but also to stir up and move Sedition Rebellion and open Hostility within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person and to the utter ruine desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented For reformation whereof be it ordained c. Can any thing be plainer from hence than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable attempts though masked only under a pretence of Religion If the design had been against their Religion the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion which it doth not But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Supremacy then it seems all the Religion they suffer for must be contaiâ—ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy And is this at last the suffering for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iurisdiction here But who were the men that first rejected that Authoâ—ity and Jurisdiction here Former Princes long before the Reformation did it as far as they thought fit and made no scruple of restraining it as far as they judged convenient and upon the same Reasons they went so far H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther For the reason they went upon was the repugnancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown and was there any other ground of the casting out the Popes Supremacy when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpoâ—e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent while the Head and Body were sound But who were the zealous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it and if they were not in good earnest they were notorious Hypocrites as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience with Bonners Preface wherein very smart things are said and with good Reason against making the Supremacy challenged by the Pope any part of Catholicâ— Religion Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time Fisher excepted joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass and hangs on a very slender thread If there be no more in Christian Religion than what is rejected by the Oath of Supremacy it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing for it filled the World with perpetual broils and confusions and produced dreadful effects where ever it was entertained and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen speaks out in this matter and saith plainly that it
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