sanxerunt Eadmerus makes the command to come from S. Iohn himself in those Churches which were under his care which practice saith Colman hath been delivered down to us by an uninterrupted succession of holy and prudent men and hath been inviolably observ'd hitherto and therefore ought to be so still What could those of the Church of Rome desire more than they bring for this practice Nay I. S. would have told them the Popes infallibility was not to be compared to that of Oral Tradition what certainty would he say could they have had of any thing if they rejected such evidence as this But it seems this kind of Tradition was not valued so much then no nor any thing else when it opposes their interests It was not this or that day was in truth the occasion of the dispute but the poor Brittish and Scottish Christians must submit to the present Roman Church and do as they would have them Beda saith expresly that they did not comply with the Iews as to the day of the Week but ignorantly and by following uncertain Cycles they mistook in the certain Sunday being men of very great devotion and goodness and learning only what was contained in the Writings of the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles but be that as it would no favour was to be shewed them without present complyance and for this purpose Wilfrid was an excellent instrument Who begins in Bede his answer to Colman by saying the Easter we observe we saw observed at Rome by all persons where Peter and Paul lived and taught and suffered and were buried the same saith he is observed in Italy and Gaul in Africa Asia Egypt and Greece and all the World over except these obstinate Brittains and Picts Very confidently said how truly will be seen afterwards However he confesses that S. Johns practice was agreeable to theirs but S. Peter when he Preached at Rome there is the Emphasis of it appointed otherwise that it should be kept on the Sunday that did fall between the fifteenth and one and twentieth It seems S. Peter and S. Iohn differed as much about Easter as S. Peter and S. Paul did about Tonsure And this saith he all the Churches of Asia after S. Johns death and his successours observed it seems his Authority vanished at his death and the whole Church which was not first decreed but confirmed by the Council of Nice What prodigious ignorance and confidence is here joyned together as will appear presently Colman asked him what he thought of Anatolius a man much commended in Ecclesiastical history who declared that the Sunday was to be taken from the fourteenth to the twentieth Wilfrid tells him they did not understand him no more than himself and as to their Ancestors he was willing to think charitably of them and hoped that the keeping Easter on a wrong day would not damn them as long as they had no better information But saith he for You and Your Companions if you refuse to obey the Decrees of the Apostolical See yea of the Universal Church confirmed by Scripture without all doubt you sin in it For saith he our Lord hath said Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. This I confess is home to the business although the Saxon Homilies with no less than malignant ingratitude understood the Rock of Christ himself and the faith which Peter confessed but however Wilfrid made such a noise with S. Peters Keyes that the good King Oswi verily believing that he kept Heaven-gates told them all plainly that for his part he would follow S. Peter for fear he should shut Heaven-gates against him when he came thither and we may be sure the people could not but be mightily moved with this by which means Wilfrid prevailed and Colman was forced to retire from his Bishoprick Steph. Heddius adds only farther that Wilfrid insisted on this that the Nicene Fathers had appointed the Cycle of nineteen by which they could never keep Easter on the fourteenth and that an Anathema was pronounced against those who should keep it otherwise Thus far we have an account of the State of the Controversie from the parties engaged in it § 10. 2. Let us now see what reason there was for charging the Brittish and Scottish Christians with opposing the practice of the Universal Church and the Decrees of the Council of Nice in reckoning the Easter Sunday from the fourteenth to the twentieth and not as the Roman Missionaries would have them from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth I shall therefore now shew that if they were guilty of an error or heresie in so doing so Petavius calls it insignis error imo haeresis Scotorum not only the Apostles and their Disciples but the Roman Church it self was guilty of as great The great ignorance which Wilfrid and the rest of the zealots for the Roman customs betrayed lay in this that what they saw practised in their time at Rome they supposed to have been alwayes observed there and that it came from a command of S. Peter that the day of Easter should be observed as it was then in the Roman Church whereas there was nothing like any Apostolical Precept for it and the Church of Rome it self had but lately embraced the Alexandrian Cycle which Wilfrid would with so much Authority have inforced upon the poor Scottish Christians In the beginning of Christianity nothing was looked on with greater indifferency than the anniversary day of the Christian Pasch thence came so different customs among several Churches the Churches of Asia properly so called Syria Mesopotamia and Cilicia observed it on what day of the Week soever it fell as any one that knows any thing of Ecclesiastical History understands For as S. Chrysostom saith they did not believe that any one should be called to account that he observed the Pasch in this or that moneth For they had neither the leisure nor the curiosity to examine the Cycles then in use by the rules of Astronomy but took them as they found them among the Iews without comparing them with the heavenly Bodies Now there were two things observed by the Iews for finding out the dayes of Passeover viz. the beginning and ending of the first month and the fourteenth day of the Moon on the evening of which they were to begin their Passeover and these two were observed by all Christians in the beginning of the Christian Church till towards the end of the second Century according to the Iewish cycle which was of eighty four years as Epiphanius tells us which although it were not exact according to the motions of the Heavens yet that was not thought a sufficient ground for the alteration of it Yea Epiphanius mentions an Apostolical Constitution quite different from what is now extant in the Book that goes under the name of Apostolical Constitutions wherein Christians are commanded not to trouble themselves with calculations but that they
love left I need make no application of this to Mr. Cressy and I am far from the vanity of supposing this capable of being applyed to my case any farther than as I am one of those who are at present engaged in the Defence of our Church against that of Rome It is the happiness and honour of our Church of England that it hath in it at this day such store of persons both able and willing to defend her Cause as it may be no Church in the World hath ever had together more persons of excellent abilities great Learning and unaffected Piety and I look on my self as one of the meanest of them but it hath been my lot to be engaged more early and more frequently in this Cause than others which hath drawn so great a hatred of my Adversaries upon me but I thank God I have a good Cause and the testimony of a good Conscience in the management of it and so long I neither fear the waspishness of some nor the rage of others § 4. But this is their present design to represent me as one of different principles from the Church of England and not only different but such as if well understood are destructive to it and therefore they very gravely advise our Reverend Bishops to have a care of me if they hope to preserve the Church of England And can we think it is any thing else but meer kindness and good will to our Church that makes them so solicitous for its welfare It is a sad thing saith Mr. Cressy that not one Protestant will open his eyes and give warning of the dangerous proceedings of their Champion Nay it is no doubt a very sad thing to them to see that we do not fall out among our selves I am sure it is no fault of theirs that we do not for they make use of the most invidious and reproachful terms together concerning me that if they cannot fasten on one passion they may upon another but these poor designs have hitherto had but little success and I hope will never meet with greater And yet if nothing else will do Mr. Cressy saith that it is a â—hame that hitherto not one true Prelatical Protestant has appeared as a Defender of the English Church and State against me but on the contrary even some English Prelates themselves have congratulated and boasted of my supposed successful endeavours against the Catholick Church though ruinous only to themselves Alas good man his heart is even broke for grief that our Bishops take no more care to preserve the Church of England The Church he hath alwayes so entirely loved and ventured as much for her as any body while she was in prosperity and there was no danger and only forsook her when she was not able to reward his Love The truth was he gave her for gone at that time and then it was the late Church of England with him and no wonder when he thought her dead that he made Court to a richer Mistress but it was but a swooning fit she is come to her self again and I hope like to hold out much longer than that which he hath chosen And although Mr. Cressy's hands be now tyed and he hath entred into new Vows yet he cannot for his heart forget the kindness he had to her in her flourishing condition because she was then very kind to him he remembers the marks of her favour and the rich presents she made him and therefore something of the old Love revives in him towards her at least so far that he cannot endure to see her ill used when her Guardians neglect her and her Sons prevaricate with her If Mr. Cressy's faith had been as great as his Charity to have made him believe that she would ever have come to her self again I cannot think he would have forsaken her so unhandsomely and left her in a dying Condition but who could ever have thought that things would have come about so strangely But what if all this present shew of kindness prove meer collusion and prevarication in him What if it be only to divide her Friends and thereby the more easily to expose her to the malice of her enemies For as long as the Church of England stands she upbraids him in his own words with malignant ingratitude and it is the plausiblest way for him that was once a Servant and a Lover to compass her ruine with a pretence of Kindness § 5. But wherein is it that I have prevaricated with the Church of England whilst I have pretended to defend her The first thing he instances in is my charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry In very good time Mr. Cressy and is this prevaricating with the Church of England when I have already in two set Discourses at large proved that by all the means we can come to know the sense of a Church this Charge hath been made good against her from the beginning of the Reformation to 1641. and that even then the Convocation declared the same in the Canons then made But what must I do with such kind of Adversaries that will never answer what I say for my self but do run on still with the same Charge as though they had nothing to do when they write but to tell the same story over and over Let Mr. Cressy do with his Readers as he pleases for my part I shall never follow him in that kind of impertinency For there is not one word there used by him which I had not particularly answered before he writ it The like I may say of the second Charge viz. that by the principles laid down by me I destroy the Authority of the Church of England which I have already shewed at large to be a very impertinent Cavil and that I do maintain as much Authority in the Church of England as ever the Church of England challenged to her self And to that Discourse I refer Mr. Cressy for satisfaction If he will not read it I cannot help that but I can help the not writing the same things over again and so this other part of his Epistle Apologetical is wholly impertinent unless he had taken off what I had said for my self already in answer to the very same Objections But all the reason in the World shall never satisfie Mr. Cressy that I aim not at setting up a Church distinct from the Church of England If it be any I assure him it is a very invisible Church for it is a Church without either Head or Members I declare my self to be not only a Member but an affectionate hearty friend to the Church of England I perswade some to it I endeavour what in me lyes to keep others from revolting from it But where lyes this Dr. Stillingfleet's Church which Mr. Cressy makes such a noise with I know none but that of the many thousands in England that have not bowed their knees to Baal and to
would lye upon those who had tryed them by those Rules 4. If Revelations made to two several Persons do contradict each other that there is great Reason to suspect both For although saith Cardinal Bona it be possible that one may be true and the other false and the Devil may endeavour to take away the Authority of the True by the false yet for the most part they are both suspected and doubtful And before he saith that it is reasonable to believe those Women Saints were deceived in supposing their own Fancies to be divine Revelations who have published Revelations contradicting each other Which it is plain he intended for the famous case of the Revelations of S. Brigitt and S. Katharin which contradicted each other expresly about the immaculate conception and which I had produced as a plain instance of a false pretence to Inspiration in the Roman Church it being impossible God should contradict himself Mr. Cressy in answer to this first confesses that the publick Office of their Church testifies that each of them were favoured with Divine Revelations and then produces the Testimony of S. Antonin that those things may be supposed by the Persons themselves to be divine Revelations which are but humane dreams Thirdly He cites Cardinal Baronius who seems to reject the Revelations on both sides And yet he by no means will allow the honour of their Church to be concerned herein which hath approved them both as Persons truly Inspired when Mr. Cressy confesses they did not testifie their Revelations by Miracles and that without it Divine Revelation cannot be known I would not desire a greater advantage from an Adversary than Mr. Cressy here gives me against himself For by his own confession then their Church approves those to have had divine Revelations which never gave the proper evidence of it viz. Miracles and such whose Revelations are questioned by the Wisest men among them And what is all this but to give Countenance for all that the Church can know to a meer pretence to Inspiration which is the highest Fanaticism in the World And if as he saith notwithstanding the Councils approbation there is scarce a Catholick alive that thinks he hath an obligation to believe either of them this makes as much to my purpose as I desire for if they have no obligation to believe them they may without sin believe them not to be divine Revelations and since they are given out to be such and approved by their Church all such Persons may without sin charge them with the highest Fanaticism in a false pretence to Divine Revelation And why then should I be so much blamed for doing that which Persons in their own Church may do without sin But I see Mr. Cressy is not acquainted with the common Doctrine of their own Divines about the obligation that lyes upon Persons to believe Private Revelations For they agree 1. That those Persons to whom those Revelations are made are bound to believe them before any approbation of the Church For say they the primary Reason of assenting to a Divine Revelation is from the Divine Veracity to which it is wholly accidental whether it be publick or private and the Churches proposition is only the common external condition of applying the object of Faith to us but there may be as great an obligation to believe a private Revelation supposing only sufficient motives to the mind of the Person that this Revelation comes from God This is the opinion of Vega Catharinus Suarez Lugo Ysambertus and as they tell us of most of their modern Divines Indeed they mention Cajetan Sotus Canus and some others as of another opinion but Suarez saith they seem to differ only in words because they will not have that assent called Catholick Faith which the other are willing to yield to them and call it Theological Faith but do make it as certain and infallible as the other Which they prove not only from the obligation to faith in the private Revelations mentioned in Scripture but from invincible Reason because the ground of the assent of faith is not the publickness of the Revelation but the Divine Authority and Veracity which being supposed must equally oblige whether the Revelation be private or publick And if there be sufficient motives to believe a private Revelation to deny an obligation to believe it is a contempt of Divine Authority and to suppose there cannot be sufficient motives is to say that God cannot do as much by himself as he can by the Church The force of which Reason I do not see how it is possible for those to avoid who assert that God doth still communicate private Revelations to mens Minds 2. That supposing these Revelations to be proposed by the Church all others are bound to believe them to be divine Revelations For then they have the same reason which they have to believe any Revelation All the difficulty now is to understand what a sufficient proposal by the Church in this case is Suarez saith that although private Revelations be chiefly intended for the persons to whom they are made yet a sufficient proposal of them being made to others there doth arise from thence an obligation to believe them For which saith he The general Rule is the approbation of the Church as appears by the Lateran Council under Leo 10. which forbad the Preaching private Revelations without the examination and approbation of the Church and then saith Suarez the believing them becomes a part of Catholick Faith Now I desire to know how it is possible for their Church to shew greater care in the examination and approbation of any private Revevelations than it did in those of S. Brigitt they being frequently examined by the publick Authority of their Church and after such examination declared by the Pope to have come from the spirit of God and at last approved say their own writers at the General Council of Basil. How could they possibly express greater approbation of any controverted Book in the Bible But if after all this these Revelations may pass among them for Dreams and Fancies and no men are obliged to believe them let them clear their Church from Fanaticism if they can For either those Revelations were from God or not if not then they were Fanatical illusions approved by their Church if they were then since they were approved by those whom they are bound to believe with what face can Mr. Cressy say that there is scarce a Catholick alive that thinks he has an obligation to believe them which I do the more wonder at since they believe things as absurd already and with as little reason as any thing in S. Brigitts Revelations And therefore the Person of Honour had great Reason to say that Mr. Cressy hath in truth not answered the Weight of my Instance from the Revelations of S. Brigitt and S. Catharine 5. They confess that some persons are very
the divine Being so nearly conjoyned to it that it passeth into a divine nature and recovers its former state when it parts from the body But because it is not to return alone without the Aethereal vehicle i◠brought with it therefore the Chaldeans Egyptians had several sacred and symbolical Rites for the purifying of the vchicle as they called it which they made necessary for this end and with them Iamblichus joyns but Porphyrie thought them not necessary but that Philosophy and meer contemplation would purifie enough without it This is the true account of their Hypothesis as may be fully seen in Hierocles and Synesius without going farther and was the first Foundation of Mystical Divinity which I will not deny to be well enough accommodated to it but it is as remote from Christianity as the hypothesis it self is But the counterfeit Dionysius finding the notions sublime and having found out expressions as he thought lofty enough to express them and either being not wholly brought off from the Philosophy then in request or hoping by this means to ensnare the Philosophers when they found their sentiments entertained among the Christians makes it his business to patch together the sublimest notions of the modern Platonists and to make them pass for good Christian Doctrine And I think it may be made appear that there is not one notion thought peculiar to this counterfeit Dionysius which we cannot trace the footsteps of in these Writers which few of the Christians ever looked into because of their known opposition to Christianity and therefore he had no more to do than only to fit them to the Christian doctrine and they might easily pass for new and sublime discoveries of his own Not only the Principles of Mystical Theology but the very nine Orders of his Celestial Hierarchy are to be seen in Iamblichus and are reckoned up by Scutellius in the margin of his Translation and Archangels are not only mentioned frequently by him but Porclus upon the Timaeus saith that Prophyrie reckons them among the Celestial Orders which being denyed by Iamblichus to have been ever mentioned by Plato and yet reckoned up by himself may be supposed to be drawn either from the Chaldean or Egyptian Theology but that is not my business to search into His book of the Divine names seems to have had its foundation as well as Title in a Book written by Porphyrie with the same Title as Suidas himself confesses who reckons that as the first of his books but that being lost we have only that reason for our conjecture because we find him so apparently guilty in his Mystical Theology To which he hath added nothing but a more affected style and profound Non-sense For it is not enough for him to joyn Light and darkness together but that darkness must be overshining and the Rays of it must be superessential he is not content to express nothing almost without Metaphors but stretches them to Hyperbole's and when he hath by this means set two things as far from each other as may be then he claps them together as if one should say the most glorious Sunshine of Egyptian darkness § 17. But if this Dionysius were the Person he pretends to be viz. the Areopagite then we might have some reason to think that the Platonick Philosophers had taken their notions out of him and yet it would be very improbable that such a Writer should have been so well known among the Platonists that was utterly unknown among the Christians Did Dionysius leave his Works to the Philosophers at Athens or to the Christians If they were only among the Philosophers how came they out of their hands at last if they had borrowed so much out of them they would have done as they report Aristotle did with his Creditors I mean the ancient Philosophers viz. suppressed them when they had gotten as much from them as they could And it were an easie matter to have done it since they were writings never mentioned in those first Ages by Christians So Bellarmin himself grants after the consisideration of all the Testimonies produced by Baronius and many others that these books were not known in the five first Centuries Which argument together with other circumstances have made some of the most learned Persons of the Roman Church that have been of late to reject this Author as supposititious for notwithstanding all the pleas that have been made for him by Baronius Del-Rio Halloix Lessius De Chaumont Lansselius and others his Authority is very much suspected by Petavius Sirmondus and Labbe all Iesuits but rejected by Launoy Godeau Habertus and Morinus who proves at large that these Books were never produced till the conference with Hypatius A. D. 532. and then they were brought forth by the Severian hereticks and rejected by Hypatius because no Testimony was brought out of them by former Eccle◠siastical Writers when there was sufficient occasion if they had been then extant And in truth it seems most probable that they came out of the School of Apollinaris and so might well be produced first by the Severians for it is not only observed by Petavius that the heresie of Apollinaris came out of the Platonick School but if I be not much mistaken from that very notion of Plotinus of the difference of the mind and Soul for as appears by Epiphanius Apollinaris granted that Christ had the Soul but not the mind of man and Nemesius expresly charges Apollinaris with following the doctrine of Plotinus by which it is plain that Apollinaris was sufficiently conversant in these writings to borrow his notions from thence and he was more than ordinarily remarkable for his conversation with Philosophers but besides this we find his School particularly charged with this way of Forging Ecclesiastical Writers as some pieces of Athanasius and Greg. Thaumaturgus and an Epistle of Pope Iulius and others To which another circumstance may be added which shews the greater probability of it viz. that among the Disciples of Apollinaris there were both a Dionysius and Timotheus a Dionysius to whom the counterfeit epistle of Iulius was directed and a Timotheus mentioned together with Apollinaris as his Disciple by Damasus by Gennadius and by S. Augustin and others so that if Apollinaris himself were not the Author of them yet his disciple Dionysius might write them to his fellow-disciple Timotheus and the names hitting so luckily they might the easier pass under the more venerable names of the Ancient Dionysius and Timothy But this I only propose as a conjecture it being sufficient to my purpose to have given such plain evidence that the Fundamentals of mystical Theology were first taken out of those Philosophers who were the greatest enemies to Christianity and who seemed to set up this in opposition to it as a more sublime way to perfection It were an easie matter after this to shew how this
Mystical Divinity by the Authority of these câ—unterfeit writings came into reputation in the Western Church after the translation of them by Iohannes Erigena and Anastasius what Authority it gained among some of the Schoolmen by its agreeableness with the doctrine of some Arabian Philosophers about the Intellectus Agens and other principles of Enthusiasm among them how it came into Germany among the Monks there and what pretences to Visions and Revelations came in upon it what favour it hath received from the Iesâ—itical Order Maximilian Sandaeus having published a Discourse on purpose to prove that from the very Foundation of their Order the Iesuits have been the greatest admirers of and pretenders to Mystical Divinity but I must stop lest Mr. Cressy should tell me that I take another opportunity to empty my voluminous store of Collections whereas all the pains I have taken in this matter hath been to give him full satisfaction that I have read and considered what the Author of the Roman Churches Devotions vindicated hath said upon this argument which he so humbly beseeches the Person of Honour to peruse hoping by that means he would come to a better opinion of Sancta Sophia and Mystical Divinity and Mr. Cressy and I dare leave any Person of Honour and Understanding to judge whether notwithstanding what he hath said for it Mr. Cr. had reason to account this Mystical Divinity the perfection of Christian Prayer and Devotion CHAP. III. Of the Monastick Orders in the Roman Church and particularly of the Benedictin § 1. THe second thing to which the charge of Fanaticisâ—n relates is the Foundation of their Religious Orders in the Roman Church which I said were first instituted among them by Enthusiastick Persons upon the credit of their Visions and Revelations For which I instanced in all their most celebrated Orders viz. the Benedictins Carthusians Dominicans Franciscans and Iesuits and gave a particular account of this from the authentick Histories among themselves of the several Founders of them and besides I produced the Testimony of Bellarmin that their Religious Orders were instituted by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost In answer to this Mr. Cressy declining the dispute about the personal qualities of the Founders of Religious Orders saith the most commodious way to make a true judgement of them will be to examin their Fruits For by their Fruits saith our Saviour they will be known Therefore to determine whether it was by Gods inspiration that they instituted their Respective Orders he proposes these two wayes 1. To examin their several Rules according to which their Disciples oblige themselves to conform their lives and actions 2. Whether God hath acknowledged them for his servants by making use of them to the great benefit of his Church and dilation of his honour By these wayes he desires it may be judged whether there were not sufficient ground for Bellarmin to say that such Orders were instituted by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and so do I. Which cannot be done without a particular enquiry into the Rules and history of their several Religious Orders that by them we may see what evidence appears of any Divine Inspiration And according to Mr. Cressy's particular zeal and concernment for the Benedictin Order I begin with that The Person of Honour having given that Character of S. Benedict that he believed him to have been a devout man in a dark time according to his talent of understanding but that he might have been deluded by the effects of a distempered Fancy as many well meaning men have been and that he could diâ—cern nothing like Divine Inspiration in his Rule but presently met with an impertinent allegation of Scripture ch 2. applying that place Rom. 8. crying Abba Father to the person of the Abbot as representing Christ he proceeds farther to say that neither the reading of his Rule nor any of the rest will oblige any man to be of Bellarmins opinion that those Orders were instituted by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and because of Mr. Cressy's great rage against me upon this subject of Visions and Revelations he desires to know his opinion particularly concerning the Revelation of S. Francis on the Mount Palombo concerning the literal observation of his Rule without any Gloss which is Printed with his Rule and with the Popes Bulls and the Testimony of S. Bonaventure Mr. Cressy in answer to this takes no manner of notice of S. Francis his Rule or Revelation but leaves that to shift for it self but something he must say for the honour of S. Benedict and it all amounts to as little as could be wished For he doth not produce any one thing to make it appear more probable that S. Benedict writ his Rule by divine Inspiration which had been indeed to his purpose but only answers to the place of Scripture mentioned Ch. 2. of his Rule and then brings several testimonâ—es of the great reputation the Benedictin Rule hath been in among Popes and Saints and Councils Kings Princes in after ages And what of all this Must this Rule therefore be written by divine Inspiration Is it not possible for men to think them good Rules without believing them to have been inspired Suppose this were approved as the best Monastick Rule in these Western parts by Popes and Princes and Councils doth it hence follow that it was immediately endited by the Spirit of God If it were it must be of equal authority with the Bible if it were not the charge remains good that it was only an Enthusiastical pretence to Inspiration § 2. But to take off the force of all that Mr. Cressy saith in behalf of the Benedictin Rule and to make good the first charge although Mr. Cr. hath evidently declined the proof of the Affirmative which lay upon him I shall give theseâ— Reasons to prove that this Rule was never written by divine Inspiration 1. Because the main parts of it were borrowed out of former Rules 2. Because what is of S. Benedicts own hath manifest signs of humane weakness particularly misapplication of Scripture mentioned by the Person of Honour 3. Because it was never received in the Roman Church as written by divine Inspiration 1. Because the main parts of it were borrowed out of former Rules Where we can with so much ease and certainty trace the footsteps of humane industry in any writing it is very unreasonable to attribute it to divine inspiration And there is not one considerable part in the Benedictin Rule which we cannot even at this distance of time shew from whence it was taken Hugo Menardus a French Benedictin hath published the Concordia Regularum written by Benedict Abbot of Aniane not by the English Benedict as Reynerus would have it who was appointed by Ludovicus Pius to bring all the Monasteries within his Empire to one uniform Rule which it seems they had not before he therefore in pursuit of
plain that either the Pope in terms contradâ—cts Christ or he must look on all that pretence of Christs appearance as an idle story only made to amuse the Friers and withal adds several Glosses for explication of the said Rule And the kind Pope adds That although he believed S. Francis to have had a pious intention in his former command yet without the least regard to any divine Inspiration he declares that they were not at all bound by it and gives these substantial reasons for it because his Testament could not oblige without the consent of the Superiours and Brethren of the Order neither had he power to oblige his Successor What becomes of the Divine Revelation all this while But the main thing which troubled the Franciscans was that they found their Order could not subsist without having some things belonging to them as Utensils Books and other moveables and some among them said the property of these things belonged to the Order in common the subtle Pope found out an excellent Gloss for this viz. that they should keep to their Rule to have no property either in special or incommon but they should have the use of them only the dominion and property should be reserved to those to whom it did belong and that nothing should be sold exchanged or alienated without the Authority and Consent of the Cardinal Protector of the Order By which the Pope supposing the Donors not to reserve the property to themselves entitles himself and all his Successors to the Dominion and property of all Houses and Goods belonging to the whole Order which was not only a Salvo for their consciences but a suâ—e way to keep them alwayes in subjection to the Papal See And from hence the Popes have taken upon them the management of their affairs by Syndics and Procurators impowred by them as appears by several Bulls of Martin the fourth and fifth Eugenius the fourth Sixtus the fourth and others And this same Pope Gregory the ninth takes to the Apostolical See the Right and property of the Church of Assisium which was magnificently built by the contributions procured by Elias while he was General of the Order and by vertue of his Apostolical Power declares the Church to be wholly Free and subject immediately to the Roman See This Favour of the Popes and sudden multiplication of this Order and the manner of their living gave a very great Jealousie to the Secular Clergy in all parts for notwithstanding this high pretence to Poverty they knew that so many men must be maintained out of the Church one way or other and although it were under the pretence of an Eleemosynarie maintenance yet they undertaking the Office of preaching and hearing Confessions and having no Titles could not subsist without manifest encroaching on the rights of the Clergy And so it was found and complained of in all parts but to little purpose the Popes for good ends of their own resolving to carry them through in spight of the Bishops and Clergy For this puâ—pose they were forced to be still writing Bulls in their behalf ninety seven Bulls are printed together of this one Pope by their Annalist with a respect to their Order besides many extant in the Annals themselves of which several of them are to the Bishops of Italy Spain France and other parts not to molest this new Order For as their Annalist saith about this time their Fame spreading abroad the People gave liberally to them and built them houses and stately Churches with rich â—rnaments Only to shew the perfection of their poverty and finished them with all manner of conveniences for their subsistence which drew the envy and hatred of the Bishops and Parochial Clergy upon them and the whole controversie between them was whether these independent Friers should gather congregations to themselves or no and therein perform all divine offices and receive the oblations of the people without any subjection to the Bishops And in this dispute the Pope took part with the Friers and published two Bulls in their behalf to all Bishops extant in the Decretals enjoyning them to forbear giving any disturbance to the Friers in those matters And now the sublimity of their Poverty began to shew it self in the height and stateliness of their Fabricks if any one would see the habitation of Poverty he may read the description their Annalist gives of their Convent at Paris and the Church belonging to it and he will imagine so much is the World altered that Poverty did vye with Solomon himself as to the glory both of his Temple and Palace There were some in those days who were not subtle enough to reconcile these things with perfect poverty and thought a lower degree of it might have served the Franciscaâ—s as it did other Friers but notwithstanding these glorious Fabricks did not look very like the poor Cottages S. Francis enjoyned them nothing would content these men but the very sublimity of Poverty Richardus Armachanus in his Sermons at Pauls Cross against the Friers saith they were so far from the Poverty they pretended to that he thought them bound in Conâ—cience to give in charity to others out of their superfluitiâ—s For saith he these men who call themselves Beggers have houses like Kings Palaces Fishponds larger than Earles have Churches more costly than Cathedrals more rich and noble Ornaments than all the Bishops of the World his Holiness only excepted But it cost him dear â—or not being able to reconcile these things with perfect poverty for after many years trouble occasioned by the Friers he died at Avignon The plain Country-man in Chaucer asks the Frier a great many untoward Questions concerning their Order which I doubt the wisest of their Order will not easily answer as Freer how many Orders be on earth and which is the perfectest Order Is there any perfecter Rule than Christ himself made If Christs Rule be most perfect why rulest thou thée not thereafter Why shall a Fréer be more punished for breaking the Rule that his Patron made than if he break the hests that God himself made If your Order be perfect why get you your Dispensations to make it easie Certes either it séemeth that ye be unperfect or he that made it so hard that he may not hold it And siker if ye hold not the Rule of your Patrons ye be not then their Fréers and so ye lye upon your selves Why make you as dede men when ye be professed and yet be not dead but more quick beggers than you were before and it séemeth evil a Dede man to go about and beg Why make yée you so costly houses to dwell in sith Christ did not so and dede men should have but Graves as falleth it to dede men and yet ye have more Courts than many Lords of England for ye now wenden through the Realm and ech night will lig in your own Courts and so mow but few right
eighty four others a Cycle of twenty five others of thirty and he mentions the endeavours of Isidore Hierom Clement and Origen all of Aegypt to compose this matter But notwithstanding all the care used to settle this Controversie the breaches of the Church continued about it and if we believe Hen. Valesius the inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia had espoused the celebrating Easter on the fourteenth day not long before the Council of Nice But what differences soever happened before the Council of Nice was not an uniform practice setled by the decree of it and all Churches obliged to reckon the Paschal Sunday from the fifteenth to the twenty first and consequently the Brittish and Scottish Churches were guilty of opposing the Universal practice of the Church at least after the Council of Nice This is all the pretence that I know can be left in this matter but neither was this decreed in the Council of Nice nor if it were was it universally observed after it A Synodical Epistle was sent out after the ending of the Council which I suppose was the same with that of Constantin wherein all Christians are disswaded from complyance with the Iews and earnestly exhorted to an agreement upon one day and the lesser part to submit to the practice of the greater but no limits are set no Cycle established by the decree of the Council For although Dionysius Exiguus who brought in the Alexandrian Cycle into the Latin Church would have it believed that herein he followed the Nicene Fathers yet Aegidius Bucherius a learned Iesuit hath fully proved that no Cycle or certain Rule was at all appointed by the Council of Nice although soon after he confesses the Cycle of 19. was found out as he probably thinks by Eusebius of Caesarea and afterwards perfected by Theophilus of Alexandria in the time of Theodosius the elder But if the Alexandrian Cycle had been determined in the Council of Nice how comes it to be omitted in the Kalendarium Romanum published by Herwart which he saith was set forth the very year of the Nicene Council A. D. 325. wherein though there are Dominical Letters yet there are no Golden Numbers but if he were mistaken in the time and it came forth in the Reign of Constantius the argument will still hold And if there were so universal a consent in the practice of the Church after how came it to pass that S. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Paschal Epistle saith there was so much confusion in the account of Easter in the Church the Camp and the Palace how came Theodosius to send so earnestly to Theophilus of Alexandria about it But above all whence came such mighty differences between the Eastern and Western Churches about Easter long after the Council of Nice of which a full account is given by the two learned Jesuits Petavius and Bucherius which latter hath at large proved that the Latin Church did still proceed according to the Iewish cycle of eighty four and not according to the Alexandrian of nineteen and that they reckoned not from fifteen to twenty one but from sixteen to twenty two from whence arose those hot contests about the right Easter between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria especially in the time of Leo in the years 444. and 455. And Paschasinus in his Epistle to Leo about the former Easter mentions the Romana Supputatio as distinct from that of Alexandria and as the occasion of the Dispute In A. D. 455. there were eight dayes difference between the Easter at Rome and at Alexandria which caused great disputes as may be seen in the Letters of Leo to Martianus and Eudocia and the answer of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria of which Prosper in his Chronicon saith that although the Latin Church did submit for peace sake yet that it was in the right and such an example ought not to be followed and the same Prosper doth often mention the Cycle of eighty four as that which the Latin Church did make use of at that time But this being found too short and insufficient Victorius was imployed to frame a new Paschal Canon fitted to the use of the Latin Church which was first printed by Bucherius wherein although he differed from the old Latin calculation in the beginning of the Lunar month yet he proceeded still in the old way of reckoning from sixteen to twenty two Victorius writ his Paschal Canon A. D. 457. to Hilarus Arch-deacon of Rome who succeeded Leo and it appears that the occasion of writing it was from the difference between the Alexandrian and Roman Church in the computation of Easter So Hilarus confesses in his Epistle to Victorius and Victorius shews wherein the difference lay viz. in three things the Alexandrians began their Paschal month from March 8. and reckoned it to April 5. inclusive the Roman Church from March 5. inclusive to April 3. exclusive The Alexandrians reckoned the fourteenth Moon from March 21. to April 18. the Romans from March 18. to April 15. inclusive The Alexandrians reckoned the Paschal Sunday from the fifteenth inclusive to the one and twentieth The Roman Church from the sixteenth to the two and twentieth Now Victorius thought by his Canon to accommodate the difference between the two Churches embracing the Alexandrian Cycle of nineteen as more certain than the old Latin one of eighty four but agreeing with the Latins in reckoning from sixteen to two and twenty and yet according to his Canon the Easter sometimes differed eight days from that kept at Alexandria and sometimes it fell a month later than it did according to the former Latin computation But this Canon of Victorius gave no satisfaction either to the Eastern or Western Church all the Eastern Church followed the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Church of Milan in the West from the time of S. Ambrose as appears by his Epistle to the Bishops of Aemilia Victor Bishop of Capua writ against Victorius his Canon A. D. 550. upon a new controversie risen in the Church about Easter day but this was twenty five years after Dionysius Exiguus had brought the Alexandrian Canon into the use of the Roman Church which was A. D. 525. After which time it did by degrees prevail in the Western parts but was never fully received in France till it was setled there by the Authority of Charles the Great § 12. This is the short and true account of the Paschal controversie which made so much noise and gave so great disturbance to the Christian Church let us now bring it home to the case of the Brittish and Scottish Churches and see what reason Wilfrid then and the Roman Missionaries since have had to condemn them Was it that they opposed the universal practice of the Christian Church in not reckoning from fifteen to twenty one but we see the Roman Church it self had but lately embraced that way of computation having before made
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
him but that the Pope had a temporal Power over Princes to hear and determine Causes between them and their Subjects And in his Letter to the Pope upon this appeal he saith that he was called as a Laick to answer before the King and that he insisted upon this plea that he was not to be judged there nor by them For what would that have been but to have betrayed your Rights and to have submitted spiritual things to temporal and if he should have yielded to the King it would have made him not a King but a Tyrant And whereas the Bishops pleaded obedience to the King he saith they were bound corporally to the King but spiritually to himself What in opposition to the King about his own Rights which were so plain in this case at Northampton that the Bishop of Chichester charged him both with Perjury and Treason because these things related to the Kings temporal Honour and Dignity and therefore the Bishops were not bound to obey their Archbishop The Pope applauds Becket for what he had done and nulls the sentence against him which was still taking more upon him the exercise of a Temporal Power over the King But Fitz Stephen who saith he was present at Northampton with Becket saith that when the Bishop of Chichester charged him with his Oath at Clarendon he replyed that what was against the Faith of the Church and the Law of God could not lawfully be kept now these customs were never supposed to be against the Faith of the Church till Gregory the seventh had very subtilly found out the Henrician heresie i. e. the heresie of Princes defending their own Rights against the Papal Usurpations and he particularly insisted on this that the Pope had condemned those Customs and he adds that we ought to receive what the Roman Church receives for he knew no difference between the Câ—urt and Church of Rome and to reject what that rejects and concludes all with this that his Oath at Clarendon was an unlawful Oath and could not bind him But what pretence were there for this if he had only contended for the antient Municipal Laws what unlawfulness could there be in swearing to observe the Kings Laws although different from former Laws So that the only way to excuse him from manifest perjury is to suppose that he looked on the Customs of Clarendon as repugnant to the Popes Decrees and therefore not to be kept by him and the Pope tells him that God had reserved him to this time of tryal for the confirmation of Catholick and Christian Truth in which it must be implyed that which Becket defended against the King was a part of the Catholick Faith in the Popes judgement In his Epistle to Robert Earl of Leicester he pleads for the Liberty of the Church which Christ hath purchased with his blood who then saith he dares bring her into slavery who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own Master he ought to stand or fall And all that he adviseth to for making up the breach is their repentance and satisfaction for the injuries done to Christ and his Church And whereas the Bishop of London had told him that the King was willing to submit to the judgement of his Kingdom about his antient Rights Becket replyes Who is there in Earth or Heaven that dares judge of what God hath determined humane things may be judged but divine must be left as they are In his Epistle to all the Clergie of England he saith that at Northampton Christ was judged again in his person before the Tribunal of Pilat for him he understands by the name of President In his Epistle to the King he pleads that the Liberty of the Church which he contended for was purchased by Christs own blood and adds farther to the very hearts desire of Gregory the seventh that it was certain that Kings did receive their power from the Church and not the Church from them but only from Christ from whence he infers that the King could not draw Clergie-men to secular Tribunals or establish the Customs in dispute between them I do not say as Hoveden doth that these words were spoken in a Conference at Chinun for they are a part of the Epistle sent to the King not long after his banishment and written in justification of his opposition to the Rights which the King challenged Therefore I desire to know what theâ—e words can signifie to his purpose unless they do imply such a derivation of Civil Power from the Church that the Church may take cognizance of male-administration or of the Civil Authorities taking to it self any of the priviledges belonging to the Church For if all this related only to the Ceremonies of Coronation it were to no more purpose than for an Archbishop of Canterbury to plead now that the Kings power is derived from the Church because the ceremony of inauguration is performed by him Who would not smile at such a consequence But we know that the Popes temporal Power over Princes was never more asserted than in that Age that Alexander the third at that time challenged and exercised it over the Emperour and other Princes and that no man was more stiff in the Popes Cause nor more eager for the exercise of his Power over our King than Becket was and his actions discovered this to be his opinion why then should men study to find evasions for these words which neither agree with the course of his actions nor with the doctrine of that Age Doth not Becket himself magnifie the Popes power to the greatest height In his Epistle to the Bishâ—p of London he saith that none but an Insidel or Heretick or Schismatick dares dispute obedience to the Popes commands that no one under the Sun can pluck out of his hands And in one of his Epistles to the Pope he makes very profane addresses to him applying what the Scripture saith only of God and Christ to him Exurge Domine noli tardare super nos illâ—mina faciem tuam super nos fac nobiscum secundum misericordiam tuam Salva nos quia perimus and immediately adds let not our adversaries triumph over us yea the adversaries of Christ and his Church quia nomen tuum invocavimus super nos And lest any should think these were addresses to God although contained in a Letter to the Pope it follows Non nobis Domine non nobis sed in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi fac tibi grande nomen repara gloriam tuam For at this time the Kings Ambassadors promised themselves great things in the Court of Rome and boasted of the Favour they had which put Becket into such a Consternation that in the very Agony of his Soul he poured out these prayers to the Pope And we may judge of Beckets opinion in this matter by that of his great Friend Cardinal Gratianus for when the King saw himself
Archbishop as he very punctually tells the Pope how he saluted him at first bare-headed and ran into his embraces how he bare his rebukes patiently and held his Stirrup at his getting upon his Horse if he had but trampled on the Kings Neck too he had been equal to the Pope himself and it might have raised some jealouâ—ie between them But for all this reconciliation Becket supposing himself the Conquerour resolved not to abate one jot of his rigour against those who had sworn to the ancient Customs and therefore procures power from the Pope to excommunicate the Bishops that had done it and to return to their excommunication those already absolved and to absolve none without taking an oath to stand to the Popes command This the Kings Officers upon his return into England told him was against the Customs of the Realm but they promised they should take an oath to obey the Law salvo honore Regni Becket at first said it was not in his Power to rescind the Popes sentence which he knew to be false for the Pope had given him power to do it and he immediately adds that he could absolve the Bishops of London and Salisbury if they took the common oath which was in the Cotton M S. se juri parituros but it is interlined se vestro mandato parituros as the Vatican Copy in Baronius hath it But the Archbishop of York told the other Bishops that the taking such an oath without the Kings consent was against the Kings Honour and the Customs of the Realm And it is observeable that the same time he was so zealous for the Bishops taking this oath to the Pope he peremptorily refused suffering those of his retinue though required to do it by the Kings Officers to take an oath of Allegiance to the King to stand by him against all persons nec vos excipientes nec alium saith he to the Pope neither excepting you nor any other as the Cotton M S. hath it very plainly but Baronius hath Printed it Nos whether agreeably to the Vatican M S. I know not but I am sure not to Beckets sense for he gives this reason of his refusing it lest by that example the Clergy of the Kingdom should be drawn to such an oath which would be much to the prejudice of the Apostolical See for by this means the Popes Authority would be discarded or very much abated in England Judge now Reader whether Becket did not remain firm to the Gregorian principles to the last and whether the immediate motive of his death did not arise from them for upon the oath required of the Bishops they with the Archbishop of York went over to the King in Normandy upon the hearing of which complaint the King spake those hasty words from whence those four Persons took the occasion to go over to Canterbury and there after expostulations about this matter they did most inhumanely Butcher him as he was going to Vespers in the Church upon which Ioh. Sarisburiensis who was his Secretary and present at his murder saith that he dyed an Assertor of the Churches Liberty and for defending the Law of God against the abuses of ancient Tyrants But what need we mention his judgement when the Pope in his Bull of Canonization and the Roman Church in his Office do say that he dyed for the Cause of Christ And what can be more plain from hence than that to this day all those who acknowledge him to be a Saint and a Martâ—r cannot with any consistency to themselves reject those principles for which he suffered any more than they can reasonably be supposed to reject the Republican principles who cry up the Regicides for Saints and Martyrs But this is a subject lately undertaken by another hand and therefore I forbear any farther prosecution of it § 16. After Beckets death the Royal Power lost ground considerably for to avoid the interdict and excommunication threatned the Kingdom the King by his Ambassadours and the Bishops by their messengers did swear in the Court of Rome that they would stand to the Popes judgement for among the terms of the Kings reconciliation by the Popes Legats this was one of the chief that he should utterly disclaim the wicked Statutes of Clarendon and all the evil customs which in his dayes were brought into the Church and if there were any evil before they should be moderated according to the Popes command and by the advice of Religious Persons Thus after so many years contest were the Rights of the Crown and the Customs of his predecessours given up by this great Prince so true was that saying of Becket that their Church had thriven by opposition to Princes And if Petrus Blesensis may be believed this King stooped so low upon the Rebellion of his Son as to acknowledge his Kingdom to be Feudatary to the Pope The Authority of which Epistle is made use of not only by Baronius but by Bellarmin and others to prove that the King of England is Feudatary to the Pope or that he holds his Crown of him upon paying certain acknowledgments which it is hardly possible to conceive a Prince that understood and valued his own Rights so well as Henry the second did should ever be brought so low to confess without the least ground for it For when it was challenged by Gregory the seventh it was utterly denyed by William the Conquerour and never that we find so much as challenged afterwards of any lawful Prince by way of Fee before his time but only in regard of the Popes temporal Power over all Princes Although a late French Monk who published Lanfranc's Epistles wonders it should be denyed because of the Tribute anciently paid to Rome viz. of the Peter-pence which were not so called because paid to S. Peters pretended Successours but because payable on S. Peters day as appears by the Law of Canutus to that Purpose and were only Eleemosynary for the sustenance of poor Scholars at Rome as the late publisher of Petrus Blesensis confesses who withal adds that Henry the second denyed their payment but was perswaded to it again by Petrus Blesensis and him he acknowledges to have been the Writer of the foregoing Epistle And we must consider that he was alwayes a secret Friend of Becket and his Cause in the whole quarrel and being imployed by the King in his straits to write to the Pope to excommunicate his Son he knowing very well the prevalent arguments in the Court of Rome might strain a complement in the behalf of his Master to the Pope for which he had little cause to thank him although it may be Petrus Blesensis expressed his own mind whether it were the Kings or no. And we have no ground that I can find to imagin this to have been the Kings mind in the least for upon his submission a Clause was inseâ—ted that he was no longer to own the Pope
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