omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum contra Dom. Papam Alexandrum B. Thomam Archiepiscopum quod eorum non recipient literas neque obedient mandatis Et si quis inveâ—tus foret literas eorum deferens traderetur Potestatibus tanquam Coronae Regis capitalis inimicus Here we see an Oath of Supremacy made so long ago by Henry the second and those who out of zeal or whatsoever motive brought over Bulls of the Popes made lyable to the charge of Treason but the Archbishop by vertue of his Legatine Power took upon him to send persons privately into England and to absolve them from this Oath as is there expressed The same year the King being in Normandy sent over these Articles to be sworn and observed by the Nobles and People of England 1. If any one be found carrying Letters from the Pope or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury containing an Interdict of Religion in England let him be taken and without delay let justice pass upon him as upon a Traytor to the King and Kingdom 2. No Clergie-man or Monk or Lay-Brother may be suffered to cross the Seas or return into England unless he have a Pass from the Kings Iustice for his going out and of the King himself for his return if any one be found doing otherwise let him be taken and imprisoned 3. No man may appeal either to the Pope or Arch-bishop and no plea shall be held of the Mandates of the Pope or Archbishop nor any of them be received by any person in England if any one be taken doing otherwise let him be imprisoned 4. No man ought to carry any Mandat either of Clergie-man or Laick to either of them on the same penalty 5. If any Bishops Clergie-men Abbots or Laicks will observe the Popes interdict let them be forthwith banished the Realm and all their Kindred and let them carry no Chattels along with them 6. That all the Goods and Chattels of those who favour the Pope or Archbishop and all their possessions of whatsoever rank order sex or condition they be be seized into the Kings hand and confiscated 7. That all Clergie-men having revenews in England be summoned through every County that they return to their places within three months or their revenues to be seized into the Kings hands 8. That Peter-pence be no longer paid to the Pope but let them be gathered and kept in the Kings Treasury and laid out according to his command 9. That the Bishops of London and Norwich be in the Kings Mercy and be summoned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear before the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in interdicting the Land and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh by vertue of the Popes Mandat and publishing this excommunication without Licence from the Kings Iustices I hope these particulars will give full satisfaction that the Controversie between King Henry the second and Becket was not about some antient Saxon Laws but the very same principles which Gregory the seventh first openly defended of the Popes temporal Power over Princes and the total exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from Civil Iudicatures § 14. 2. This will yet more appear if we consider that the Pleas used by Becket and his party were the very same which were used by Gregory the seventh and his Successors The beginning of the quarrel we have seen was about the total exemption of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Orders from civil punishments which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors and it seems by Fitz Stephen that several of the Bishops were for yielding them up to the Secular Power after deprivation and said that both Law and Reason and Scripture were for it but Becket stood to it that it was against God and the Canons and by this means the Churches Liberty would be destroyed for which in imitation of their High-Priest they were bound to lay down their lives and bravely adds that it was not greater merit of old for the Bishops to found the Church of Christ with their blood than in their times to lay down their lives for this blessed liberty of the Church and if an Angel from Heaven should perswade him to comply with the King in this matter he should be accursed By which we see what apprehension Becket had of the nature of his cause from the beginning of it for this was before the King insisted on the reviving the Antient Customs at Clarendon Where it seems Beckets heart failed him which the Monks and Baronius parallel with S. Peters denying Christ but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance was his Cross-bearer who told him that the Civil Authority disturbed all that wickedness raged against Christ himself that the Synagogue of Satan had profaned the Lords Sanctuary that the Princes had sat and combined together against the Lords Christ that this tempest had shaken the pillars of the Church and while the Shepherd withdrew the sheep were under the power of the Wolf A very loyal representation of the King and all that adhered to his Rights After this he spoke plainly to him and told him he had lost both his conscience and his honour in conspiring with the Devils instruments in swearing to those cursed customs which tended to the overthrow of the Churches Liberty At which he sighed deeply and immediately suspends himself from all Offices of his Function till he should be absolved by the Pope which was soon granted him The Pope writes to the King very sharply for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs and threatens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement and tells him of Saul and Ozias and Rehoboam and parallels his sin with theirs and bids him have a care of their punishments And was all this zeal of the Pope only for the good old Saxon Laws When the Bishop of Exeter begged the Archbishop at Northampton to have regard to his own safety and theirs too he told him he did not savour the things of God he had spoken much more pertinently according to P. W. if he had told him he did not understand the Saxon Laws When the Earl of Leicester came to him to tell him he must come and hear his sentence he told him that as much as his soul was better than his body so much more was he bound to obey God and Him than an earthly King and for his part he declared he would not submit to the Kings judgement or theirs in as much as he was their Father and that he was only under God to be judged by the Pope and so appealed to him Which being an appeal to the Pope in a Civil cause about accounts between the King and him it does plainly shew that he did not think the King had any Authority over
him but that the Pope had a temporal Power over Princes to hear and determine Causes between them and their Subjects And in his Letter to the Pope upon this appeal he saith that he was called as a Laick to answer before the King and that he insisted upon this plea that he was not to be judged there nor by them For what would that have been but to have betrayed your Rights and to have submitted spiritual things to temporal and if he should have yielded to the King it would have made him not a King but a Tyrant And whereas the Bishops pleaded obedience to the King he saith they were bound corporally to the King but spiritually to himself What in opposition to the King about his own Rights which were so plain in this case at Northampton that the Bishop of Chichester charged him both with Perjury and Treason because these things related to the Kings temporal Honour and Dignity and therefore the Bishops were not bound to obey their Archbishop The Pope applauds Becket for what he had done and nulls the sentence against him which was still taking more upon him the exercise of a Temporal Power over the King But Fitz Stephen who saith he was present at Northampton with Becket saith that when the Bishop of Chichester charged him with his Oath at Clarendon he replyed that what was against the Faith of the Church and the Law of God could not lawfully be kept now these customs were never supposed to be against the Faith of the Church till Gregory the seventh had very subtilly found out the Henrician heresie i. e. the heresie of Princes defending their own Rights against the Papal Usurpations and he particularly insisted on this that the Pope had condemned those Customs and he adds that we ought to receive what the Roman Church receives for he knew no difference between the Câ—urt and Church of Rome and to reject what that rejects and concludes all with this that his Oath at Clarendon was an unlawful Oath and could not bind him But what pretence were there for this if he had only contended for the antient Municipal Laws what unlawfulness could there be in swearing to observe the Kings Laws although different from former Laws So that the only way to excuse him from manifest perjury is to suppose that he looked on the Customs of Clarendon as repugnant to the Popes Decrees and therefore not to be kept by him and the Pope tells him that God had reserved him to this time of tryal for the confirmation of Catholick and Christian Truth in which it must be implyed that which Becket defended against the King was a part of the Catholick Faith in the Popes judgement In his Epistle to Robert Earl of Leicester he pleads for the Liberty of the Church which Christ hath purchased with his blood who then saith he dares bring her into slavery who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own Master he ought to stand or fall And all that he adviseth to for making up the breach is their repentance and satisfaction for the injuries done to Christ and his Church And whereas the Bishop of London had told him that the King was willing to submit to the judgement of his Kingdom about his antient Rights Becket replyes Who is there in Earth or Heaven that dares judge of what God hath determined humane things may be judged but divine must be left as they are In his Epistle to all the Clergie of England he saith that at Northampton Christ was judged again in his person before the Tribunal of Pilat for him he understands by the name of President In his Epistle to the King he pleads that the Liberty of the Church which he contended for was purchased by Christs own blood and adds farther to the very hearts desire of Gregory the seventh that it was certain that Kings did receive their power from the Church and not the Church from them but only from Christ from whence he infers that the King could not draw Clergie-men to secular Tribunals or establish the Customs in dispute between them I do not say as Hoveden doth that these words were spoken in a Conference at Chinun for they are a part of the Epistle sent to the King not long after his banishment and written in justification of his opposition to the Rights which the King challenged Therefore I desire to know what theâ—e words can signifie to his purpose unless they do imply such a derivation of Civil Power from the Church that the Church may take cognizance of male-administration or of the Civil Authorities taking to it self any of the priviledges belonging to the Church For if all this related only to the Ceremonies of Coronation it were to no more purpose than for an Archbishop of Canterbury to plead now that the Kings power is derived from the Church because the ceremony of inauguration is performed by him Who would not smile at such a consequence But we know that the Popes temporal Power over Princes was never more asserted than in that Age that Alexander the third at that time challenged and exercised it over the Emperour and other Princes and that no man was more stiff in the Popes Cause nor more eager for the exercise of his Power over our King than Becket was and his actions discovered this to be his opinion why then should men study to find evasions for these words which neither agree with the course of his actions nor with the doctrine of that Age Doth not Becket himself magnifie the Popes power to the greatest height In his Epistle to the Bishâ—p of London he saith that none but an Insidel or Heretick or Schismatick dares dispute obedience to the Popes commands that no one under the Sun can pluck out of his hands And in one of his Epistles to the Pope he makes very profane addresses to him applying what the Scripture saith only of God and Christ to him Exurge Domine noli tardare super nos illâ—mina faciem tuam super nos fac nobiscum secundum misericordiam tuam Salva nos quia perimus and immediately adds let not our adversaries triumph over us yea the adversaries of Christ and his Church quia nomen tuum invocavimus super nos And lest any should think these were addresses to God although contained in a Letter to the Pope it follows Non nobis Domine non nobis sed in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi fac tibi grande nomen repara gloriam tuam For at this time the Kings Ambassadors promised themselves great things in the Court of Rome and boasted of the Favour they had which put Becket into such a Consternation that in the very Agony of his Soul he poured out these prayers to the Pope And we may judge of Beckets opinion in this matter by that of his great Friend Cardinal Gratianus for when the King saw himself
desires it may be noted 11 R. 2. the Commons pray that those that bring in the Popes Bulls of Volumus and Imponimus may be reputed for Traytors 13 R. 2. the Statute of Provisors was again confirmed notwithstanding the Protestations of the Bishops in Parliament against any Statute made in restraint of the Popes Authority and a Praemunire added against those that bring any sentence of excommunication against those that execute it 15 R. 2. the Archbishop of York being Chancellor told the Parliament one of the Causes of calling them was the restoring to the Pope what belonged to him about Provisions but in the same Parliament Sr. William Brian was sent to the Tower for bringing a Bull from Rome against some that had robbed him which Bull being read was judged prejudicial to the King his Council and in derogation to his Laws 16 R. 2. the Commons grant to the King that by the advice of his Lords and Commons he should have power to moderate the Statute of Provisions to the honour of God saving the Rights of the Crown so as the same be declared the next Parliament to the end the Commons may then agree or no. In this Parliament happened an extraordinary thing For William Courtny Archbishop of Canterbury made his Protestation in open Parliament saying That the Pope ought not to Excommunicate any Bishop or intermeddle for or touching any presentation to any Ecclesiastical dignity recovered in any of the Kings Courts He further protested that the Pope ought to make no translations to any Bishoprick within the Realm against the Kings will for that the same was the destruction of the Realm and Crown of England which hath alwayes been so free as the same hath had none earthly Soveraign but only subject to God in all things touching Regalities and to none other the which his protestation he prayed might be entred Then passed the famous Statute of Praemunire upon occasion of the Popes Bulls of excommunication coming into England against certain Bishops who it seems at last were brought to obey the Laws and that which the Archbishop of Canterbury protested was a part of the Statute wherein the Commons not only declared their resolution to live and dye with the King in defence of the Liberties of the Crown against the Papal Usurpations but moreover they pray and in justice require that he would examin all the Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal severally and all the States of the Parliament how they think of the cases aforesaid which be so openly against the Kings Crown and in derogation of his Regality and how they will stand in the same cases with our Lord the King in upholding the Rights of the said Crown and Regality By which it appears that the Commons had a great suspicion of the Spiritual Lords And it seems they had reason for the Temporal Lords declared frankly their concurrence with the Commons and that the Cases mentioned were clearly in derogation of the Crown as it is well known and hath been a long time known Mr. Cressy would make us believe that all the Bishops present and the Procurators of the absent unanimously assented but the very words of the Statute say the contrary for there it is added that the Lords Spiritual did make their Protestation first that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops nor that he may make translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church but it seems by the Records the Archbishop of Canterbury alone spoke plain to the sense of the Parliament and entred his Protestation different from the rest Neither do theâ— declare their assent to the freedom of the Crown of England from all earthly subjection and that it is immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same and not subject to the Pope which they touch not upon but only with several clauses of Reservation about processes excommunications and translations they declare in such and such cases they are against the King and his Crown and in these cases they would be with the King in maintaining of his Crown and in all other cases touching his Crown and Regality as they be bound by their liegeance which are words very ambiguous and imply a secret reservation of salvo Ordine suo jure Ecclesiae or with a salvo to the Oath they had taken to the Pope But however the Act passed and a praemunire by it lyes against all that procure or bring Bulls or any other things whatsoever which touch the King against him his Crown and Regality or his Realm By this Statute the Parliament 1 H. 4. declared that the Crown of England was freed from the Pope and all other foreign Power and it was one of the articlâ—s against Rich. 2. at his deposition that notwithstanding the Statutes he procured the Pâ—pes excommunication on such as brake the last Parliament in derogation of the Crown Statutes and Laws of the Realm And yet we find new Statutes of Provisors made 2 H. 4. c. 3 4. 6 H. 4. c. 57. 7 H. 4. c. 6 8. 9 H. 4. c. 8. In the 1 H. 5. it was again enacted that all Statutes made against Provisors from Rome should be observed § 20. By which we see that although the Parliament shewed a very good will towards the restraint of the Popes Usurpations yet it all signified very little as long as his Authority and Supremacy were acknowledged here for what did Laws signifie when the Pope could null them by a Bull from Rome And it was in those days verily believed by those who did acknowledge the Popes Supremacy and followed the Church-men in their opinions that an Act of Parliament had no power at all upon conscience if it were repugnant to the Laws of the Church i. e. as they then thought to the Popes decretals And we need not wonder at that after the Popes Decretals were digested into a Body of Canon Law and that looked upon by all the hearty Friends to the Church of Rome as the Rule of Conscience in what it determined Which we need not at all to wonder at since Petrus de Marca himself declares That the Constitutions of Princes are in themselves null when they are repugnant to the Canons and received Decrees of Popes and that Bishops have alwayes abstained from the execution of them as much as they durst by which we see that Acts of Parliament were no certain indications of the judgement of the Church or the generality of the People in that time but notwithstanding all the Statutes the good trade of Provisors went on still and the Court of Rome never wanted Chapmen for their forbidden Wares For many of our Bishops dying in the time of the Council of Câ—nstance Martin 5. assoon as he was well settled in his place put in several Bishops by way of Provision at his own pleasure and nulled elections
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
Orders upon any crime whatsoever were to be delivered over to be punished by the Secular Power And what could such a pretence arise from but only from Gregory the sevenths principles of Government viz. that the Civil Power had nothing at all to do with Ecclesiastical Persons and that all the Subjection and Obedience they owed was only to the Pope as their Soveraign and that this was the Liberty which Christ purchased for his Church with his own blood as Paschal the second answered the Emperours Ambassadors and as Becket very frequently expresses it in his Epistles A blessed Liberty and worthy the purchase of the Blood of Christ viz. a Liberty to sin without fear of punishment or at least any punishment which such persons would be afraid of for the utmost Becket could be perswaded to in the case of the Canon of Bedford convicted of murder was only to confine him to a Monastery for a time which was a very easie expiation of Murder So that the Benefit of Clergie was a mighty thing in those dayes But it is impossible to give any tolerable account of Beckets actions unless we suppose this to have been his Ground and Principle that God had exempted by his Law all Clergy-men by vertue of being such from any subjection to Civil Power For if they owe any subjection they are accountable for their breaches of the Laws to that power to which they are subject if they are not accountable for any crimes they must be supposed to be wholly independent on the Civil Government § 11. Neither is there any ground for such an exemption by the ancient Municipal Laws of England either in the Saxon or Norman times and I cannot but wonder to see the Laws of Princes concerning Ecclesiastical Persons brought to prove their total exemption from the power of Princes which was that Ecclesiastical liberty which Becket did plead for For according to his principles neither Alured nor Edward nor Canutus nor any other Prince had any thing to do to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons but their judgement was to be wholly left to their own Superiours And supposing there had been such Laws among the Saxons Becket would not have valued them at all but rather have thought them a prejudice to his Cause and an encouragement to Hen. 2. to have repealed those and made others in their place For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ecclesiastical Laws as they saw convenient but Becket understood his business better than so He would not upon any terms be brought to the tryal whether they were ancient Customes or no which the King contended for the King offered it very frequently and by any fair ways of tryal and declared he would renounce them if they did not appear to be so he appealed often to the judgement of the Church of England about it and would stand and fall by it and none of these things would be accepted of by which it is evident that either there were no Laws could justifie Becket or he thought the producing them would be hurtful to his cause for not one of all the Customs he excepted against was in his opinion so bad as for Princes to take upon themselves to determine Ecclesiastical causes and to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons For then he knew the King need not to stand upon the proof of his other Customes this one Right of the Crown would put an end to the whole dispute For if Henry 2. had the same Power that Edgar had when he said that the tryal of the manners of Ecclesiastical Persons belonged to him and therefore gave Authority to Dunstan and the rest to expell criminal Clergy-men out of Churches and Monasteries why might not he punisht Ecclesiastical persons And then to what purpose had Becket contended with the King if he had allowed him as much power as the Saxon Kings did make use of And what if the Saxon Laws did appoint the Bishops to examin Clergy-men and pass sentence upon them in criminal causes was not the punishment already established by the Kings Laws and the Bishop only the Minister of the Kings Iustice upon Ecclesiastical Delinquents And even in the Laws of Edward the Confessour in case of default in Ecclesiastical Courts a liberty is allowed of going to other Courts and in the Laws of the elder Edward any one in Orders is appointed to make compensation according to the nature of his crime and without sureties he was to go into prison but in case of a capital offence he was to be taken that he might undergo penance from the Bishop for his fault Where by capital offence we are not to understand such as were punished with death but the Poenitential Canons of Egbert tell us by capital crimes were understood Pride Envy Fornication Adultery Perjury c. But the Laws of Canutus appoint degradation for murder by a Clergy-man and compensation and banishment withal which were Civil punishments after degradation the very thing which Becket denyed and in case this compensation were not undertaken within thirteen days then the Person was to be out-Law'd which to be sure was a civil punishment By the Laws of King Alured if a Priest killed a man he was to lose his priviledges and the Bishop was to expel him out of the Temple being already degraded unless due compensation were made i. e. if he did not undergo the Civil punishment For then the greatest crimes excepting murder of a Prince or Lord by his Subject or Vassal or killing any in a Sacred place or Treason might be expiated by pecuniary Mulcts and Ecclesiastical Penance according to the Poenitential Canons For it appears by the old Poenitential Canons of Theodore and Egbert that murder had so many years penance appointed for its expiation which had been a vain thing if it had been punished with death now in this case it was but reasonable that the guilty Person should be delivered to the Bishop to receive his Penance whether he were a Clergy-man or Lay-man And the Laws of Princes did inforce them to submit to Ecclesiastical Penance So King Alured commands in case of perjury that the Person be taken into the Kings custody for forty dayes that he might undergo the Penance which the Bishop shall impose upon him and if he escaped he was not only to be anathematized but put out of all protection of the Law and by the Laws of King Edmund any Person guilty of Murder was not to come into the Kings presence till he had undergone the Penance enjoyned him by the Bishop And from hence I suppose it was that in the Saxon Times the Bishop and the Sheriff sate together in the same Court as appears by the Laws of Edgar and Canutus not barely to instruct the people in the Laws of God and man but as the Sheriff was to appoint
the Iesuits when themselves were the Causes of all the Calamities any of them had indured since her Majesties Reign and they think all circumstances considered few Princes living of her judgement and so provoked would have dealt more mildly with such their subjects than she hath done with them 13. They confess the Spanish Invasion 1588. to be an everlasting Monument of Iesuitical Treason and Cruelty For it is apparent in a Treatise penned by the advice of Father Parsons altogether as they do verily think that the King of Spain was moved and drawn into that intended mischief by the long and daily solicitations of the Iesuits and other English Catholicks beyond the Seas affected and altogether given to Iesuitism and that Parsons as they imagine though the Book went under a greater name endeavoured with all his Rhetorick to perswade the Catholicks in England to joyn with the Spaniards but Caraâ—nal Aâ—en takes it upon himself and saith the Pâ—â—â— had made him Cardinal intending to send him his Legat for the sweeter managing this forsooth godly and great affair and there he affirms that there were divers Priests in the Kings Army ready to serve ever mans necessity and promises them the assistance of all the Saints and Angels and of our Blessed Saviour himself in the Soveraign Sacrament after a very invisible manner and they do not at all deny that the Pope did joyn and contribute towards this intended Invasion 14. That in these ten years from 1580. to 1590. the Prisoners at Wisbich lived together without any trouble Colledge-like without any wanâ— that of all sorts towards the number of fifty suffered death as they think most of them for conscience but as their Adversaries do still affirm for Treason that such Priests as upon examination were found any thing moderate were not so hardly dealt with insomuch as fifty five that might by the Laws have been put to death in one year 1585. and in a dangerous time were only banished and that although some hard courses were taken against them yet it was not by many degrees so extream as the Iesuits and that Crew have falsly reported and written of it 15. That there being just apprehensions of a new Invasion a Proclamation was set out 1591. against Semâ—nary Priests as being suspected to 〈◊〉 sent hither to pâ—â—pare a way for it and Parsons did not only acknowledge such a design but said the King of Spain had just cause to attempt again that enterprise but in the mean time they tryed a shorter course by the several Treasons of Heskett Collen both set on by Jesuits Lopez York Williams and Squire animated by Walpole the Iesuit 16. That Parsons at last set up the title of the Infanta of Spain and endeavoured to get subscriptions to it and promises to perswade the Catholicks of England to submit to it and that the Seminary Priests were to promote her Title against the Queen and her Lawful Successors From all which they confess that the Iesuitical designs abroad and the Rebellions and Traiterous attempts of some Catholicks at home have been the Causes of such calamities and troubles as have happened unto them great they confess in themselves but far less they think than any Prince living in her Majesties case and so provoked would have inflicted upon us And what more need to be said for the Vindication of the Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and cruelty than is here so ingenuously confessed by the Secular Priests men of the same Religion with those who complain of them men that suffered themselves in some measure men that throughly understood the true Reasons and casions of the several Laws that were then made and yet aâ—ter all this can Mr. Cressy have the impudence to parallel these Laws with those of Nero Domitian and Dioclesian and to say that they who suffered by them suffered only on the account of Religion If the primitive Christians had been guilty of so many horrible Treasons and Conspiracies if they had attempted to deprive Emperours of their Crowns and absolved Subjects from their Allegiance to them if they had joyned with their open and declared enemies and imployed persons time after time to assassinate them what would the whole World have said of their sufferings Would men of any common sense have said that they were Martyrs for Religion no but that they dyed justly and deservedly for their Treasons And for all that I can see all such as suffered in those dayes for their attempts on their Soveraign and Countrey are no more to be said to have suffered for Religion than the late Regicides who pleaded the Cause of God and Religion as well as they and if the one be Martyrs let the other be thought so too but if notwithstanding all their fair pretences of Religion and Conscience the Regicides shall not be thought to suffer for their Religion why then should those in Q. Elizabeth ' s or King Iames ' s time who suffered on the account of actual Treasons as those did who were engaged in the Gunpowder Treason as well as those who suffered in the Queens time And if the supposition of Conscience or Religion makes all men Martyrs the Regicides will put in their plea for Martyrdâ—m if it be not then there is no reason to say they suffered for Religion whom the Law condemned on the account of Treason If it be then allowed that the Laws must determin Treason then it will follow that those suffer for Treason who act directly against those Laws which determine it to be Treason § 22. But suppose the Law should make it Treason for men to serve God according to their Consciences as for Roman Priests to officiate or say Mass can such men be said to suffer for Treason if they be taken in the Fact and not rather for their Religion To this I answer that a great regard is to be had to the occasion of making such a Law for the right interpretation of it For if plain and evident Treasonable actions were the first occasion of making it as it is confessed in Q. Elizabeths time then all those Persons lyable to the suspicion of the State may be seized upon in what way soever they discover themselves and in this case the performing Offices of their Function is not the motive of the Law or Reason of the penalty but meerly the Means of Discovery of the Persons For by reason of Disguises and Aequivocations and mental Reservations being set on foot by the Iesuits to prevent discovery the Law had no certain way of finding them out but by the Offices of their Function in which the Magistrates are sure they will not dissemble so far as that a man who is no Priest will not take upon him to say Mass and therefore the Law looks upon the Office of Religion as only a certain Criterion of the Persons and not as the Reason of the punishment not as the thing that makes them guilty but as the way