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
give them an account of what he had done but the King sent them word that he appealed to Rome and so the business fell Thus we see how much he advanced the Popes power by yielding to a Legatine Power here to hear causes and suffering himself to be called to an account before it by which example Appeals grew very frequent and troublesome in his time as our Historians sadly complain and the Bishops and Monks went commonly over to Rome upon Appeals nay Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury went to the Pope then in Frarce expresly against the Kings command and the Pope suspended the rest that did not come and William Archbishop of York was deposed by the Pope meerly because nominated by the King and another put into his Room without the Kings consent or approbation the right of Investitures was condemned in a Council held at Westminster and the infringers of Ecclesiastical Liberty punished with Excommunication not to be taken off but by the Pope himself and after the reconciliation between Stephen and Henry 2. the effect of it saith Radulphus de Diceto was that the Churches Dominion was exalted by it § 9. This was the state of things here when Henry the second came to the possession of the Crown all the Customs of his Ancestors which they accounted Rights of the Crown were lost during the Usurpation of Stephen and strange insolencies and villanies were committed under the pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty or the unaccountabless of Ecclesiastical Persons for their actions to Civil Justice which made the Judges complain to the King of the thefts rapines and murders frequently committed by Clergy-men over whom they had then no jurisdiction and as Gulielmus Newburgensis saith the Bishops were more concerned to defend their priviledges than to punish offendors and thought they did God and the Church service in protecting them from the hands of Iustice. By which means things were come to that height between the Civil Ecclesiastical Power that one or the other must yeild the Ecclesiastical Power being in the hands of Thomas Becket a man after the Popes own heart and in whom the very soul of Gregory the seventh seemed to have come into the World again and the Civil Power in the management of Henry the second a Prince of a high Spirit and great courage and that could not easily bear the least diminution of his Power And where there was so much matter prepared and such heat on both sides it was no great difficulty to fore-tell a storm when the Clouds that hovered in the air should clap together or fall upon each other This was foreseen by the more discerning men of that time when they found the King bent upon making him Archbishop after the death of Theobald For however Becket himself boasted of the freedom of his election and the consent of the Clergie and Kingdom in it yet in the Epistle sent to him by the Bishops and Clergie of the whole Province they plainly tell him the Kings Mother disswaded him from it the whole Kingdom was against it and the Clergie sighed and groaned as much as they durst but the King would have it so For the King being then in Normandy sent over his great Minister Richard de Lucy on purpose to let the Suffragan Bishops and the Monks of Canterbury understand his pleasure that he would have Becket chosen Archbishop Which the Bishop of London in his excellent Epistle to Becket which gives a more true account of the Intrigues of the whole quarrel than any thing yet extant and which Baronius could not but see in the Codex Vaticanus although he takes no notice at all of it tells him was a greater invasion of the Churches Liberties than any of those things he made such ado about You saith he now tell us that we ought to obey God rather than men would to God we had done so then but because we had not the courage to do it then therefore we now suffer shame and confusion for it and the tears run down our cheeks for the calamities that are come upon us By which we may judge of the truth of the Quadripartite History written by Thomas his own Disciples as Baronius confesseth for therein Herebertus and Iob. Sarisburiensis tell of Thomas his protesting against his being Archbishop to the King and his being hardly perswaded to it by the Popes Legat whereas the Bishop of London proves to Becket himself that during Theobalds Life he had his eye upon it and made all the interest he could to obtain it upon his death that he gave several thousand Marks to the King to be Chancellour hoping by that means to come the easier into the See of Canterbury that being in Normandy at Theobalds death he posted over and the Kings Favourite brought his command for his election And it is likewise confessed by Fitz Stephen in the MS. History of Beckets Life that the whole Clergie knew it was the Kings pleasure he should be made Archbishop and that Gilbert then only Bishop of Hereford afterwards of London disswaded all that he could from his election and after said that the King had done a strange thing viz. he had made a Souldier Archbishop of Canterbury for but a little before he had been in arms with the King at Tholouse And this opposition of his he calls not only God to witness was not out of any ambitious desire to have been in his Room as Thomas and the Monks charge him but Becket himself for no man could attempt any such thing but he must know it his Favour being so great with the King then But it seems the wiser men among the Bishops thought that by reason of his insolent rash and inflexible temper which even his Friends complained of in him he would bring all things into confusion When he was summoned at Northampton to appear before the King he would needs carry the Cross with his own hands into the Court upon which the Bishop of London told him he behaved himself as if he had a mind to disturb the whole Kingdom You carry the Cross saith he and what if the King should take his Sword but said he to one that stood by He alwayes was a Fool and ever will be one These things I only mention to let men see what apprehensions the more prudent men of that time had of the likelihood of great disturbances coming to the Church by his ill management although by the rashness of others added to his he hath had the fortune to be accounted a Saint and a Martyr § 10. But my business is not to write a particular account of all the passages between the King and him after the difference between them which hath been so largely done by Baronius and our own Historians but I shall shew that the Controversie between them was about Gregory the sevenths principles and if he dyed a Martyr for any thing it
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
as the Bishop of London saith had rather he had wounded his body than his reputation by such an escape into forreign parts where he was sure to be represented as a Tyrant and persecutor of the Church Becket was driven back by a Tempest the King takes no notice of it uses him kindly and bids him take care of his Church Not long after a Controversie happened about some Lands which Becket challenged as belonging to his Church the King sends to him to do justice to the Person concerned in it notwithstanding complaints are brought to the King for want of it the King sends a summons to him to appear before him that he might have the hearing of the Cause Becket refuses to obey the summons and sends the King word he would not obey him in this matter at which saucy answer the King was justly provoked as a great disparagement to his Royal Authority Upon this he calls the Parliament at Northhampton where the People met as one man the King represents his case with becoming modesty and eloquence however he consented that his fault should be expiated by a pecuniary mulct after this the King exhibited a complaint against him for a great summ of money received by him during his Chancellorship which he had never given account for it was 44000 Marks as the Bishop of London told the Cardinals who were sent by the Pope afterwards to end the Controversie Becket pleaded that he was discharged by his promotion as though as the Bishop of London said promotion were like Baptism that wiped away all Scores But this being a meer civil Cause as the Bishop tells Becket yet he denyed to give answer to the King and appealed to the Pope as the judge of all men living saith sarisburiensis and soon after in a disguise he slips over the Sea and hastens to the Pope who received him with great kindness and then he resigns his Arch-bishoprick into the Popes hands as our Historians generally agree because he received investiture from the King and takes it again from the Pope This is the just and true account of the state of the Controversie as it is delivered by one of the same time that knew all the intrigues and which he writes to Becket himself who never answered it that I can find nor any of his party and by one who was a Person of great reputation with the Pope himself for his Learning Piety and the severity of his Life And is it now possible to suppose that Gregory 7. if he had been in Beckets place could have managed his cause with more contempt of Civil Government than he did when he refused to obey the Kings summons declined his Iudicature in a Civil Cause and broke his Laws against his own solemn promise and perjured himself for the Popes honour If this be only defending ancient priviledges of the Church I may expect to see some other moderate men of the Roman Church plead for Gregory 7. as only a stout defender of the ancient Canons and an enemy to the Popes temporal Power But men are to be pittyed when they meet with an untoward objection such as that from Beckets Saintship and Martyrdom is to prove the doctrine of Ecclesiastical Liberty and the Popes temporal Power to be the sense of their Church if they cannot find that they endeavour to make a way to escape and I hope the Persons I now deal with have more ingenuity than to think this new pretence any satisfactory plea for Beckets Cause And as the Bishop of London tells Becket it is not the suffering but the cause which makes a Martyr to suffer hardship with a good mind is honour to a man but to suffer in a bad cause and obstinately is a reproach and in this dispute he saith the whole weight of it lay upon the Kings power and some Customs of his Ancestors and the King would not quit the Rights of his Crown which were confirmed by Antiquity and the long usage of the Kingdom This is the cause why you draw your sword against the Sacred Person of the King in which it is of great consequence to consider that the King doth not pretend to make new Laws but as the whole Kingdom bears him witness such as were practised by his Ancestors And although it appears that he wished well to the main of Beckets Cause yet he blames him exceedingly for rashness indiscretion and insolency in the management of it and bids him remember that Christ never entred Zacchaeus his house till he came down from the Sycamore Tree and that the way of humility did far better become him and was likely to prevail more with the King than than which he took § 13. But Becket being out of the Kings reach and backed by the King of France and favoured by the Court of Rome made nothing of charging the King with Tyranny as he and his party do very frequently in the Volume of Epistles and because the Empress his Mother pleaded for some of the Customs as antient Rights of the Crown she is said to be of the raâ—e of Tyrants too The King finding himself thus beset with a swarm of Horneâ—◠〈…〉 of his own Power to 〈…〉 farther attempts upon his Crown and Royal Authority which was exposed to such publick ignominy in forreign parts and therefore sends this precept to all the Bishops to suspend the profits of all such Clergie-men as adhered to him Nosti quam male Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus operatus â— est adversus me Regnum meum quam male recesserit ideo mando tibi quod Clerici sui qui circa ipsum fuerint post fugam suam alii Clerici qui detraxerunt honori meo honori Regni non percipiant aliquid de redditibus illis quos habuerant in Episcopatu tuo nisi per me nec habâ—ant aliquod auxilium nec consilium a Te Teste Richardo de Luci apud Marlebergam After this the King commands the Sheriffs to imprison every one that appealed to the Court of Rome and to keep them in hold till his pleasure were known and he causes all the Ports to be watched to prevent any Letters of Interdict from the Pope and if any Regular brought them he was to have his feet cut off if in Orders he was to lose his eyes and something else and if he were a Lay-man he was to be hanged Accordingly the Popes Nuntio was taken with Letters of the Popes coming over for England and imprisoned by the Kings Order But the difference still growing higher and the King being threatned with excommunication and the Kingdom with an interdict the King commands an Oath to be taken against receiving Bulls from the Pope or obeying him or the Archbishop and the penalty no less than that of Treason which is so remarkable a thing I shall give it in the words of the MS. A. D. MCLXIX Rex Henricus jurare facit
deluded by the Pope he expressed his resentment in some threatning words upon which the Cardinal said Sir do not threaten we fear no threatnings for we are of that Court which hath been wont to command Emperours and Kings And because Becket suspected the Cardinal of Pavia a former Legat to be too favourable to the King he begins his Letters to him with wishing him Health and Courage against the insolence of Princes and saith that the Church gained her strength by opposition to Princes We have no reason therefore to question Beckets meaning in the former expression to be according to the sense of Greg. 7. it being not only most agreeable to the natural sense of the words but to the course of his actions and nature of his quarrel and his expressions at other times In another of his Epistles to the King he complains that in his Kingdom the daughter of Sion was held captive and the Spouse of the great King was oppressed and beseeches him to set her free and to suffer her to reign together with her Spouse otherwise he saith the most Mighty would come with a strong hand to deliver her as one of his Friends writ to him that the Church could not have peace but with a strong hand and stretched out arm Again he tells the King that his Royal Power ought not to intermeddle with the Churches Liberties for Priests ought only to judge Priests and that the Secular Power had nothing to do to punish them if they did not offend against faith It seems then in case of heresie only the Secular Arm is to be called in for help and is not this very agreeable to Becket's principle that Kings receive their power from the Church for their assistance is only to be uâ—ed for their own interests but by no means in case of Treason or Murder or any other Crimes but if Princes have an inherent Right or Power in themselves methinks they might be allowed to take care of their own and publick safety against all offenders It is the office saith he of a good and Religious Prince to repair old and decayed Churches and to build new ones it seems the King was only to be Surveyor General and to hâ—nour the Priests and to defend them with all Reverence But that they had nothing to do with the judgement of them he endeavours to prove after his fashion and he makes use of the very same arguments the Popes had done before in his Grandfathers time and almost in the same words about the relations of Fathers and Children Masters and Scholars and the power of binding and loosing Nay he doth not let go Qui vos odit me odit qui vos tangit tangit pupillam 〈…〉 which were Gregory 7's beloved places and served him upon all occasions And then after his exact method he thunders out the examples of Saul Ozias Ahaz and Uzza and again saith that Secular Powers have nothing to do in the affairs of the Church but that if they be faithful God would have them be subject to the Priests of his Church and yet further Christian Kings ought to submit their acts to the Governours of the Church and not set them above them for it is written none but the Church ought to judge of Priests and no human Laws ought to pass sentence upon such and that Princes ought to submit to the Bishops and not to sit as Iudges over them Which he thinks he cannot repeat too often And after all uses the very same argument to Henry 2. which Gregory 7. had done to William the Conquerour That Princes ought to be subject to the Priests because they are to give an account of them to God and therefore he ought to understand that Princes are to be governed by them and not they brought to the Wills of Princes for saith he some of the Popes have excommunicated Kings and some Emperours I do not think that ever the Hildebrandine doctrine as some call it was delivered in plainer terms and pleaded for by more arguments such as they were than by Becket and his party as appears by the Whole Volume of Epistles relating to his quarrel out of which I have selected these passages It would be endless to reckon up all the places wherein they declare it was the Cause of God and his Church which they defended that however ancient the Customs were they ought not to be observed because contrary to Gods Law that they were not only unlawful but heretical pravities that those who defended them were Henricians and not Christians that they were Balaamites Aegyptians Samaritans nay Satanites and what not and that themselves were the poor of Christ and the persecuted ones and such as waited for the Kingdom of God And if these things will not satisfie men that the Controversie between Henry the second and Becket was not about ancient Municipal Laws but about the Gregorian principles of Ecclesiastical and Civil Government I know not what can ever do it § 15. But it is still pleaded on his behalf or rather on their own who allow him to be a Saint and a Martyr and yet deny the Gregorian principles that those principles were not the immediate motive of his death but only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures but upon a certain condition to some Bishops after the King was reconciled to him It is no doubt a great piece of subtilty to find out another cause of his death than he thought of himself for he declared that he dyed for God and Iustice and the Liberty of the Church i. e. in prosecution of the same cause which he had undertaken from the beginning For Becket knew well enough there never was a perfect reconciliation between the King and him and that only the necessity of his affairs and the fears of being served as the Emperour was by the Pope i. e. deprived of his Kingdom by excommunication which Becket pressed with the greatest vehemency and the jealousie he had of the rest of the Bishops several of whom kept great correspondency now with Becket and the favour of the People to his cause forced the King to those shews of reconciliation for that they were no more on either side is manifest by this that the main Controversie was not taken notice of about the ancient customs each party hoping for better circumstances afterwards all that the King consented to was laying aside any personal displeasure against Becket for what was passed and allowing him freely to return to his Church in expectation of a better behaviour towards him for the future All which appears from Beckets own Letters to the Pope upon and after this reconciliation for he saith expresly the Customs were not once mentioned between them and that the apprehensions of the Popes interdict and Fredericks condition was that which moved him to this reconciliation The King indeed failed in no point of complement to the
Archbishop as he very punctually tells the Pope how he saluted him at first bare-headed and ran into his embraces how he bare his rebukes patiently and held his Stirrup at his getting upon his Horse if he had but trampled on the Kings Neck too he had been equal to the Pope himself and it might have raised some jealouâ—ie between them But for all this reconciliation Becket supposing himself the Conquerour resolved not to abate one jot of his rigour against those who had sworn to the ancient Customs and therefore procures power from the Pope to excommunicate the Bishops that had done it and to return to their excommunication those already absolved and to absolve none without taking an oath to stand to the Popes command This the Kings Officers upon his return into England told him was against the Customs of the Realm but they promised they should take an oath to obey the Law salvo honore Regni Becket at first said it was not in his Power to rescind the Popes sentence which he knew to be false for the Pope had given him power to do it and he immediately adds that he could absolve the Bishops of London and Salisbury if they took the common oath which was in the Cotton M S. se juri parituros but it is interlined se vestro mandato parituros as the Vatican Copy in Baronius hath it But the Archbishop of York told the other Bishops that the taking such an oath without the Kings consent was against the Kings Honour and the Customs of the Realm And it is observeable that the same time he was so zealous for the Bishops taking this oath to the Pope he peremptorily refused suffering those of his retinue though required to do it by the Kings Officers to take an oath of Allegiance to the King to stand by him against all persons nec vos excipientes nec alium saith he to the Pope neither excepting you nor any other as the Cotton M S. hath it very plainly but Baronius hath Printed it Nos whether agreeably to the Vatican M S. I know not but I am sure not to Beckets sense for he gives this reason of his refusing it lest by that example the Clergy of the Kingdom should be drawn to such an oath which would be much to the prejudice of the Apostolical See for by this means the Popes Authority would be discarded or very much abated in England Judge now Reader whether Becket did not remain firm to the Gregorian principles to the last and whether the immediate motive of his death did not arise from them for upon the oath required of the Bishops they with the Archbishop of York went over to the King in Normandy upon the hearing of which complaint the King spake those hasty words from whence those four Persons took the occasion to go over to Canterbury and there after expostulations about this matter they did most inhumanely Butcher him as he was going to Vespers in the Church upon which Ioh. Sarisburiensis who was his Secretary and present at his murder saith that he dyed an Assertor of the Churches Liberty and for defending the Law of God against the abuses of ancient Tyrants But what need we mention his judgement when the Pope in his Bull of Canonization and the Roman Church in his Office do say that he dyed for the Cause of Christ And what can be more plain from hence than that to this day all those who acknowledge him to be a Saint and a Martâ—r cannot with any consistency to themselves reject those principles for which he suffered any more than they can reasonably be supposed to reject the Republican principles who cry up the Regicides for Saints and Martyrs But this is a subject lately undertaken by another hand and therefore I forbear any farther prosecution of it § 16. After Beckets death the Royal Power lost ground considerably for to avoid the interdict and excommunication threatned the Kingdom the King by his Ambassadours and the Bishops by their messengers did swear in the Court of Rome that they would stand to the Popes judgement for among the terms of the Kings reconciliation by the Popes Legats this was one of the chief that he should utterly disclaim the wicked Statutes of Clarendon and all the evil customs which in his dayes were brought into the Church and if there were any evil before they should be moderated according to the Popes command and by the advice of Religious Persons Thus after so many years contest were the Rights of the Crown and the Customs of his predecessours given up by this great Prince so true was that saying of Becket that their Church had thriven by opposition to Princes And if Petrus Blesensis may be believed this King stooped so low upon the Rebellion of his Son as to acknowledge his Kingdom to be Feudatary to the Pope The Authority of which Epistle is made use of not only by Baronius but by Bellarmin and others to prove that the King of England is Feudatary to the Pope or that he holds his Crown of him upon paying certain acknowledgments which it is hardly possible to conceive a Prince that understood and valued his own Rights so well as Henry the second did should ever be brought so low to confess without the least ground for it For when it was challenged by Gregory the seventh it was utterly denyed by William the Conquerour and never that we find so much as challenged afterwards of any lawful Prince by way of Fee before his time but only in regard of the Popes temporal Power over all Princes Although a late French Monk who published Lanfranc's Epistles wonders it should be denyed because of the Tribute anciently paid to Rome viz. of the Peter-pence which were not so called because paid to S. Peters pretended Successours but because payable on S. Peters day as appears by the Law of Canutus to that Purpose and were only Eleemosynary for the sustenance of poor Scholars at Rome as the late publisher of Petrus Blesensis confesses who withal adds that Henry the second denyed their payment but was perswaded to it again by Petrus Blesensis and him he acknowledges to have been the Writer of the foregoing Epistle And we must consider that he was alwayes a secret Friend of Becket and his Cause in the whole quarrel and being imployed by the King in his straits to write to the Pope to excommunicate his Son he knowing very well the prevalent arguments in the Court of Rome might strain a complement in the behalf of his Master to the Pope for which he had little cause to thank him although it may be Petrus Blesensis expressed his own mind whether it were the Kings or no. And we have no ground that I can find to imagin this to have been the Kings mind in the least for upon his submission a Clause was inseâ—ted that he was no longer to own the Pope
who so meekly resigned his Crown to the Popes Legat and did swear homage to the Pope declaring that he held the Kingdom in Fee from him upon the annual payment of a thousand Marks And I desire it may be observed that the Oath of Fealty extant in Matthew Paris and the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register which King Iohn made to the Pope hath no other expressions in it than are contained in the Oath which all the Popish Bishops now take at their consecration only with the variation of necessary circumstances And although Sr. Tho. Moor once denyed any such thing as King Iohns Resignation of his Crown yet the matter is now past all dispute by the concurrence of the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register and the Authentick Bull of the Pope and the Epistles of Innocent the third published out of MS. by Bosquet now a Bishop in France wherein the devout Pope attributes thus resignation of his Crown to no less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and saith the Kingdom of England was then become a Royal Priesthood and in another Bull he accepts of the Resignation and declares that whereas before these Provinces were subject to the Roman Church in Spirituals they were now become subject in Temporals too and from hence he requires an Oath of Fealty from himself and all his Successors and charges all persons under severe penalties not to dare to infringe this Charter And although the Parliament 40 Edw. 3. did deny the payment of the Popes Tribute upon the invalidity of King John ' s Charter not being done by the consent of the Barons as the Pope said it was yet we are to consider what Gregory the seventh said to the Princes of Spain that a Kingdom once belonging to the See of Rome can never be alienated from it but although the Use be discontinued yet the Right still continues so that although the thing be never so much null and vain in it self yet it still serves for pretence to usurp the same temporal Power over our Princes when opportunity serves them And it is certain that Henry the third did swear homage and Fealty to the Pope at his Coronation and promised to pay the tribute which was performed several times in his Reign till the King and People protested against it in the Council of Lyons as a grievance of the Kingdom which was extorted by the Roman Court unjustly in a time of War and to which the Nobles had never consented and never would But whatever opinion the Nobles were of the Pope had the Bishops sure to him for upon his Message to them they all set their hands to King John ' s Charter of Resignation which highly provoked the King and made him swear that he would stand for the Liberty of the Kingdom and never pay the Tribute more while he breathed In the same Council the English complained that infinite numbers of Italians were beneficed among them that more money went out of England every year into Italy than the Kings Revenues came to that the Popes Legats grew more intolerable and by reservations and Provisions and one trick or other the Patrons were defrauded of their Right and the Clergy impoverished by unreasonable pensions and whoever would not presently submit his Soul was immediately put into the Devils Custody by Excommunication Notwithstanding all these complaints the Pope goes on in the same way with them and resolved to try how much the Asses back would bear without kicking the English Ambassadours go away highly incensed from the Council and resolved to defend their own rights but they yet wanted a Prince of Spirit enough to head them Before this time the insolence of the Roman Clergy was grown so intolerable to the Nation that the Nobility and Commonalty joyned together in a resolution to free themselves from this Yoke and threated the Bishops to burn their goods if they went about to defend them they sent abroad their Letters to several places with a Seal with two swords between which were written Ecce duo gladii hic in abuse of the Roman Court and it seems they destroyed the goods of several Roman Clergy-men but Matt. Paris saith they were all excommunicated by the Bishop of London and ten Bishops more although Matt. Mestminster saith the Bishop of London was cited to Rome for favouring them and having his Purse well emptied was sent home again It seems the Pope was so nettled at the Remonstrance of the English Nobility at the Council of Lyons that he entred into a secret consultation with the King of France either to depose the King of England or to bring him wholly to his will so that neither he nor his people should so much as dare to mutter against the oppressions of the Roman Court and the Pope offered the utmost assistance of his Power for it but the King of France declined the employment However the Pope goes on with his work and grants a Bull for raising ten thousand Marks out of vacant Benefices in the Province of Canterbury which so incensed the King that he made at Proclamation that whosoever brought Bulls of Provision from Rome should be taken and imprisoned but this did little good saith Matth. Paris because of the uncertain humour of the King The same year a Parliament was called about the intolerable grievances of the Roman Court in which many of the Bishops favoured the Popes party but at the Parliaments meeting at Winchester the Ambassadors were returned from the Pope who gave a lamentable account of their Ambassy viz. that instead of any redress the Pope told them the King of England kicks and playes the Frederick whom he had deposed from the Empire in the Council of Lyons he hath his Council and I have mine which I will follow and withal they say they were scorned and despised as a company of Schismaticks for daring to complain Upon this the King issues out another Proclamation that no money should be sent out of England to the Pope At which the Pope was so enraged that he sent a severe Message to the Bishops of England under pain of excommunication and suspension to see his Money punctually paid to his Nuntio by such a day in London and the King by the perswasion of the Bishop of Worcester and some others fairly yields and gives up the Cause to the Pope After this the Pope sends for a third part of the profits of all Benefices from Residents and half from Non-residents with an Italian Gentleman called Non obstante that had almost undone the Nation the Clergie meet at London about it and make a grievous Remonstrance of their sad condition declaring that the whole Kingdom could not satisfie the Popes demands but it seems the Bishops brought the inferiour Clergie to it against the consent of the King and Parliament The next year the Parliament made
this Constitution of the Pope was procured by Winchelsea's means and he caused it to be pulished in all Cathedral Churches After this the King sends a prohibition to the Bishops against doing any thing to the prejudice of himself or his Ministers and another against all excommunications of those who should execute this Law and herein he declares that the doing such a thing would be a notorious injury to his Crown and Dignity a great scandal to the people the destruction of the Church and it may be the subversion of the whole Kingdom and therefore he charges them by vertue of their Allegiance that they should forbear doing it At the same time he issued out Writs for apprehending and imprisoning all such persons as should presume to excommunicate any of his Subjects on the accont of this Bull of Pope Boniface and our Learned Lawyers mention out of their Books a Person condemned for Treason in this Kings time for bringing a Bull of excommunication against one of the Kings subjects but although they do not mention the time it seems most probable to have been upon this occasion Parsons laughs at Sr. Edw. Cook for saying this was Treason by the antient Commâ—n Law before any Statutes were made but it doth sufficiently appear by the foregoing Discourse that this was looked on as one of the antient Rights of the Crown that no forreign Authority should exercise any jurisdiction here without the Kings consent Besides this King revived another of the antient Customs forbidding all Persons of the Clergie or Laâ—ty to go out of the Kingdom without his leave and so stopt the freedom of Appeals to the Pope and by the Statute of Carlisle 35 Edw. â— All Religious Houses were forbidden sending any Moneyes over to those of their Order beyond Sea although required to do it by those Superiours whom they thought themselves bound in conscience to obey And it appears by the Statute of Provisors 25 Edw. 3. that the first Statute of this kind was made in this Kings time at the Parliament at Carlisle notwithstanding that the Pope challenged the liberty of Provisions as a part of the plenitude of his Power But although this Statute were then made yet it had the fortune of many good Laws not to be executed and therefore in Edward the thirds time the Commons earnestly pressed for the revival of it 17 Edw. 3. upon which they sent for the Statute of Carlisle and then sayes the Record the Act of Provision was made by the common consent forbidding the bringing of Bulls or such trinkets from the Court of Rome and in the next Parliament it was enacted that whosoever should by process in the Court of Rome seek to reverse judgement given in the Kings Courts that he should be taken and brought to answer and upon conviction to be banished the Realm or be under perpetual imprisonment or if not found to be out-lawed But notwithstanding these Laws the Commons 21 Edw. 3. complain still that Provisions went on in despight of the King and judgements were reversed by Process in the Court of Rome and therefore they pray that judgement may be executed upon delinquents and this matter brought into a perpetual Statute as had been often desired the King grants their desire and the Commons bring in a Bill to that purpose extant in the Records but the Statute of Provisors did not pass till 25 Edw. 3. which is the common Statute in the printed Books yet soon after we find that the Commons pray for the execution of it and the Kings answer was that he would have it new read and amended then 27 Edw. 3. passed that other Statute of Praemunire against Appeals in Civil Causes to the Court of Rome which we have seen Becket made a considerable part of the Churches Liberty which Christ had purchased and practised it himself at Northampton appealing from King and his Parliament to the Pope in a meer Civil Cause of Accompts between the King and him Yet after all these Statutes 38 Edw. 3. a Re-enforcement of them was thought necessary in another Statute made that year against Citations to Rome and Provisions wherein are grievous complaints that the good antient Laws were still impeached blemished and confounded the Crown of our Lord the King abated and his person very hardly and falsly defamed the treasure and riches of the Kingdom carryed away the inhabitants and subjects of the Realm impoverished and troubled the Benefices of the Church wasted and destroyed Divine Services Hospitalities Alms deeds and other Works of Charity withdrawn and set apart the Great men Commons and Subjects of the Realm in body and goods damnified And yet Sr. R. C. saith that in the Record are more biting words a Mysterie he saith not to be known of all men In 40 Edw. 3. It was declared in Parliament by common consent that if the Pope should attempt any thing against the King by process or other matters in deed that the King with all his Subjects should with all their force and power resist the same Yet still so deep rooting had the Popes power gotten in this Nation that 47 Edw. 3. The Commons beg remedy still against the Popes provisions and complain that the Treasure of the Realm was carryed away which they cannot bear and 50 Edw. 3. A long Bill was brought in against the Popes Usurpations as being the Cause of all the Plagues injuries famine and poverty of the Realm and there they complain notwithstanding all former Laws that the Popes Collector kept his Court in London as it were one of the Kings Courts transporting yearly to the Pope twenty thousand Marks and commonly more and that Cardinals and other Aliens by reason of their preferments here have sent over yearly twenty thousand Marks and that the Pope to ransom the Kings enemies did at his pleasure levy a Subsidy of the Clergie of England and that to advance his gain he did commonly make translations of Bishopricks and other Dignities within the Realm and therefore again the Commons pray the Statutes against Provisors may be renewed which they repeated 51 Edw. 3. but all the answer they couâ—d get was that the Pope and promised redress the which if he do not the Laws therein shall stand but upon another Petition promise was made that the Statutes should be observed In 1 R. 2. the Commons are at it again upon the same complaints and it is declared to be one Cause of calling the Parliament 3 R. 2. and an Act then passed wherein as Sr. R. C. observes the Print makes no mention of the Popes abuses which the Record expresly sets down and that the Pope had broken promise with Edward the third and granted preferments in England to the Kings enemies 7 R. 2. another Statute was made against Provisions wherein the Print differs from the Record as the same Person
of finding the guilty As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Rebellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of as for instance I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced I desire to know whether if the Law made it poenal for men not to put off their hats only out of consideration of the Treasonable doctrines and practices they were guilty of should that man who were taken because he did not put off his Hat be said to sufâ—er on that account and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole intent and design of the Law is expressed to be to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her by giving assistance to them and endeavouring what in him lay to deprive the Queen of her Crown therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedience to the Pope is adjudged Treason as well as to any other Prince State or Potentate And where there is an equality of Reason why should there not be an equality in the punishment If any other Prince should have engaged Persons in the same actions which the Pope did there is no question they had been Treasonable actions the Question this whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it ceases to be Treason when the Pope allows or requires it If it doth so then the Pope must be acknowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes and they are all but his Vassals which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Treason then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason if the Law-makers think fit to make it so By no means for in this case there was an apparent tendency to disobedience and Treason in promising obedience to the Pope but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion considered as such but when Priests have been known to be the common instruments of Treasons as they were then by the confession of the Secular Priests then those actions which are performed by such persons and are proper only to themselves are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law designs to punish So that if we do allow that the Law of the Land can declare Treason in any sort of Persons and punish Persons for being guilty and appoint a certain means of discovering the guilty then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity alwayes supposing that some notorious Treasonable actions and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasions or antecedent Motives of those Laws which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses viz. the Secular Priests And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it viz. Whereas divers persons called or professed Iesuits Seminary Priests and other Priests which have been and from time to time are made in the parts beyond the Seas by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church have of late comen and been sent and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose as it hath appeared as well by their own examinations and confessions as divers other manifest means and proofs not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty but also to stir up and move Sedition Rebellion and open Hostility within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person and to the utter ruine desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented For reformation whereof be it ordained c. Can any thing be plainer from hence than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable attempts though masked only under a pretence of Religion If the design had been against their Religion the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion which it doth not But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Supremacy then it seems all the Religion they suffer for must be contaiâ—ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy And is this at last the suffering for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iurisdiction here But who were the men that first rejected that Authoâ—ity and Jurisdiction here Former Princes long before the Reformation did it as far as they thought fit and made no scruple of restraining it as far as they judged convenient and upon the same Reasons they went so far H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther For the reason they went upon was the repugnancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown and was there any other ground of the casting out the Popes Supremacy when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpoâ—e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent while the Head and Body were sound But who were the zealous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it and if they were not in good earnest they were notorious Hypocrites as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience with Bonners Preface wherein very smart things are said and with good Reason against making the Supremacy challenged by the Pope any part of Catholicâ— Religion Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time Fisher excepted joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass and hangs on a very slender thread If there be no more in Christian Religion than what is rejected by the Oath of Supremacy it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing for it filled the World with perpetual broils and confusions and produced dreadful effects where ever it was entertained and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen speaks out in this matter and saith plainly that it