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 to have repealed those and made others in their place For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ecclesiastical Laws as they saw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
than the Pope treated him as a Christian and Catholick King and as the Popes predecessours had done â—is And after the writing of that Letter and the reconciliation with his Son Radulphus de Diceto Dean of S. Pauls about that time hath an Authentick Epistle of Henry the second to the Pope wherein he acknowledges no more than the common observance which was usual with all Princes in that Age whereas Feudatary Princes write after another Form So that I cannot but think it to be a meer complement of Petrus Blesensis without the Kings knowledge or else a Clause inserted since his time by those who knew where to put in convenient passages for the advantage of the Roman See It is said by some that Henry the second A. D. 1176. did revive the Statutes of Clarendon which the Pope and Becket opposed so much in the Parliament called at Northampton It is true that Gervase of Canterbury doth say that the King did renew the Assise of Clarendon for whose execrable Statutes Becket suffered but he doth not say that he renewed those Statutes but others which are particularly enumerated by Hoveden upon the distributing tâ—e Kingdom into six Circuits and appointing the itinerant Judges who were made to swear that they would keep themselves and make others to observe the following Assises as the Statutes were then called but they all concerned matters of Law and Civil Iustice without any mention of the other famous Statutes about Ecclesiastical matters Whereas at the same time it is said that King Henry the second granted to the Popes Legat though against the advice of his great and Wise men that Clergy-men should not be summon'd before Secular Tribunals but only in case of the Kings Forest and of Lay-fees which is directly contrary to the Statute of Clarendon but some men love to heap things together without well considering how they agree with each other and so make the King in the same page to null and establish the same Statutes But it is observable that after all this contest about the exemption of Clergy-men and the Kings readiness to yield it they were made weary of it at last themselves for as Richard Beckets successour in the See of Canterbury saith in his Letter to the three Bishops that were then three of the Kings Iustices the killing of a Clergy-man was more remisly punished than the stealing of a Sheep and therefore the Archbishop perswades them to call in the Secular Arm against Ecclesiastical Malefactors And now in his opinion the Canons and Councils are all for it and Beckets arguments are slighted and no regard had to the Cause he suffered for when he found what mischief this impunity brought upon themselves But for this giving up their Liberties the Monks revenge themselves on the memory of this Archbishop as one that yielded up those blessed priviledges which Becket had purchased with his blood Notwithstanding the sufferings the King had undergone by his opposing the Ecclesiastical encroachments we may see what apprehension after all he had of the declension of his own power and the miserable condition the Church was in by those priviledges they had obtained by that notable discourse which Gervase of Canterbury relates the King had with the Bishops in the time of Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury wherein with tears he tells them that he was a miserable man and no King or if a King he haâ— only the name and not the power of a King that the Kingdom of England was once a rich and glorious Kingdom but now a very small share of it was left to his Government And then gives a sad account of the strange degeneracy both of the Monks and Clergy and what saith he in the day of judgement shall we say to these things Besides Those of Rome see our Weakness and domineer over us they sell their Letters to us they do not seek justice but contentions they multiply appeals and draw suits to Rome and when they look only after Money they confound Truth and overthrow peace What shall we say to these things how shall we answer them at Gods dreadful Iudgement Go and advise together about some effectual course to prevent these enormities Was this spoken like a Feudatary of the Popes and not rather like a wiâ—e and pious Prince who not only saw the miseries that came upon the Kingdom and Church by these encroachments of Ecclesiastical Power but was yet willing to do his best to redress them if the great Clergy would have concurred with him in it who were a little moved for the present with the Kings Tears and pathetical speech but the impression did soon wear off from their minds and things grew worse and worse by the daily increase of the Papal Tyranny And when this great Prince was very near his end some of the Monks of Canterbury were sent over to him who had been extreamly â—roublesome to himself and the Kingdom as well as to the Archbishop by their continual Appeals to the Court of Rome and they told the King the Convent of Canterbury saluted him as their Lord I have been said the King and am and will be Your Lord Ye wicked Traytors Upon which one of the Monks very loyally cursed him and he dyed saith Gervase within seven dayes § 17. Having thus far shewed that the Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power was accounted a Cause of Religion by the managers of the Ecclesiastical Power and that so far that the great Defender of it is to this day accounted a Saint and a Martyr for suffering in it I now come to shew that the ancient panal Laws were made against that very Cause which Becket suffered for After the death of Henry the second Beckets Cause triumphed much more than it had done before for in the time of Richard the first the great affairs of the Nation were managed by the Popes Legats during the Kings absence and after his return scarce any opposition was made to the Popes Bulls which came over very frequently unless it were against one about the Canons of Lambeth wherein the King and Archbishop were forced to submit no hindrance made to Appeals and even in Normandy the Ecclesiastical Power got the better after long contests In the latter end of Richard the first the Pope began to take upon him the disposal of the best Ecclesiastical preferments in England either by translation or Provision or Collation which Fitz Stephen saith that Henry 2. told those about him after the four Courtiâ—rs were gone for England to murder Becket was the design Becket intended to carry on viz. to take away all Right of Patronage from the King and all Lay-Persons and so bring the gift of all Church-preferments to the Pope or others under him Upon the agreement of King Iohn with the Popes Legat he renounced all right of Patronage and gave it to the Pope but it is no wonder in him
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
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
precarious Princes and in a much more proper sense than the Popes use that Title The Servants of Servants Supposing then the Legislative and Civil Power to be equal since the Reformation and before our work is to compare the other circumstances together and if it appear that the Plea of Conscience and Religion did equally hold then and notwithstanding that the penalties were as great upon the same or far less occasions I hope our Laws will at least appear as just and reasonable as those were § 4. To make this out I must give an account of the State of those times and the Reasons and Occasions which moved the Law-makers to enact those Poenal Statutes in which I shall shew these two things 1. That they began upon a controversie of Religion and that the Poenal Laws were made against those persons who pleaded Religion 2. That the Reasons and Occasions of the Poenal Laws since the Reformation were at least as great as those 1. That the antient Poenal Laws were made upon a Controversie of Religion And to give a clear account of the Rise and occasion of them I must begin from the Norman Conquest for then those Foundations were laid of all the following controversies which happened between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power On the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power was the plea of Conscience and Religion on the behalf of the Civil Power nothing but the just Rights of Princes and the necessary preservation of their own and the publick safety And this Controversie between the Two Powers was managed with so much zeal and such pretences of Conscience on the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power that the Civil Power notwithstanding the courage of some Princes and the resolution of Parliaments had much ado to stand its ground or to be able to preserve it self from the encroachments and Usurpations of the other So that to see Princes give any Countenance to the same pretences would be almost as strange as to see them turn Common-wealths-men I know there were good Laws frequently made to strengthen the Civil Power but the very frequency of them shewed how ineffectual they were For what need many Laws to the same purpose if the first had any force at all and the multiplication of Laws for the same thing is a certain sign of defect in the Government To undeceive therefore all those who judge of the State of Affairs by the Book of Statutes I shall deduce the History of this great Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in England so far as to shew the necessity there was found of putting an issue to it by casting out the Popes pretended Power and Iurisdiction in this Nation The two first who began this Dispute were both men of great Spirits and resolute in their undertakings I mean william the Conqueror and Gregory the seventh who was the first Pope that durst speak out and he very freely declares his mind about the subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesiastical and the exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons and Things from the Civil Power In his Epistle to Herimanus Bishop of Metz about the excommunication of Henry the fourth and absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance he thus expresses himself Shall not that power which was first found out by men who knew not God be subject to that which God himself hath appointed for his own honor in the World and the head of which is the Son of God Who knows not that Kings and Dukes had their beginnings from men who gained their Authority over their equals by blind ambition and intolerable presumption by rapines and murders by perfidiousness and all manner of wickedness Is not this a very pretty account of the Original of Civil Power by the Head of the Church But this is not all for he adds While Princes make Gods Priests to be subject to them to whom may we better compare them than to him who is the Head over all the Sons of Pride who tempted the Son of God with promising him all the Kingdoms of the World if he would fall down and worship him This is better and better it seems it is as bad as the sin of Lucifer for Princes not to be subject to the Pope and it is like the Devils tempting Christ to offer to make Priests subject to the Civil Power Who doubts saith he that Christs Priests are to be accounted the Fathers and Masters of Kings aud Princes and all the faithful Now saith he is it not a lamentable madness if the Son should offer to make the Father subject to him but one of his Successors did not think so that set up Henry the fifth against his own Father or the Scholar his Master or to think to bind him on earth by whom he expects to be loosed in Heaven These were the Demonstrations of that Age and the main supports of the Cause and in his Epistle to William King of England he tells him that God had appointed two kinds of Government for mankind the Apostolical and Regal that is much that the same Government should come only from the sins of men and yet be from the appointment of God but we are to consider he writ this to a King whom he hoped to perswade and therefore would not tell him the worst of his thoughts about the beginnings of Civil Power but saith he these two powers like the Sun and Moon have that inequality by the Christian Religion that the Royal Power next under God is to be under the care and management of the Apostolical And since the Apostolical See is to give an account to God of the miscarriages of Princes his wisdom ought to consider whether he ought not without farther delay take an Oath of Fealty to him For no less than that would content him but William was not so meek a Prince to be easily brought to this as Robert of Sicily Richard of Capua Bertram of Provence Rodulphus and several others were whose Oaths of Fealty to him are extant in the Collection or Register of his Epistles But William gives him a resolute answer which is extant among the Epistles of Lanfranc that for the Oath of Fealty he had not done it neither would he because he never promised it neither did he find that ever his predecessors had done it to Gregories predecessors The Pope storms at this and writes a chiding Letter to Lanfranc Arch-bishop of Canterbury who like a better subject to the Pope than to the King writes an humble excuse for himself to the Pope and tells him he had done his endeavour to perswade the King but could not prevail with him And Cardinal Baronius saith the Pope took it very ill at his hands considering the kindness he had received from the Papal See For Alexander the second favoured his cause against Harold and sent him a consecrated Banner and if we may believe Henricus de Silgrave the Pope gave him his title
as the Bishop of London saith had rather he had wounded his body than his reputation by such an escape into forreign parts where he was sure to be represented as a Tyrant and persecutor of the Church Becket was driven back by a Tempest the King takes no notice of it uses him kindly and bids him take care of his Church Not long after a Controversie happened about some Lands which Becket challenged as belonging to his Church the King sends to him to do justice to the Person concerned in it notwithstanding complaints are brought to the King for want of it the King sends a summons to him to appear before him that he might have the hearing of the Cause Becket refuses to obey the summons and sends the King word he would not obey him in this matter at which saucy answer the King was justly provoked as a great disparagement to his Royal Authority Upon this he calls the Parliament at Northhampton where the People met as one man the King represents his case with becoming modesty and eloquence however he consented that his fault should be expiated by a pecuniary mulct after this the King exhibited a complaint against him for a great summ of money received by him during his Chancellorship which he had never given account for it was 44000 Marks as the Bishop of London told the Cardinals who were sent by the Pope afterwards to end the Controversie Becket pleaded that he was discharged by his promotion as though as the Bishop of London said promotion were like Baptism that wiped away all Scores But this being a meer civil Cause as the Bishop tells Becket yet he denyed to give answer to the King and appealed to the Pope as the judge of all men living saith sarisburiensis and soon after in a disguise he slips over the Sea and hastens to the Pope who received him with great kindness and then he resigns his Arch-bishoprick into the Popes hands as our Historians generally agree because he received investiture from the King and takes it again from the Pope This is the just and true account of the state of the Controversie as it is delivered by one of the same time that knew all the intrigues and which he writes to Becket himself who never answered it that I can find nor any of his party and by one who was a Person of great reputation with the Pope himself for his Learning Piety and the severity of his Life And is it now possible to suppose that Gregory 7. if he had been in Beckets place could have managed his cause with more contempt of Civil Government than he did when he refused to obey the Kings summons declined his Iudicature in a Civil Cause and broke his Laws against his own solemn promise and perjured himself for the Popes honour If this be only defending ancient priviledges of the Church I may expect to see some other moderate men of the Roman Church plead for Gregory 7. as only a stout defender of the ancient Canons and an enemy to the Popes temporal Power But men are to be pittyed when they meet with an untoward objection such as that from Beckets Saintship and Martyrdom is to prove the doctrine of Ecclesiastical Liberty and the Popes temporal Power to be the sense of their Church if they cannot find that they endeavour to make a way to escape and I hope the Persons I now deal with have more ingenuity than to think this new pretence any satisfactory plea for Beckets Cause And as the Bishop of London tells Becket it is not the suffering but the cause which makes a Martyr to suffer hardship with a good mind is honour to a man but to suffer in a bad cause and obstinately is a reproach and in this dispute he saith the whole weight of it lay upon the Kings power and some Customs of his Ancestors and the King would not quit the Rights of his Crown which were confirmed by Antiquity and the long usage of the Kingdom This is the cause why you draw your sword against the Sacred Person of the King in which it is of great consequence to consider that the King doth not pretend to make new Laws but as the whole Kingdom bears him witness such as were practised by his Ancestors And although it appears that he wished well to the main of Beckets Cause yet he blames him exceedingly for rashness indiscretion and insolency in the management of it and bids him remember that Christ never entred Zacchaeus his house till he came down from the Sycamore Tree and that the way of humility did far better become him and was likely to prevail more with the King than than which he took § 13. But Becket being out of the Kings reach and backed by the King of France and favoured by the Court of Rome made nothing of charging the King with Tyranny as he and his party do very frequently in the Volume of Epistles and because the Empress his Mother pleaded for some of the Customs as antient Rights of the Crown she is said to be of the raâ—e of Tyrants too The King finding himself thus beset with a swarm of Horneâ—◠〈…〉 of his own Power to 〈…〉 farther attempts upon his Crown and Royal Authority which was exposed to such publick ignominy in forreign parts and therefore sends this precept to all the Bishops to suspend the profits of all such Clergie-men as adhered to him Nosti quam male Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus operatus â— est adversus me Regnum meum quam male recesserit ideo mando tibi quod Clerici sui qui circa ipsum fuerint post fugam suam alii Clerici qui detraxerunt honori meo honori Regni non percipiant aliquid de redditibus illis quos habuerant in Episcopatu tuo nisi per me nec habâ—ant aliquod auxilium nec consilium a Te Teste Richardo de Luci apud Marlebergam After this the King commands the Sheriffs to imprison every one that appealed to the Court of Rome and to keep them in hold till his pleasure were known and he causes all the Ports to be watched to prevent any Letters of Interdict from the Pope and if any Regular brought them he was to have his feet cut off if in Orders he was to lose his eyes and something else and if he were a Lay-man he was to be hanged Accordingly the Popes Nuntio was taken with Letters of the Popes coming over for England and imprisoned by the Kings Order But the difference still growing higher and the King being threatned with excommunication and the Kingdom with an interdict the King commands an Oath to be taken against receiving Bulls from the Pope or obeying him or the Archbishop and the penalty no less than that of Treason which is so remarkable a thing I shall give it in the words of the MS. A. D. MCLXIX Rex Henricus jurare facit
omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum contra Dom. Papam Alexandrum B. Thomam Archiepiscopum quod eorum non recipient literas neque obedient mandatis Et si quis inveâ—tus foret literas eorum deferens traderetur Potestatibus tanquam Coronae Regis capitalis inimicus Here we see an Oath of Supremacy made so long ago by Henry the second and those who out of zeal or whatsoever motive brought over Bulls of the Popes made lyable to the charge of Treason but the Archbishop by vertue of his Legatine Power took upon him to send persons privately into England and to absolve them from this Oath as is there expressed The same year the King being in Normandy sent over these Articles to be sworn and observed by the Nobles and People of England 1. If any one be found carrying Letters from the Pope or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury containing an Interdict of Religion in England let him be taken and without delay let justice pass upon him as upon a Traytor to the King and Kingdom 2. No Clergie-man or Monk or Lay-Brother may be suffered to cross the Seas or return into England unless he have a Pass from the Kings Iustice for his going out and of the King himself for his return if any one be found doing otherwise let him be taken and imprisoned 3. No man may appeal either to the Pope or Arch-bishop and no plea shall be held of the Mandates of the Pope or Archbishop nor any of them be received by any person in England if any one be taken doing otherwise let him be imprisoned 4. No man ought to carry any Mandat either of Clergie-man or Laick to either of them on the same penalty 5. If any Bishops Clergie-men Abbots or Laicks will observe the Popes interdict let them be forthwith banished the Realm and all their Kindred and let them carry no Chattels along with them 6. That all the Goods and Chattels of those who favour the Pope or Archbishop and all their possessions of whatsoever rank order sex or condition they be be seized into the Kings hand and confiscated 7. That all Clergie-men having revenews in England be summoned through every County that they return to their places within three months or their revenues to be seized into the Kings hands 8. That Peter-pence be no longer paid to the Pope but let them be gathered and kept in the Kings Treasury and laid out according to his command 9. That the Bishops of London and Norwich be in the Kings Mercy and be summoned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear before the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in interdicting the Land and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh by vertue of the Popes Mandat and publishing this excommunication without Licence from the Kings Iustices I hope these particulars will give full satisfaction that the Controversie between King Henry the second and Becket was not about some antient Saxon Laws but the very same principles which Gregory the seventh first openly defended of the Popes temporal Power over Princes and the total exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from Civil Iudicatures § 14. 2. This will yet more appear if we consider that the Pleas used by Becket and his party were the very same which were used by Gregory the seventh and his Successors The beginning of the quarrel we have seen was about the total exemption of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Orders from civil punishments which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors and it seems by Fitz Stephen that several of the Bishops were for yielding them up to the Secular Power after deprivation and said that both Law and Reason and Scripture were for it but Becket stood to it that it was against God and the Canons and by this means the Churches Liberty would be destroyed for which in imitation of their High-Priest they were bound to lay down their lives and bravely adds that it was not greater merit of old for the Bishops to found the Church of Christ with their blood than in their times to lay down their lives for this blessed liberty of the Church and if an Angel from Heaven should perswade him to comply with the King in this matter he should be accursed By which we see what apprehension Becket had of the nature of his cause from the beginning of it for this was before the King insisted on the reviving the Antient Customs at Clarendon Where it seems Beckets heart failed him which the Monks and Baronius parallel with S. Peters denying Christ but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance was his Cross-bearer who told him that the Civil Authority disturbed all that wickedness raged against Christ himself that the Synagogue of Satan had profaned the Lords Sanctuary that the Princes had sat and combined together against the Lords Christ that this tempest had shaken the pillars of the Church and while the Shepherd withdrew the sheep were under the power of the Wolf A very loyal representation of the King and all that adhered to his Rights After this he spoke plainly to him and told him he had lost both his conscience and his honour in conspiring with the Devils instruments in swearing to those cursed customs which tended to the overthrow of the Churches Liberty At which he sighed deeply and immediately suspends himself from all Offices of his Function till he should be absolved by the Pope which was soon granted him The Pope writes to the King very sharply for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs and threatens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement and tells him of Saul and Ozias and Rehoboam and parallels his sin with theirs and bids him have a care of their punishments And was all this zeal of the Pope only for the good old Saxon Laws When the Bishop of Exeter begged the Archbishop at Northampton to have regard to his own safety and theirs too he told him he did not savour the things of God he had spoken much more pertinently according to P. W. if he had told him he did not understand the Saxon Laws When the Earl of Leicester came to him to tell him he must come and hear his sentence he told him that as much as his soul was better than his body so much more was he bound to obey God and Him than an earthly King and for his part he declared he would not submit to the Kings judgement or theirs in as much as he was their Father and that he was only under God to be judged by the Pope and so appealed to him Which being an appeal to the Pope in a Civil cause about accounts between the King and him it does plainly shew that he did not think the King had any Authority over
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
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
made by Chapters so that in two years time he put in thirteen Bishops in the Province of Canterbury in spight of all the Statutes of Provisors and made his Nephew Prosper Colonna Arch-Deacon of Canterbury at fourteen years of Age who afterwards had as many Benefices granted him in England as came to five hundred Marks Besides he granted Appropriations Dispensations c. as he pleased without regard to the English Nation These things the English Ambassadours complained of in the Council of Constance and at last the Pope came to an Agreement with them which were called the Concordates between Martin 5 and the Church of England in which no manner of regard was had to the Statutes of Provisors although so often repeated only some agreements were made between the Pope and the English Bishops about Unions of Churches the capacity of English Bishops for any Offices of the Roman Court and such like But other Ambassadours who came a little after these pressed the matter somewhat harder upon the Pope against Provisions and Aliens and the Kings Supplies out of the moneys raised for the Court of Rome the Pope giving them no favourable answer they replyed unless he did presently satisfie their demands the King would make use of his own Right because it was not necessity but respect that made them seek to him and pray that they might enter this Protestation before the Cardinals by the Kings Command At this same time the States of France renewed their Statutes against the Popes Usurpations and added that they would not acknowledge him Pope till he consented to them and the Rector of the University of Paris was proceeded against as a Traytor for appealing from the Kings Edicts to the Pope Notwithstanding all this the same Pope sends his Nuncio into England to raise moneys who was called Ioh. Opizanus but he was cast into Prison for his pains for which the Pope expostulated very sharply with the Duke of Bedford about it H. 5. being then dead Archbishop Chiâ—helâ— was in that time no friend to the Popes continual encroachments upon which as appears by the Records he was cited to Rome and the Commons make it their request to the King that he would write to the Pope on his behalf but we are told by a considerable Lawyer that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops offered the King a large supply if he would consent that all the Laws against Provisors might be repealed but it was rejected by Humphry Duke of Gloucester who had lately cast the Popes Bull into the fire This is certain that Card. Beaufort then Bishop of Winchester incurred the penalties of the Statutes of Provisors 10 H. 6. for which he was questioned in Parliament but at last had his Pardon granted by the King with the consent of all the Estates By which we see that not one of all the Papal encroachments was ever cut off by the severity of the Poenal Laws as long as the Popes Supremacy was allowed for never any thing was more vigorously attempted more frequently enacted more severely threatned than this business of Provisors yet in despight of all the Laws it continued still as long as the Pope was allowed to have a Power above Laws and that he could null abrogate or dispense with them as he pleased And thus far I have given an impartial account of the ancient poenal Laws of England The like to which have been made in France Spain Italy Flanders and other parts of Europe as might be easily proved if it were necessary but I forbear that § 21. And come to compare the ancient poenal Laws of our own Nation with the modern as to the Reasons and Occasions of them that by them we may judge whether those who allow the ancient Laws to be just can have any ground to charge the present with injustice and Cruelty which can be only on one of these two grounds 1. Either that the Occasions of the present Laws were not so great Or 2. That the old Laws did not relate to the exercise of their Religion as the latter do I shall consider both of them 1. For the occasions of the present poenal Laws Mr. Cressy confesseth them to have been Treasons not consequentially only when an act may be declared to be Treason which in it self is not so but such Treasons as all Mankind acknowledge to be such viz. depriving Soveraign Princes of their Crown and Dignity endeavouring by open Rebellions and secret conspiracies to take away their Lives if these be not Treasons theâ—e are none such in the world And that these were the Occasions of the present poenal Laws I shall not produce the Testimony of the Lord Burleigh in his Book published on occasion of the poenal Laws called The Execution of Iustice in England not for Religion but for Treason imprinted at London A. D. 1583 but I shall make use of the Testimony of Persons less lyable to the exception of our Adversaries viz. The Secular Priests who printed their Important Considerations A. D. 1601. wherein their whole design is to shew that the poenal Laws considering the many Treasons which were the occasions of them were very just and merciful For they acknowledge 1. That the State of Catholicks was free from persecution the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth and that Parsons and Creswel confessed as much 2. That themselves were the true Causes of the change that was made towards them by Pius 5. moving a Rebellion here by Ridolphi exciting the King of Spain abroad to joyn his Forces and denouncing a Bull of Excommunication against the Queen and absolving her Subjects from their subjection on purpose to foment their Rebellion for depriving her of her Kingdom which they prove by particular circumstances 3. That they could hardly believe these things themselves till they saw them expressed and owned in the Life of Pius Quintus printed and allowed 4. That notwithstanding these things and the Rebellion breaking forth 1569. the Prisoners were only under greater restraint but none were put to death on that occasion but only such who were in actual Rebellion wherein they confess the Queen did no more than any Prince in Christendom would have done 5. That upon these occasions a Parliament was called 1571. and a Law made against the bringing any Bulls from Rome Agnus Dei's Crosses or Pardons and against all persons that should procure them to be brought hither which Law although they think it to have been too rigorous yet they cannot but confess that the State could not without the imputation of great carelesness of its own safety have omitted the making some Laws against those of their Religion And although they were in their opinion too severe yet they acknowledge 1. That the occasions were extraordinary most outragious as they expressed it 2. That the execution of them was not so Tragical as was represeuted 6. They believe that neither this Law nor any other would have been
State of Affairs so mightily changed among them since 1662 Will not the same Reasons â— old good still that the Iesuitical party is not to be trusted in these matters have they made any renunciation since of any of those doctrines which were thought so dangerous then or are they quite gone from us and to use Mr. Cressy's own comparison like Rats have forsaken a sinking Ship It would be great Joy to the whole Nation to hear we were so well rid of them but which way went they in what storm were they carried Was it in the late great Hurrican or were they conveyed invisibly through some passage under ground But they are subtle men they say and full of tricks and therefore may seem to be gone and not be gone even as they please Mr. Cressy it seems hath a a Power beyond Proclamations for he can send away the whole Fry in a trâ—ce but a turn of his hand and not a Iesuit or a man of his principles appears more in England But for all this neither the Benedictins nor Secular Priests can get rid of them so easily they swarm and govern too much for their interests they have too many Colleges in England to forsake them so easily and too rich a Bank to run away and leave it behind them it may be some of the poorer Orders would fain be fingering of it and therefore represent the poor harmless Iesuits as the only dangerous persons to the Civil Government whereas they think themselves as honest as their neighbours and say they hold no doctrines but what other Divines hold as well as they and if they understood themselves they would find to be the doctrine of the Catholick Church for six hundred years only a few temporizing Secular Priests and some others out of spight to them and hopes to get a better harvest to themselves when they are gone would lay all the blame upon the Iesuits whereas the doctrine they own was the general doctrine of their Church and received here in England the Council of Lateran which decrees the Popes power over Princes having been received here by the Council at Oxford A. 1222. and what aâ—do is made now with the Iesuits as though they had been the first broachers and only maintainers of the doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes which hath been decreed in Councils accepted by Churches and only opposed by some out of the passions of fear or hopes from temporal Princes What do ye tell us say they of the Sorbon a Club of State Divines that act as if they believed the King of France 's infallibility though they will not own the Popes What matter is it what some few men say that are over-awed by Secular Princes Shew us the Divines at Rome where men may speak freely that hold otherwise Was the Popes Nuncio that appeared so bravely for the Catholick Cause in the Head of an Army in Ireland a Iesuit or were 〈…〉 adherents that cast off the Kings Authority there Iesuits Are all the Anti-Remonstrants in Ireland Iesuits And what think we are not all those who opposed the Irish Romonstrance very ready to give full satisfaction in these matters Nay in the good humour Mr. Cressy found all English Roman Catholicks it was pitty he had not gone farther and who knows but in so lucky a day the Pope and Cardinal Barbarine might have subscribed the Censures of the Faculty of Paris But well fare the honest Apologist for the Iesuits who answered the Reasons unreasonable and declares that he is no Iesuit yet he saith plainly it would be a temerarious oath to for swear in general terms a deposing Power in the Pope but to detest it as an heresie would be absolutely Schismatical but he gives very foolish Reasons why the effect of that power need not be feared in England because forsooth Constantine left out England in his Donation to the Pope did he so indeed it was a great kindness to the place of his Nativity But withall he adds though there be much talk of King Johns Resignation of his Crown to the Pope yet the Deed of Conveyance lies so dormant in the Vatican that it could never be awaked or produced on any provocation And is this the security the Pope will never exercise his deposing Power in England But do not you think the Pope makes too much of it to shew it to all comers and yet this Apologist need not have gone to the Vatican to have seen that very Bull of the Pope wherein King John 's Resignation is contained for it was â—ately to be seen in England But suppose King John 's Original were burnt at Lions as our Historians think hath the Pope never challenged any Power over Princes but where they were feudatary to hâ—m Alas for his Ignorance the Pope â—or a need hath a threefold claim to this Pâ—wer and he can make use of which he thinks best the feudatary the direct temporal and the indirect temporal The Feuâ—ataâ—y is by voluntary resignation the direct teâ—poral by the Canon Law and the indirect by the Sins of Princes for those if they happen to be of a right kind as Heresie Apostasie Mis-government c. give the Pope a notable title to their Crowns for then they fall to him by way of Escheat as the principal Lord but suppose the Pope should to save quarrels quit the Feudatary Claim what security is there against the two other that may do as much mischief as the first For all that I can see then Mr. Cressy had not sufficient Letter of Atturney to declare in behalf of all the Roman Catholicks that they would subscribe the Censures of the Sorbon for the Popes deposing Power is yet good doctrine among many of them But why did Mr. Cressy take no notice of any difference among them about these points Must we Protestants be still thought such pittiful Animals as not to know that which hath been publickly canvased among them about the full Age of a man viz. near seventy years Alas for us we never heard of Blackwell and Barclay and Widdrington of one side nor of Bellarmin and Singleton and Fitzherbert of the other We have only a little Grammar Learning and can make a shift to understand the Greek Testament and read Calvins Institutions or Danaeus upon Peter Lombard but for these deep points it is well we have ever seen those that have heard others say they have seen the Books that handle them But why should Mr. Cressy so slily pass over the business of the Nuntio in Ireland was that nothing to the purpose Did not the Person of Honour mention it several times that he could not avoid seeing it But we must forget all those things and Cardinal Barbarins Letters about the Irish Remonstrance and whatever is material if it cannot be answered is better let slip Yet is it possible for us to believe that all Roman Catholicks are so willing now to renounce the dangerous doctrines when