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 to have repealed those and made others in their place For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ecclesiastical Laws as they saw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
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
Lords do Why be not under your Bishops visitation and léege men to our King Why make yée men believe that your golden Trental sung of you to take therefore ten shillings or at least five shillings woll bring souls out of Hell or out of Purgatory if this be sooth certes yée might bring all the souls out of paine and that woll ye nought and then yée be out of charity Why make ye men believe that he that is buried in your habit shall never come in Hell and ye wéet not of your self whether ye shall to Hell or no if this were sooth ye should sell your high houses to make many habits for to save many mens souls Why covet ye shrift and burying of other mens Parishens and none other Sacrament that falleth to Christian folk Why busie ye not to hear to shrift of poor folk as well as of Lords and Ladies sith they may have more plenty of shrift fathers than poor folk mow Why covet you not to bury poor folk among you sith they béen most holy as ye sayn that ye béen for your poverty Fréer when thou receivest a penie for to say a Mass whether sellest thou Gods body for that penie or thy prayer or else thy travel If thou saiest thou wilt not travel for to say the Mass but for the penie that certes if this be sooth then thou lovest too little méed for thy soul and if thou sellest Gods body other thy prayer then it is very simonie and art become a chapman worse than Judas that sold it for thirty pence Why bearest thou God in hand and slanderst him that he begged for his meat sith he was Lord over all for then had he béen unwise to have begged and have no néed thereto Fréer after what Law rulest thou thée where findest thou in Gods Law that thou shouldst thus beg what manner men néedeth for to beg for whom oweth such men to beg Why beggest thou so for thy Brethren If thou saiest for they have néed then thou dost it for the more perfection or else for the least or else for the meane If it be the most perfection of all then should all thy Brethren do so and then no man néeded to beg but for himself for so should no man beg but him néeded And if it be the least perfection why lovest thou then other men more than thy self For so thou art not well in charity sith thou shouldst séek the more perfection after thy power living thy self most after God And thus leaving that imperfection thou shouldst not so beg for them And if it is a good mean thus to â—eg as thou dost then should no man do so but they béen this good mean and yet such a mean granted by you can never be grounded on Gods Law for then both lerid and leard that ben in mean degrée of this world should go about and beg as you do And if all should do certes well nigh all the world should go about and heg as ye done and so should there be ten beggers against one Yever Why wilt thou not beg for poor bedred men that ben poorer than any of your Sect that liggen and mow not go about to help himselfes sith we be all Brethren in God and that Bretherhed passeth any other that ye or any man could make and where most néed were there were most perfection either else ye hold them not your pure Brethren but worse but then ye he unperfect in your begging Whos 's ben all your rich Courts that ye han and all your rich Iewels sith ye séen that ye han nought ne in proper ne in common If ye sain they ben the Popes why gather ye then of poor men and Lords and so much out of the Kings hand to make your Pope rich And sith ye sain that it is great perfection to have nought in proper ne in common why be ye so fast about to make the Pope that is your Father rich and put on him imperfection sithen ye saine that your goods ben all his and ye should by reason be the most perfect man it séemeth openlich that ye ben cursid Children so to slander your Father and make him imperfect And if ye sain that the goods be yours then do ye ayenst your rule and if it be not ayenst your Rule then might ye have both plow and cart and labour as other good men done and not so beg by Cosengery and idle as ye done If ye say that it is more perfection to beg than to travel or to work with your hand why preach ye not openly and teach all men to do so sith it is the best and most perfect life to the help of their fouls as ye make Children to beg that might have béen rich heirs Why hold ye not S. Francis his Rule and his Testament sith Francis saith that God shewed him this living this Rule certes if it were Gods Will the Pope might not fore do it or else Francis was a lier that said in this wise Why will ye not touch no coined money with the Cross ne with the Kings head as ye done other Iewels both of Gold and Silver certes if ye despise the Cross of the Kings head then ye be worthy to be despised of God and the King and sith ye will receive money in your hearts and not with your hands it séemeth that ye hold more holiness in your hands than in your hearts and then be false to God Why have yée exempt you from our King's Laws and visiting of our Bishops more than other Christian men that liven in this Realm if ye be not guilty of traitorie to our Realm or trespasâ—es to your Bishops Fréer what charity is this to the people to lie and say that ye follow Christ in poverty more than other men done and yet in curious and costly housing and fine and precious clothing and delicious and liking féeding and in treasure and jewels and rich ornaments Fréers passen Lords and other rich worldly men and soonest they should bring their cause about be it never so costly though Gods Law be put a back Fréer what charity is this to prease upon a rich man and to entice him to be buried among you from his parish Church and to such rich men give letters of Fraternity confirmed by your general Seal and thereby to bear him in hand that he shall have part of all your Masses Mattens Preachings Fastings Wakings and all other good déeds done by your Brethren of your Order both whilest he liveth and after that he is dead and yet ye witten never whether your déeds be acceptable to God ne whether that man that hath that letter be able by good living to receive any part of your déeds and yet a poor man that ye wite well or supposen in certain to have no good of ye ne given to such letters though he be a better man to God than such a rich man nevertheless this poor man
Prince doth challenge in another Princes Dominions contrary to and above the Laws of the Land and what obedience it is that subjects may pay to such a forreign Prince without the privity and contrary to the command of his own Soveraign which cannot be done by a general Answer but by distinct assigning the bounds of the Popes Temporal and Spiritual Power in England and what the full intent of them is that the King may discern whether he hath enough of either to preserve himself and the Peace of the Kingdom 3. That till such time as the Roman-Catholick Subjects of England give as good security to the King for their Fidelity and peaceable behaviour as all his other subject do they have no cause to wonder that they may be made subject to such Laws and restraints as may disable them from being dangerous when they profess to owe obedience to a forreign Prince who doth as much profess not to be a friend to their Countrey and will not declare what that obedience is 4. That the Roman Catholick Subjects of England have a more immediate dependance on the Pope than is allowed in any Catholick Countryes and that those who under pretence of Religion refuse to declare that it is in no Earthly Power to absolve them from their Fidelity to the King do refuse to give as full satisfaction and security for their Allegiance as Catholick Subjects do give for their Fidelity to Catholick Kings there being no French Roman Catholick who dares refuse to do it 5. That there is so much the more reason to require this since the late instance of the Irish Rebellion wherein the Pope absolved the Kings Subjects from their Oaths and took upon himself to be their General in the Person of his Nuntio and assumed the exercise of the Regal Power both at Land and Sea and imprisoned those Catholicks and threatned to take away their Lives who had promoted the peace and desired to return to the Kings subjection and hath since given a severe check to those of the Irish Nobility and Clergie who had declared that the Pope had no Power to dispense with their Fidelity to his Majesty or to absolve them from any Oaths they should take to that purpose and imployed his Nuntio to discountenance and suppress that Declaration and to take care that it should proceed no further and that Cardianl Barbarine at that same time put them in mind that the Kingdom of England was still under Excommunication and since that the Pope hath made many Bishops in Ireland which his Predecessors had forborn to do from the death of Queen Elizabeth to A. D. 1640. And therefore there is no reason to believe that the Court of Rome doth recede from its former principles as to these things § 2. These several particulars carry so much weight along with them as may easily raise the expectation of any one to see what Mr. Cressy will reply to them And in truth he enters the Field like a Champion for he saith his Apologie is published permissu Superiorum and what he writes on this special subject he desires the Person of Honour to consider not as the inconsiderable opinion of one particular person only And he doth assure him that there is not any one Point of Controversie upon which they more earnestly desire to be summoned to give an account before equal Iudges than this Thus he enters the lists and walks his ground and brandishes his sword and makes legs to the Judges with more than ordinary assurance and fails in no point of a Champion but overcoming his Adversary Which he is so far from that after these Bravado's and flourishes he dares not stand before him but looks round about him to discern any way to escape But although it be beneath the Greatness of his Adversary to pursue him over all his Bogs and to draw him out of his Fastnesses yet I shall endeavour to bring him into the Lists again that his Adversary may not go away blushing at so mean a Triumph There are five things which Mr. Cressy offers at by way of Answer to the Discourse of the Person of Honour on this subject 1. That there is no reason to suspect the Catholick subjects of England to be more wanting in Fidelity to their Prince than of other Nations whose Catholick Ancestors were so far from acknowledging any Supremacy of the Pope in Temporals and much less any Authority in him to depose Princes that even in those times when Church-men had the greatest Power in this Kingdom Statutes were made with the joynt Votes of the Clergic upon occasion of some Usurpations of the Roman Court in which the Penalty was no less than a Praemunire against any one who without the Kings License should make any Appeals to Rome or submit to a Legats jurisdiction or upon the Popes Summons go out of the Kingdom or receive any Mandats or Brieffs from Rome or purchase Bulls for presentments to Churches and which is most considerable the ground of their rejecting Papal Usurpations is thus expressed For the Crown of England is free and hath been free from earthly subjection at all times being immediately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same and not subject to the Pope to which he saith the Bishops assented and the Lords and Commons declared their Resolution to stand with the King in the cases aforesaid and in all other cases attempted against him his Crown and Regalitie in all points to live and to dye 2. That whatsoever they suffer here in England by vertue of the Poenal Laws it is purely for their Religion and the Catholick faith and therefore he parallels our Poenal Laws with those of the Medes and Persians against Daniel and of Nero Domitian and Dioclesian against the Apostles and their successors and yet Mr. Cressy confesses that the occasion of the Poenal Laws was the treasonable actions of some of their own Religion but he adds that they were scarce one score of persons and abhorred by all the rest for which actions of theirs he confesseth that care is taken of exacting Oaths both of Fidelity and Supremacy from Roman Catholicks as dangerous Subjects and dayes of Thanksgiving are kept for the discovery and prevention of such personal Treasons whereas saith he the whole Kingdoms deliverance from almost an universal Rebellion designing the extinction of Monarchy and Prelacy both and executing the murder of the lawful Soveraign is not esteemed a sufficient motive for such publick Thanksgivings neither it seems is there at all a necessity of requiring from any a Retraction of the Principles of Rebellion or a promise that it shall not be renewed By which we might think Mr. Cressy had been utterly a stranger in his own Countrey and had never heard of the thirtieth of Ianuary or the twenty ninth of May which are solemnly observed in our Church and the Offices joyned
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
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
another Remonstrance of the grievances of the Clergie and People of England which they sent to the Pope and Cardinals wherein they declare that it was impossible for them to bear the burdens laid upon them that the Kings necessities could not be supplyed nor the Kingdom preserved if such payments were made that the goods of all the Clergie of England would not make up the summ demanded but all the effect of this was only a promise that for the future the Kings leave should be desired which saith Matthew Paris came to as much as nothing By which we may judge of the miserable condition of this Nation under the intolerable Usurpations of the Court of Rome § 18. After so long tryal of the Court of Rome by Embassies Remonstrances and all fair wayes and no success at all by them at last they resolved upon making severe Laws the last Reason of Parliaments and to see what effect this would have upon the Clergie for the recovering the antient Rights of the Crown For we are to consider that the Controversie still was carryed on under the same pretence of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power and it is a fooâ—ish thing to judge of the sense of the Ruling Clergie at that time by the Acts of Parliament and Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire For by this time the Pope had them in such firm dependence upon him and they were fed by such continual hopes from the Court of Rome that they were very hardly brought to consent to any restraints of the Papal Power and in the Parliament 13 Rich. 2. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York for them and the whole Clergie of their Provinces made their solemn Protestation in open Parliament that they in no wise meant or would assent to any Statute or Law made in restraint of the Popes Authority but utterly withstood the same the which their Protestations at their requests were enrolled as that Learned Antiquary Sr. Robert Cotton hath shewed out of the Records of the Tower By which we see the whole Body of the Clergie were for the most exorbitant Power of the Pope and would not consent to any Statutes made against it So that what Reformation was made in these matters was Parliamentary even in that time and I do not question but the Friends to the Papal interest made the very same objections then against those Poenal Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire that others since have done against the Laws made since the Reformation And all that were sincere for the Court of Rome did as much believe it to be meer Usurpation in the Parliament to make any Laws in these matters For was the King Head of the Church might he not as well administer Saâ—raments as make Laws in deregation of the Popes Authority and Iurisdiction What was this but to make a Parliamentary Religion to own the Popes Sovereign Power no farther than they thought fit If any thing were amiss they ought humbly to represent it to his Holiness and to wait his time for the Reforming abuses and not upon their own Heads and without so much as the consent of their Clergie to make Laws about the restraint of that Power which Christ hath set up in his Church How can this be done without judging what the Pope hath done to be amiss and who dares say that his Holiness can so much err as to aim at nothing but his own profits without any regard to the good of the Church What! are they not all members and will they dare take upon them to judge their Head What! Sons rise up against their Father and Secular men take upon them to condemn the things which Christs Vicar upon earth allows What! and after all the Sufferings and Martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury that ever we should live to see a Parliament of England make Laws against that good Old Cause for which he dyed This is but to increase the number of Confessors and Martyrs as all those will be who suffer by these Laws For do they not plainly suffer for Conscience and Religion although the Parliament may call it Treason What an honour it is rather to suffer than to betray the Churches Liberty for which Christ dyed or to disobey the Head of the Church who commands those things which the Parliament forbids And must we not obey God rather than men After this manner we may reasonably suppose the Roman Clergie and their adherents at that time to have argued but it is well Mr. Cressy at least allows these Stasutes of Provisors and Praemunire and boasts of the Loyalty of those Ancestors that made them but I fear he hath not well considered the occasions and circumstances of them and what opposition the Papal Clergie made against them or else I should think he could not afterwards have declaimed so much against the injustice and cruelty of our Poenal Laws But even those antient Statutes were passed with so much difficulty and executed with so little care that they by no means proved a sufficient salve for the sore they were intended for as will appear by this true account of them § 19. In the time of Edward the first who was a Prince both wise and resolute the grievances of the Kingdom by his connivance at the Papal encroachments for a long time grew to that height that some effectual course was necessary to recover the antient Rights of the Crown which had now been so long buried that they were almost forgotten but an occasion happened which for the time throughly awaked him to a consideration of them Bonif. 8. out of a desire still to advance Ecclesiastical Liberty had made a Constitution strictly forbidding any Clergie-man paying any Taxes whatsoever to Princes without the Popes consent and both the payers and receivers were to fall under excommunication ipso facto not to be taken off without immediate Authority from the Court of Rome unless it were at the point of death Not long after this the King demands a supply in Parliament the Clergie unanimously refuse on account of the Popes Bull the King bids them advise better and return a satisfactory Answer at the time appointed Winchelsea then Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of the whole Clergie declares That they owed more obedience to the Pope than to the King he being their Spiritual and the King only a Temporal Soveraign but to give satisfaction to both they desire leave to send to the Pope At which saucy answer the King was so much provoked that he put the whole Clergie out of his Protection and seized upon their Lands for which an Act of Parliament was made to that purpose saith Thorn And although many of the Clergie submitted and bought their peace at dear rates yet Winchelsea stood it out ready saith Knighton to dye for the Church of Christ which if he had done there might have been a S. Robert as good a Martyr as S. Thomas of Canterbury For our Historians say
executed upon them had there not been daily new provocations such as 1. Sanders his confession in his Book De visibili Monarchia that the Pope had sent two Priests Morton and Web before the Northern Rebellion into the North to excite the Lords and Gentlemen to take up Arms declaring to them that the Pope had excommunicated the Queen and her Subjects were released from obedience to her and that Sanders doth justifie the said Rebellion and imputes the miscarriage of it to the over-late publishing the said Bull affirming that if it had been sooner published the Catholicks would undoubtedly so have risen as that they must have prevailed against the Queen and had certainly executed the said sentence at that time for her deposition from the Crown 2. Sanders his magnifying the Heads of that Rebellion after they had been arraigned condemned and executed by the ancient Laws of our Countrey for high Treason which course since that time was followed by Parsons and others 3. The full discovery of the plot of the Pope and King of Spain with the Rebels at home for the depriving the Queen of her Kingdom 4. Stukely's attempt in Ireland assisted by Sanders and others which was afterwards encouraged by the Pope himself when Sanders publickly appeared as a Ring-leader of the Popes Forces to perswade the Catholicks to joyn with the Rebels already in Arms. 5. Gregory 13. renewing the Bull of Pius 5. against Queen Elizabeth 6. Upon this the Iesuits coming into England who were the chief instruments of all the mischiefs against the Queen and of the miseries which they or any other Catholicks have upon these occasions sustained 7. Parsons his endeavour to set the Queens Crown on another Head as appeared by his Letter to a certain Earl 8. In all the Plots none were found to be more forward than the Priests and the Laity they say if the Priests had opposed themselves to their designs would have been over-ruled by them 9. All which considered they confess that no King or Prince in the World disgusting the See of Rome having either force or metal in him would have endured the Priests but rather have utterly rooted them out of their Territories as Traytors and Rebels both to him and his Countrey and therefore they rejoyce unfeignedly that God had blessed this Kingdom with so gracious and merciful a Soveraign who hath not dealt in this sort with them and that all Catholicks deserve no longer to live than they hereafter shall honour her from their â—earts obey her in all things so far as possibly they may and pray for her prosperous Reign and long life and to their powers defend her against all enemies whatsoever 7. They say notwithstanding all the former provocations from the time of the said Rebellion and Parliament there were few above twelve that in ten years had been executed for their consciences as we hold say they although our Adversaries say for Treason and of those twelve some perhaps can hardly be drawn within our account having been tainted with matters of Rebellion and for the rest although themselves knew them to be free from seditions her Majesty and the State could not know it and they had great Cause as Politick persons to suspect the worst 8. They confess that a Parliament being called A. 1576. no Laws were made at that time against them the antient Prisoners that had been more narrowly restrained A. 1570. were notwithstanding the Rebellion in Ireland again restored to their former liberty to continue with their Friends as they had done before and such who were not suspected to have been dealers or abetters in the said Treasonable actions were used with that humanity which could well be expected 9. The State having notice of the second excommunication and having found the bad effects of the former was concerned in Policy to prevent the like by the second And the jealousie was much increased by Sherwin's answer upon examination eight months before the apprehension of Campion For being asked whether the Queen was his lawful Soveraign notwithstanding any sentence of the Popes he refused to give any Answer Then followed a greater restraint of Catholicks than at any time before and in Jan. 1581. a Proclamation was made for calling home her Majesties Subjects beyond the Seas especially those trained up in the Seminaries pretending that they learned little there but disloyalty The same month a Parliament ensued wherein a Law was made agreeable to the Proclamation but with a more severe punishment annexed viz. the penalty of death for any Iesuit or Seminary Priest to repair into England c. 10. They confess that if all the Seminary Priests then in England or which should come after had been of the mind of Morton and Sanders or Parsons the said no Law no doubt had carryed with it a far greater shew of Iustice but that was say they the error of the State and yet themselves say the State could not know the difference between them and yet they add that it was not altogether for ought they knew improbable those times being so full of many dangerous designments and Iesuitical practices 11. This same year Campion and other Priests were apprehended whose answers upon their examinations agreeing in effect with Sherwins did greatly incense the State For this being one of the Questions propounded If the Pope pronounce her Majesty deprived and her Subjects discharged of their obedience and after either the Pope or some by his Authority invade the Realm which part would you take or ought a good subject to take To this they say some answered that when the case should happen they would then take counsel what were best for them to do others that when the case happened they would answer another that he was not resolved what to do and another that if such an invasion were made for any matter of his faith he thinketh he were bound to take part with the Pope Now say they what King in the World would not in the same circumstances justly repute such persons Traytors and deal with them accordingly 12. After this a new plot was laid between his Holiness the King of Spain and Duke of Guise for a sudden and desperate designment against her Majesty at which time they câ—nfess the Iesuitical humour had so possessed the hearts of sundry Catholicks as they rue and are ashamed at the remembrance of it And here they give a particular account of the Treasons of Throckmorton Arden Somervile Parry Northumberland Babington Stanley defended by Cardinal Allen who laid down this for a Maxim That in all Wars which may happen for Religion every Catholick is bound in conscience to imploy his Person and Forces by the Popes direction viz. how far and where either at home or abroad he may and must break with his Temporal Soveraign These things they say are necessary to be known to clear her Majesty from the imputations of more than barbarous cruelty towards them cast upon her by
the Iesuits when themselves were the Causes of all the Calamities any of them had indured since her Majesties Reign and they think all circumstances considered few Princes living of her judgement and so provoked would have dealt more mildly with such their subjects than she hath done with them 13. They confess the Spanish Invasion 1588. to be an everlasting Monument of Iesuitical Treason and Cruelty For it is apparent in a Treatise penned by the advice of Father Parsons altogether as they do verily think that the King of Spain was moved and drawn into that intended mischief by the long and daily solicitations of the Iesuits and other English Catholicks beyond the Seas affected and altogether given to Iesuitism and that Parsons as they imagine though the Book went under a greater name endeavoured with all his Rhetorick to perswade the Catholicks in England to joyn with the Spaniards but Caraâ—nal Aâ—en takes it upon himself and saith the Pâ—â—â— had made him Cardinal intending to send him his Legat for the sweeter managing this forsooth godly and great affair and there he affirms that there were divers Priests in the Kings Army ready to serve ever mans necessity and promises them the assistance of all the Saints and Angels and of our Blessed Saviour himself in the Soveraign Sacrament after a very invisible manner and they do not at all deny that the Pope did joyn and contribute towards this intended Invasion 14. That in these ten years from 1580. to 1590. the Prisoners at Wisbich lived together without any trouble Colledge-like without any wanâ— that of all sorts towards the number of fifty suffered death as they think most of them for conscience but as their Adversaries do still affirm for Treason that such Priests as upon examination were found any thing moderate were not so hardly dealt with insomuch as fifty five that might by the Laws have been put to death in one year 1585. and in a dangerous time were only banished and that although some hard courses were taken against them yet it was not by many degrees so extream as the Iesuits and that Crew have falsly reported and written of it 15. That there being just apprehensions of a new Invasion a Proclamation was set out 1591. against Semâ—nary Priests as being suspected to 〈◊〉 sent hither to pâ—â—pare a way for it and Parsons did not only acknowledge such a design but said the King of Spain had just cause to attempt again that enterprise but in the mean time they tryed a shorter course by the several Treasons of Heskett Collen both set on by Jesuits Lopez York Williams and Squire animated by Walpole the Iesuit 16. That Parsons at last set up the title of the Infanta of Spain and endeavoured to get subscriptions to it and promises to perswade the Catholicks of England to submit to it and that the Seminary Priests were to promote her Title against the Queen and her Lawful Successors From all which they confess that the Iesuitical designs abroad and the Rebellions and Traiterous attempts of some Catholicks at home have been the Causes of such calamities and troubles as have happened unto them great they confess in themselves but far less they think than any Prince living in her Majesties case and so provoked would have inflicted upon us And what more need to be said for the Vindication of the Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and cruelty than is here so ingenuously confessed by the Secular Priests men of the same Religion with those who complain of them men that suffered themselves in some measure men that throughly understood the true Reasons and casions of the several Laws that were then made and yet aâ—ter all this can Mr. Cressy have the impudence to parallel these Laws with those of Nero Domitian and Dioclesian and to say that they who suffered by them suffered only on the account of Religion If the primitive Christians had been guilty of so many horrible Treasons and Conspiracies if they had attempted to deprive Emperours of their Crowns and absolved Subjects from their Allegiance to them if they had joyned with their open and declared enemies and imployed persons time after time to assassinate them what would the whole World have said of their sufferings Would men of any common sense have said that they were Martyrs for Religion no but that they dyed justly and deservedly for their Treasons And for all that I can see all such as suffered in those dayes for their attempts on their Soveraign and Countrey are no more to be said to have suffered for Religion than the late Regicides who pleaded the Cause of God and Religion as well as they and if the one be Martyrs let the other be thought so too but if notwithstanding all their fair pretences of Religion and Conscience the Regicides shall not be thought to suffer for their Religion why then should those in Q. Elizabeth ' s or King Iames ' s time who suffered on the account of actual Treasons as those did who were engaged in the Gunpowder Treason as well as those who suffered in the Queens time And if the supposition of Conscience or Religion makes all men Martyrs the Regicides will put in their plea for Martyrdâ—m if it be not then there is no reason to say they suffered for Religion whom the Law condemned on the account of Treason If it be then allowed that the Laws must determin Treason then it will follow that those suffer for Treason who act directly against those Laws which determine it to be Treason § 22. But suppose the Law should make it Treason for men to serve God according to their Consciences as for Roman Priests to officiate or say Mass can such men be said to suffer for Treason if they be taken in the Fact and not rather for their Religion To this I answer that a great regard is to be had to the occasion of making such a Law for the right interpretation of it For if plain and evident Treasonable actions were the first occasion of making it as it is confessed in Q. Elizabeths time then all those Persons lyable to the suspicion of the State may be seized upon in what way soever they discover themselves and in this case the performing Offices of their Function is not the motive of the Law or Reason of the penalty but meerly the Means of Discovery of the Persons For by reason of Disguises and Aequivocations and mental Reservations being set on foot by the Iesuits to prevent discovery the Law had no certain way of finding them out but by the Offices of their Function in which the Magistrates are sure they will not dissemble so far as that a man who is no Priest will not take upon him to say Mass and therefore the Law looks upon the Office of Religion as only a certain Criterion of the Persons and not as the Reason of the punishment not as the thing that makes them guilty but as the way
is a part of Catholick Doctrine that heretical Princes being excommunicated by the Pope are to be deprived of their Kingdoms and their Subjects immediately upon excommunication are absolved from their Allegiance which he saith is not only the doctrine of Aquinas and Tolet and of the Canon Law but of the Council of Lateran and as he endeavours to prove of Scripture too and that War for Religion is not only just but honourable and for the deposing of Princes he brings several instances from Gregory the seventh downwards particularly King John and Henry the second and saith that the promise of obedience to Princes is only a conditional contract and if they fail of their faith to God they are free as to the faith they promised them This I confess is speaking to the purpose and the only way in appearance to make them suffer for Religion for no doubt these were the principles which led them to those treasonable practices for which they suffered But the main question remains still whether Treason be not Treason because a man thinks himself bound in Conscience to commit it and whether Magistrates have not reason to make severe Laws when such dangerous and destructive principles to Government are embraced as a part of Religion If there be any such thing as Civil Government appointed by God it must be supposed to have a just and natural Right and Power to preserve it self but how can it maintain it self without a just power to punish those that disturb and overthrow it if it have such a Power it must have Authority to judge of those actions which are pernicious and dangerous to it self and if there be such a natural inherent Right Power and Authority antecedently to any positive Laws of Religion either we must suppose that Religion left Civil Government as it was and then it hath the Power of judging all sorts of actions so far as they have an influence on the Civil Government so that no pretence of Religion can excuse Treasonable actions or we must assert that the Christian Religion hath taken away the natural Rights of Government which is very repugnant to the doctrine of Christianity and all the examples of the Primitive Church The substance therefore of what I say about suffering for Religion or for Treason is this that whatever principles or actions tend to the destruction of the Civil Government are in themselves Treasonable antecedent to Laws that Laws may justly determine the nature and degrees of punishment that those who are guilty of such actions let them be done out of what principle soever are justly lyable to punishment on the account of Treason and in the judgement of the Law and Reason do suffer on that account what ever private opinions they may have who do these things concerning the obligations of Conscience to do them and where there is just suspicion of a number of persons not easily discerned the Laws may make use of certain Marks to discover them although it happens that those marks prove actions of Religion which actions are not thereby made the Cause of their suffering but those principles or actions which were the first occasions and Motives of making those Laws From which it is I suppose evident that if the antient Poenal Laws were just and reasonable our modern Laws are so too because the Occasions of making them were of as high a Nature and the guilt as proportionable to the penalty and that men did no more suffer for Religion by these than by the Antient Poenal Laws § 23. 2. But supposing these Laws were acknowledged to be just and reasonable as to the Actors of those Treasons the Question is Whether they continue just as to other persons who cannot be proved actually guilty of those Treasons And here I confess as to the principles of natural Reason the case doth vary according to circumstances For 1. In a jealous and suspicious time when many Treasons have been acted and more are feared by virtue of bad principles the Government may justly proceed upon the tryal of the principles to the conviction of Persons who own them without plain evidence of the particular guilt of the outward actions of Treason For the very designing of Treason is lyable to the severity of the Law if it come to be discovered and where the safety of the publick is really in great danger the greatest caution is necessaâ—y â—or the prevention of evil and some actions are lawful for publick safety which are not in particular cases Especially when sufficient warning is given before-hand by the Law and men cannot come within the danger of it without palpable disobedience as in the case of Seminary Priests coming into the Nation when forbidden to do it under severe penalties In which case the very contempt of the Law and Government makes them justly obnoxious to the force of it He that owns the principles that lead him to Treason wants only an opportunity to act them and therefore in cases of great danger the not renouncing the principles may justly expose men to the sentence of the Law And if it be lawful to make any principles or declared opinions or words treasonable it cannot be unjust to make men suffer for them 2. In quiet times when the apprehension of present danger is not great it hath been the Wisdom of our Government to suffer the course of Law to proceed but not to a rigorous execution For the Law being in its force keeps persons of dangerous principles more in awe who will be very cautious of broaching and maintaining those principles which they hold and consequently cannot have so bad effects as when they have full liberty to vent them but in case Persons have been seized upon by the legal wayes of discovery who yet have not been actually seditious it hath been the excellent moderation of our Government not to proceed to any great severities 3. There can be no sufficient reason given for the total repeal of Laws at first made upon good grounds where there is not sufficient security given that all those for whom they were intended have renounced those principles which were the first occasions of making them These things I yield to be reasonable 1. That where there is a real difference in principles the Government should make a difference because the reason of the Law is the danger of those principles which if some hearâ—â—â—y renounce there seems to be no ground that they should suffer equally with those who will not but since the Law is already in being and it is easier to preserve old Laws than to make new ones whether the difference should be by Law or by Priviledge becomes the Wisdom of our Law-makers to determine 2. That such who enjoy such a Priviledge should give the greatest satisfaction as to their sincerity in renouncing these principles for if there be still ground to suspect their sincerity in renouncing by reason of ambiguous phrases aequivocations in words or