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 to have repealed those and made others in their place For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ecclesiastical Laws as they saw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
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
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
Ecclesiastical Office which Mr. Cressy admires the Benedictin Rule for he makes several considerable amendments and alterations and the Reason he gives why he would have the abstinence from flesh observed is because there was no reasonable Cause of changing it as there was in other parts of the Rule which is a manifest proof that he did not at all look on the Rule as coming from God but such as might be altered or amended as they thought fit After him Henry the 29. Abbot of Clugny made a large collection of all the alterations that had been made either by the Popes or their own Superiours in the statutes of their Order which are so many as are certainly enough to convince any man they looked not on the Benedictin Rule as coming at first from any divine Inspiration And among the considerable alterations made by this Henry himself the Chronicon Cluniacense takes notice of one very remarkable viz. that he first appointed that Monks should be shaved by Secular Barbers for which this very good Reason is given that when they shaved each other it was not rasure but excoriation for which kindness among many other good things which he did the Author of the Chronicon saith of him Anima ejus requiescat in pace Amen These Reformations of the Benedictin Rule by the Monks of Clugny were by no means pleasing to those who began the Cistertian Order for as appears by an Epistle of Petrus Cluniacensis to S. Bernard the Cistertians objected to them that they had made new Rules of their own and rejected the antient Rules for their own customs notwithstanding in their vow they had promised to observe the Benedictin Rule and they had made so great alterations and corruptions in the Monastick state that they had little besides the name of Monks left To this the Cluniacenses replyed by calling the Cistertians a new race of Pharisees that cry Touch me not I am holier than thou and how could they call themselves such strict observers of the Rule for the Cistertian Order was begun upon this pretence of restoring the genuin Benedictin Rule by keeping to the letter of it when the Rule commanded them to think better of others than of themselves and You say they are the Saints You are the rare men You are the only Monks in the world You must have a new colour of your own You must be the white Boys when all the rest must Pass for black sheep And no colour say they could have been worse chosen for such whining companions since white is the colour of Ioy and Feasting and Black of Mourning and Sadness Thus the jolly Monks of Clugny replyed to the new and severe Order of Cistertians And for the alterations of the Rule Petrus Cluniacensis answers they had done nothing amiss in it for he appeals to a higher Rule viz. that of Scripture and do you think saith he that when we promised to observe the Benedictin Rule we renounced the Rule of Scripture And from the practice of it in former Ages he pleads for the change of former Rules The Cistertians charged the Cluniacks with breaking their Rule in wearing of Furrs the Cluniacks brought not only the example of Adam for it but which was more to their purpose of S. Benedict too For say they very subtilly if he did not wear the Skins of Beasts how came the Shepherds to take him for a Beast when they found him in the Cave And do you think say they that your number of Coats is not as bad as our Furrs But the Cistertians were as angry with the Cluniacks for their wearing Breeches but they pleaded a jus Divinum of Breeches from Aarons Vestments for although they say ceremonials do not oblige yet the Apostle saith those things happened to them in a figure but they are somewhat troubled that Aarons were linnen drawers and represented the chastity of the Priests yet at last they best resolve the point into the â—postles precâ—pâ— about decency and modesty For the matter of their bedstraw and matts which the Cistertians objected Petrus 〈◊〉 tells S. Bernard they had plainly the Rule of their side which left those things to the care of the Abbot But they were somewhat more troubled about the pound of bread a day which the Benedictâ—n Rule is to exact in that a third part of it is prescribed to be reserved for supper but suppose say they it should be a little over or under the third part of a pound which was left at noon must we presently go to hell for it must men weigh their bread when they travel and carry the Cellerar with them for the Rule saith it must be delivered into his hands You indeed say they are the men that strain at gnats and swallow Camels and make our Rule to lay traps and snares for us and withall they call them the weighers of syllables the hunters of butterflies that prefer the letter of the Rule before discretion and set up the Authority of that against the conveniency of alterations which Petrus Cluniacensis at large pleads for towards thâ— end of that Epistle Notwithstanding all this S. Bernard laments the going of his Nephew Robert from the Câ—stertian Order to the Cluniack as if he had turned out of the way to Heaven into that which leads directly to hell and that not barely for the not performing his vow but he calls the Cluniacks Wolves in Sheeps cloathing such as laughed at voluntary poverty and fastting and vigils and silence and labour and accounted them madness and called idlâ—ness contemplation and eating and talking and all manner of jollity discretion How say they can God â—e delighted by our tormenting our selves where doth the Scripture command men to kill themselves what Religion is it for men to dig the earth to cut wood to carry dung Wherefore hath God made such provision if we may not taste it wherefore hath be given us bodies if we may not preserve them what wise man ever hated his own flesh By these arguments saith he was the poor silly sheep drawn to Clugny and there he was washed and shorn and had rich vestments put on him instead of his former Raggs By this we see that these several Orders charge hypocrisie upon each other as freely and as truly as we can do upon them all § 12. In Italy there was nothing of poverty left to which they so much pretended who began the Monastick way save only the bare name of the vow of Poverty And what is this but great hypocrisie to pretend their â—erfection to lye in poverty while they abound in Wealth As though it were only possible for men to be rich by themselves but in case they lived upon a common stock without any particular property they must be poor and could not be otherwise although they had above the third part of the Lands in the Kingdom in their hands as it was the case here in England Call you
was in defence of these Which I shall the rather do since I find his Life very lately published in French with a high character of him and dedicated to the King of France but especially because I find that those among us of that Religion who disown Gregory the sevenths principles are willing to believe him a Martyr upon other grounds viz. that his quarrel with the King was upon the account of the antient Municipal Laws of England which had a respect to the immunities of Clergie-men I shall therefore prove 1. That the matters in Dispute between the King and Becket were the very same that Gregory the seventh and his successors contended about with Christian Princes 2. That the pleas made use of by Becket and his party were no other than those which Gregory the seventh and his successors used so that they had no relation at all to the Municipal Laws but to the controversie then on Foot between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power In both which I hope to make some passages clearer than they have yet been having had the advantage of perusing several MSS. relating to this matter and especially that Volume of Epistles which Baronius accounts an unvaluable Treasure and as far as I can perceive the Cotton MS. is more compleat than the Vatican which Baronius made use of 1. For the matters in Dispute between them The whole controversie might be reduced to two heads 1. Whether Ecclesiastical Persons were unaccountable to the Civil Power for any misdemeanours committed by them 2. Whether the Pope had the Soveraign Power over Princes and all under them so that he might contradict the Kings Laws and Customs and command his Subjects against his consent to come to him and whether the Kings Subjects in such cases were not bound to obey the Pope let the King command what he please These in truth were the points in debate and the most weighty particulars in the Customs of Clarendon were but as so many branches of these In that Copy of them which is extant in the Cotton MS. and was drawn up by the Kings own Order the occasion of them is set down to have been the differences which had happened between the Clergie and the Kings Iustices and the Barons of the Kingdom about the Customs and Dignities of the Crown the most considerable of those which the Pope condemned were concerning 1. The Tryal of Titles of Advowsons and Presentations in the Kings Courts 2. The Tryal of Clergie-men before the Kings Iudges and the Churches not defending them after conviction or confession 3. That neither Archbishops Bishops or others should go out of the Kingdom without the Kings consent and giving security to the King that in going staying or returning they will do nothing to the prejudice either of the King or Kingdom 4. The profits of Ecclesiastical Courts upon absolutions for they demanded not barely personal security of all excommunicated persons to stand to the Churches judgements but Vadium ad remanens as the Law term was then which implyes real security or so much money laid down which was to come to the Court if they did not perform the conditions expressed For it was one of the things the Kings Ambassadour complained of to his Mother the Empress that the matters in controversie were not things of advantage to mens souls but to their own purses and that the Faults of Offenders were not punished in the Ecclesiastical Courts by the injoyning of Penance but by the giving of money And the Empress her self in her discourse with Nicholas de Monte the Archbishops Friend insisted on these pecuniary mulcts for sins as one of the great occasions of the troubles which made people suspect this pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty to be only a cloak for their own profits But however the good Pope whether he understood this Vadium ad remanens or no at all adventures condemned it For what should the Court of Rome do without exchanging Money for Sins 5. That no Person who held of the King in capite or belonged to him should be excommunicated or have his Land interdicted without making the King acquainted with it or his Iustice in his absence 6. That in matters of Appeal they were to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and from thence to the King and not to proceed further without his express leave These were the main things in dispute and what do they all amount to but the very same Rights of the Crown which the Kings predecessors did insist upon and what could be the sense of Becket in opposing them but that Clergie-men were not accountable for their Faults to the Civil Power and in case of the Popes command whether upon appeal or otherwise Bishops and others were to go to his Court in spight of the King as Anselm and Theobald had done before It is agreed by Baronius himself that the quarrel brake out upon the Arch-bishops denying to deliver up the Clergie-man that was accused and convicted of Murder after Ecclesiastical Censure to the Secular Power which the King earnestly desired and Becket as peremptorily denyed And upon what principle could this be done but the highest pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty that ever Gregory the seventh or any other asserted And it is plain by this that the King did not deny the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction nor hindered the proper Censures of the Church upon offenders but the Question was meerly this Whether Ecclesiastical persons having committed crimes against the publick peace were only to be punished with Ecclesiastical Censures and never to be delivered over to Civil Iustice Which was the main hinge of the Cause and which Becket stood to to the last And that this was the true State of the Controversie appears by the representation made of it to Alexander the third by the whole Clergie of the Province of Canterbury who confess that the peace of the Kingdom was very much disturbed by the insolence and crimes of some of the Clergie for upon the account of this exemption any Villains were safe if they could but get into any kind of Orders the King for the safety of his people pressed the Bishops after their Censures to give such guilty persons up to the Laws because bare degrading was by no means sufficient punishment for wilful murder which was all the Church censures reached to This all the Bishops at first opposed as derogatory to the Churches Liberty but afterwards Becket excepted the rest saw a necessity of yielding at present for as they confess themselves this liberty was extended even to a Lector or Acolythus and the Empress Matildis said that the Bishops gave orders very loosely without titles by which we may easily imagine what a miserable state the whole Kingdom might be in if these things were suffered So that we see the plea insisted upon at the beginning of the quarrell was that no persons in any Ecclesiastical
of finding the guilty As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Rebellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of as for instance I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced I desire to know whether if the Law made it poenal for men not to put off their hats only out of consideration of the Treasonable doctrines and practices they were guilty of should that man who were taken because he did not put off his Hat be said to sufâ—er on that account and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole intent and design of the Law is expressed to be to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her by giving assistance to them and endeavouring what in him lay to deprive the Queen of her Crown therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedience to the Pope is adjudged Treason as well as to any other Prince State or Potentate And where there is an equality of Reason why should there not be an equality in the punishment If any other Prince should have engaged Persons in the same actions which the Pope did there is no question they had been Treasonable actions the Question this whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it ceases to be Treason when the Pope allows or requires it If it doth so then the Pope must be acknowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes and they are all but his Vassals which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Treason then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason if the Law-makers think fit to make it so By no means for in this case there was an apparent tendency to disobedience and Treason in promising obedience to the Pope but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion considered as such but when Priests have been known to be the common instruments of Treasons as they were then by the confession of the Secular Priests then those actions which are performed by such persons and are proper only to themselves are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law designs to punish So that if we do allow that the Law of the Land can declare Treason in any sort of Persons and punish Persons for being guilty and appoint a certain means of discovering the guilty then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity alwayes supposing that some notorious Treasonable actions and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasions or antecedent Motives of those Laws which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses viz. the Secular Priests And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it viz. Whereas divers persons called or professed Iesuits Seminary Priests and other Priests which have been and from time to time are made in the parts beyond the Seas by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church have of late comen and been sent and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose as it hath appeared as well by their own examinations and confessions as divers other manifest means and proofs not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty but also to stir up and move Sedition Rebellion and open Hostility within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person and to the utter ruine desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented For reformation whereof be it ordained c. Can any thing be plainer from hence than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable attempts though masked only under a pretence of Religion If the design had been against their Religion the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion which it doth not But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Supremacy then it seems all the Religion they suffer for must be contaiâ—ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy And is this at last the suffering for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iurisdiction here But who were the men that first rejected that Authoâ—ity and Jurisdiction here Former Princes long before the Reformation did it as far as they thought fit and made no scruple of restraining it as far as they judged convenient and upon the same Reasons they went so far H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther For the reason they went upon was the repugnancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown and was there any other ground of the casting out the Popes Supremacy when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpoâ—e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent while the Head and Body were sound But who were the zealous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it and if they were not in good earnest they were notorious Hypocrites as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience with Bonners Preface wherein very smart things are said and with good Reason against making the Supremacy challenged by the Pope any part of Catholicâ— Religion Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time Fisher excepted joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass and hangs on a very slender thread If there be no more in Christian Religion than what is rejected by the Oath of Supremacy it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing for it filled the World with perpetual broils and confusions and produced dreadful effects where ever it was entertained and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen speaks out in this matter and saith plainly that it