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
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
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
precarious Princes and in a much more proper sense than the Popes use that Title The Servants of Servants Supposing then the Legislative and Civil Power to be equal since the Reformation and before our work is to compare the other circumstances together and if it appear that the Plea of Conscience and Religion did equally hold then and notwithstanding that the penalties were as great upon the same or far less occasions I hope our Laws will at least appear as just and reasonable as those were § 4. To make this out I must give an account of the State of those times and the Reasons and Occasions which moved the Law-makers to enact those Poenal Statutes in which I shall shew these two things 1. That they began upon a controversie of Religion and that the Poenal Laws were made against those persons who pleaded Religion 2. That the Reasons and Occasions of the Poenal Laws since the Reformation were at least as great as those 1. That the antient Poenal Laws were made upon a Controversie of Religion And to give a clear account of the Rise and occasion of them I must begin from the Norman Conquest for then those Foundations were laid of all the following controversies which happened between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power On the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power was the plea of Conscience and Religion on the behalf of the Civil Power nothing but the just Rights of Princes and the necessary preservation of their own and the publick safety And this Controversie between the Two Powers was managed with so much zeal and such pretences of Conscience on the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power that the Civil Power notwithstanding the courage of some Princes and the resolution of Parliaments had much ado to stand its ground or to be able to preserve it self from the encroachments and Usurpations of the other So that to see Princes give any Countenance to the same pretences would be almost as strange as to see them turn Common-wealths-men I know there were good Laws frequently made to strengthen the Civil Power but the very frequency of them shewed how ineffectual they were For what need many Laws to the same purpose if the first had any force at all and the multiplication of Laws for the same thing is a certain sign of defect in the Government To undeceive therefore all those who judge of the State of Affairs by the Book of Statutes I shall deduce the History of this great Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in England so far as to shew the necessity there was found of putting an issue to it by casting out the Popes pretended Power and Iurisdiction in this Nation The two first who began this Dispute were both men of great Spirits and resolute in their undertakings I mean william the Conqueror and Gregory the seventh who was the first Pope that durst speak out and he very freely declares his mind about the subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesiastical and the exemption of all Ecclesiastical Persons and Things from the Civil Power In his Epistle to Herimanus Bishop of Metz about the excommunication of Henry the fourth and absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance he thus expresses himself Shall not that power which was first found out by men who knew not God be subject to that which God himself hath appointed for his own honor in the World and the head of which is the Son of God Who knows not that Kings and Dukes had their beginnings from men who gained their Authority over their equals by blind ambition and intolerable presumption by rapines and murders by perfidiousness and all manner of wickedness Is not this a very pretty account of the Original of Civil Power by the Head of the Church But this is not all for he adds While Princes make Gods Priests to be subject to them to whom may we better compare them than to him who is the Head over all the Sons of Pride who tempted the Son of God with promising him all the Kingdoms of the World if he would fall down and worship him This is better and better it seems it is as bad as the sin of Lucifer for Princes not to be subject to the Pope and it is like the Devils tempting Christ to offer to make Priests subject to the Civil Power Who doubts saith he that Christs Priests are to be accounted the Fathers and Masters of Kings aud Princes and all the faithful Now saith he is it not a lamentable madness if the Son should offer to make the Father subject to him but one of his Successors did not think so that set up Henry the fifth against his own Father or the Scholar his Master or to think to bind him on earth by whom he expects to be loosed in Heaven These were the Demonstrations of that Age and the main supports of the Cause and in his Epistle to William King of England he tells him that God had appointed two kinds of Government for mankind the Apostolical and Regal that is much that the same Government should come only from the sins of men and yet be from the appointment of God but we are to consider he writ this to a King whom he hoped to perswade and therefore would not tell him the worst of his thoughts about the beginnings of Civil Power but saith he these two powers like the Sun and Moon have that inequality by the Christian Religion that the Royal Power next under God is to be under the care and management of the Apostolical And since the Apostolical See is to give an account to God of the miscarriages of Princes his wisdom ought to consider whether he ought not without farther delay take an Oath of Fealty to him For no less than that would content him but William was not so meek a Prince to be easily brought to this as Robert of Sicily Richard of Capua Bertram of Provence Rodulphus and several others were whose Oaths of Fealty to him are extant in the Collection or Register of his Epistles But William gives him a resolute answer which is extant among the Epistles of Lanfranc that for the Oath of Fealty he had not done it neither would he because he never promised it neither did he find that ever his predecessors had done it to Gregories predecessors The Pope storms at this and writes a chiding Letter to Lanfranc Arch-bishop of Canterbury who like a better subject to the Pope than to the King writes an humble excuse for himself to the Pope and tells him he had done his endeavour to perswade the King but could not prevail with him And Cardinal Baronius saith the Pope took it very ill at his hands considering the kindness he had received from the Papal See For Alexander the second favoured his cause against Harold and sent him a consecrated Banner and if we may believe Henricus de Silgrave the Pope gave him his title
give them an account of what he had done but the King sent them word that he appealed to Rome and so the business fell Thus we see how much he advanced the Popes power by yielding to a Legatine Power here to hear causes and suffering himself to be called to an account before it by which example Appeals grew very frequent and troublesome in his time as our Historians sadly complain and the Bishops and Monks went commonly over to Rome upon Appeals nay Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury went to the Pope then in Frarce expresly against the Kings command and the Pope suspended the rest that did not come and William Archbishop of York was deposed by the Pope meerly because nominated by the King and another put into his Room without the Kings consent or approbation the right of Investitures was condemned in a Council held at Westminster and the infringers of Ecclesiastical Liberty punished with Excommunication not to be taken off but by the Pope himself and after the reconciliation between Stephen and Henry 2. the effect of it saith Radulphus de Diceto was that the Churches Dominion was exalted by it § 9. This was the state of things here when Henry the second came to the possession of the Crown all the Customs of his Ancestors which they accounted Rights of the Crown were lost during the Usurpation of Stephen and strange insolencies and villanies were committed under the pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty or the unaccountabless of Ecclesiastical Persons for their actions to Civil Justice which made the Judges complain to the King of the thefts rapines and murders frequently committed by Clergy-men over whom they had then no jurisdiction and as Gulielmus Newburgensis saith the Bishops were more concerned to defend their priviledges than to punish offendors and thought they did God and the Church service in protecting them from the hands of Iustice. By which means things were come to that height between the Civil Ecclesiastical Power that one or the other must yeild the Ecclesiastical Power being in the hands of Thomas Becket a man after the Popes own heart and in whom the very soul of Gregory the seventh seemed to have come into the World again and the Civil Power in the management of Henry the second a Prince of a high Spirit and great courage and that could not easily bear the least diminution of his Power And where there was so much matter prepared and such heat on both sides it was no great difficulty to fore-tell a storm when the Clouds that hovered in the air should clap together or fall upon each other This was foreseen by the more discerning men of that time when they found the King bent upon making him Archbishop after the death of Theobald For however Becket himself boasted of the freedom of his election and the consent of the Clergie and Kingdom in it yet in the Epistle sent to him by the Bishops and Clergie of the whole Province they plainly tell him the Kings Mother disswaded him from it the whole Kingdom was against it and the Clergie sighed and groaned as much as they durst but the King would have it so For the King being then in Normandy sent over his great Minister Richard de Lucy on purpose to let the Suffragan Bishops and the Monks of Canterbury understand his pleasure that he would have Becket chosen Archbishop Which the Bishop of London in his excellent Epistle to Becket which gives a more true account of the Intrigues of the whole quarrel than any thing yet extant and which Baronius could not but see in the Codex Vaticanus although he takes no notice at all of it tells him was a greater invasion of the Churches Liberties than any of those things he made such ado about You saith he now tell us that we ought to obey God rather than men would to God we had done so then but because we had not the courage to do it then therefore we now suffer shame and confusion for it and the tears run down our cheeks for the calamities that are come upon us By which we may judge of the truth of the Quadripartite History written by Thomas his own Disciples as Baronius confesseth for therein Herebertus and Iob. Sarisburiensis tell of Thomas his protesting against his being Archbishop to the King and his being hardly perswaded to it by the Popes Legat whereas the Bishop of London proves to Becket himself that during Theobalds Life he had his eye upon it and made all the interest he could to obtain it upon his death that he gave several thousand Marks to the King to be Chancellour hoping by that means to come the easier into the See of Canterbury that being in Normandy at Theobalds death he posted over and the Kings Favourite brought his command for his election And it is likewise confessed by Fitz Stephen in the MS. History of Beckets Life that the whole Clergie knew it was the Kings pleasure he should be made Archbishop and that Gilbert then only Bishop of Hereford afterwards of London disswaded all that he could from his election and after said that the King had done a strange thing viz. he had made a Souldier Archbishop of Canterbury for but a little before he had been in arms with the King at Tholouse And this opposition of his he calls not only God to witness was not out of any ambitious desire to have been in his Room as Thomas and the Monks charge him but Becket himself for no man could attempt any such thing but he must know it his Favour being so great with the King then But it seems the wiser men among the Bishops thought that by reason of his insolent rash and inflexible temper which even his Friends complained of in him he would bring all things into confusion When he was summoned at Northampton to appear before the King he would needs carry the Cross with his own hands into the Court upon which the Bishop of London told him he behaved himself as if he had a mind to disturb the whole Kingdom You carry the Cross saith he and what if the King should take his Sword but said he to one that stood by He alwayes was a Fool and ever will be one These things I only mention to let men see what apprehensions the more prudent men of that time had of the likelihood of great disturbances coming to the Church by his ill management although by the rashness of others added to his he hath had the fortune to be accounted a Saint and a Martyr § 10. But my business is not to write a particular account of all the passages between the King and him after the difference between them which hath been so largely done by Baronius and our own Historians but I shall shew that the Controversie between them was about Gregory the sevenths principles and if he dyed a Martyr for any thing it
as the Bishop of London saith had rather he had wounded his body than his reputation by such an escape into forreign parts where he was sure to be represented as a Tyrant and persecutor of the Church Becket was driven back by a Tempest the King takes no notice of it uses him kindly and bids him take care of his Church Not long after a Controversie happened about some Lands which Becket challenged as belonging to his Church the King sends to him to do justice to the Person concerned in it notwithstanding complaints are brought to the King for want of it the King sends a summons to him to appear before him that he might have the hearing of the Cause Becket refuses to obey the summons and sends the King word he would not obey him in this matter at which saucy answer the King was justly provoked as a great disparagement to his Royal Authority Upon this he calls the Parliament at Northhampton where the People met as one man the King represents his case with becoming modesty and eloquence however he consented that his fault should be expiated by a pecuniary mulct after this the King exhibited a complaint against him for a great summ of money received by him during his Chancellorship which he had never given account for it was 44000 Marks as the Bishop of London told the Cardinals who were sent by the Pope afterwards to end the Controversie Becket pleaded that he was discharged by his promotion as though as the Bishop of London said promotion were like Baptism that wiped away all Scores But this being a meer civil Cause as the Bishop tells Becket yet he denyed to give answer to the King and appealed to the Pope as the judge of all men living saith sarisburiensis and soon after in a disguise he slips over the Sea and hastens to the Pope who received him with great kindness and then he resigns his Arch-bishoprick into the Popes hands as our Historians generally agree because he received investiture from the King and takes it again from the Pope This is the just and true account of the state of the Controversie as it is delivered by one of the same time that knew all the intrigues and which he writes to Becket himself who never answered it that I can find nor any of his party and by one who was a Person of great reputation with the Pope himself for his Learning Piety and the severity of his Life And is it now possible to suppose that Gregory 7. if he had been in Beckets place could have managed his cause with more contempt of Civil Government than he did when he refused to obey the Kings summons declined his Iudicature in a Civil Cause and broke his Laws against his own solemn promise and perjured himself for the Popes honour If this be only defending ancient priviledges of the Church I may expect to see some other moderate men of the Roman Church plead for Gregory 7. as only a stout defender of the ancient Canons and an enemy to the Popes temporal Power But men are to be pittyed when they meet with an untoward objection such as that from Beckets Saintship and Martyrdom is to prove the doctrine of Ecclesiastical Liberty and the Popes temporal Power to be the sense of their Church if they cannot find that they endeavour to make a way to escape and I hope the Persons I now deal with have more ingenuity than to think this new pretence any satisfactory plea for Beckets Cause And as the Bishop of London tells Becket it is not the suffering but the cause which makes a Martyr to suffer hardship with a good mind is honour to a man but to suffer in a bad cause and obstinately is a reproach and in this dispute he saith the whole weight of it lay upon the Kings power and some Customs of his Ancestors and the King would not quit the Rights of his Crown which were confirmed by Antiquity and the long usage of the Kingdom This is the cause why you draw your sword against the Sacred Person of the King in which it is of great consequence to consider that the King doth not pretend to make new Laws but as the whole Kingdom bears him witness such as were practised by his Ancestors And although it appears that he wished well to the main of Beckets Cause yet he blames him exceedingly for rashness indiscretion and insolency in the management of it and bids him remember that Christ never entred Zacchaeus his house till he came down from the Sycamore Tree and that the way of humility did far better become him and was likely to prevail more with the King than than which he took § 13. But Becket being out of the Kings reach and backed by the King of France and favoured by the Court of Rome made nothing of charging the King with Tyranny as he and his party do very frequently in the Volume of Epistles and because the Empress his Mother pleaded for some of the Customs as antient Rights of the Crown she is said to be of the raâ—e of Tyrants too The King finding himself thus beset with a swarm of Horneâ—◠〈…〉 of his own Power to 〈…〉 farther attempts upon his Crown and Royal Authority which was exposed to such publick ignominy in forreign parts and therefore sends this precept to all the Bishops to suspend the profits of all such Clergie-men as adhered to him Nosti quam male Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus operatus â— est adversus me Regnum meum quam male recesserit ideo mando tibi quod Clerici sui qui circa ipsum fuerint post fugam suam alii Clerici qui detraxerunt honori meo honori Regni non percipiant aliquid de redditibus illis quos habuerant in Episcopatu tuo nisi per me nec habâ—ant aliquod auxilium nec consilium a Te Teste Richardo de Luci apud Marlebergam After this the King commands the Sheriffs to imprison every one that appealed to the Court of Rome and to keep them in hold till his pleasure were known and he causes all the Ports to be watched to prevent any Letters of Interdict from the Pope and if any Regular brought them he was to have his feet cut off if in Orders he was to lose his eyes and something else and if he were a Lay-man he was to be hanged Accordingly the Popes Nuntio was taken with Letters of the Popes coming over for England and imprisoned by the Kings Order But the difference still growing higher and the King being threatned with excommunication and the Kingdom with an interdict the King commands an Oath to be taken against receiving Bulls from the Pope or obeying him or the Archbishop and the penalty no less than that of Treason which is so remarkable a thing I shall give it in the words of the MS. A. D. MCLXIX Rex Henricus jurare facit
omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum contra Dom. Papam Alexandrum B. Thomam Archiepiscopum quod eorum non recipient literas neque obedient mandatis Et si quis inveâ—tus foret literas eorum deferens traderetur Potestatibus tanquam Coronae Regis capitalis inimicus Here we see an Oath of Supremacy made so long ago by Henry the second and those who out of zeal or whatsoever motive brought over Bulls of the Popes made lyable to the charge of Treason but the Archbishop by vertue of his Legatine Power took upon him to send persons privately into England and to absolve them from this Oath as is there expressed The same year the King being in Normandy sent over these Articles to be sworn and observed by the Nobles and People of England 1. If any one be found carrying Letters from the Pope or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury containing an Interdict of Religion in England let him be taken and without delay let justice pass upon him as upon a Traytor to the King and Kingdom 2. No Clergie-man or Monk or Lay-Brother may be suffered to cross the Seas or return into England unless he have a Pass from the Kings Iustice for his going out and of the King himself for his return if any one be found doing otherwise let him be taken and imprisoned 3. No man may appeal either to the Pope or Arch-bishop and no plea shall be held of the Mandates of the Pope or Archbishop nor any of them be received by any person in England if any one be taken doing otherwise let him be imprisoned 4. No man ought to carry any Mandat either of Clergie-man or Laick to either of them on the same penalty 5. If any Bishops Clergie-men Abbots or Laicks will observe the Popes interdict let them be forthwith banished the Realm and all their Kindred and let them carry no Chattels along with them 6. That all the Goods and Chattels of those who favour the Pope or Archbishop and all their possessions of whatsoever rank order sex or condition they be be seized into the Kings hand and confiscated 7. That all Clergie-men having revenews in England be summoned through every County that they return to their places within three months or their revenues to be seized into the Kings hands 8. That Peter-pence be no longer paid to the Pope but let them be gathered and kept in the Kings Treasury and laid out according to his command 9. That the Bishops of London and Norwich be in the Kings Mercy and be summoned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear before the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in interdicting the Land and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh by vertue of the Popes Mandat and publishing this excommunication without Licence from the Kings Iustices I hope these particulars will give full satisfaction that the Controversie between King Henry the second and Becket was not about some antient Saxon Laws but the very same principles which Gregory the seventh first openly defended of the Popes temporal Power over Princes and the total exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from Civil Iudicatures § 14. 2. This will yet more appear if we consider that the Pleas used by Becket and his party were the very same which were used by Gregory the seventh and his Successors The beginning of the quarrel we have seen was about the total exemption of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Orders from civil punishments which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors and it seems by Fitz Stephen that several of the Bishops were for yielding them up to the Secular Power after deprivation and said that both Law and Reason and Scripture were for it but Becket stood to it that it was against God and the Canons and by this means the Churches Liberty would be destroyed for which in imitation of their High-Priest they were bound to lay down their lives and bravely adds that it was not greater merit of old for the Bishops to found the Church of Christ with their blood than in their times to lay down their lives for this blessed liberty of the Church and if an Angel from Heaven should perswade him to comply with the King in this matter he should be accursed By which we see what apprehension Becket had of the nature of his cause from the beginning of it for this was before the King insisted on the reviving the Antient Customs at Clarendon Where it seems Beckets heart failed him which the Monks and Baronius parallel with S. Peters denying Christ but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance was his Cross-bearer who told him that the Civil Authority disturbed all that wickedness raged against Christ himself that the Synagogue of Satan had profaned the Lords Sanctuary that the Princes had sat and combined together against the Lords Christ that this tempest had shaken the pillars of the Church and while the Shepherd withdrew the sheep were under the power of the Wolf A very loyal representation of the King and all that adhered to his Rights After this he spoke plainly to him and told him he had lost both his conscience and his honour in conspiring with the Devils instruments in swearing to those cursed customs which tended to the overthrow of the Churches Liberty At which he sighed deeply and immediately suspends himself from all Offices of his Function till he should be absolved by the Pope which was soon granted him The Pope writes to the King very sharply for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs and threatens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement and tells him of Saul and Ozias and Rehoboam and parallels his sin with theirs and bids him have a care of their punishments And was all this zeal of the Pope only for the good old Saxon Laws When the Bishop of Exeter begged the Archbishop at Northampton to have regard to his own safety and theirs too he told him he did not savour the things of God he had spoken much more pertinently according to P. W. if he had told him he did not understand the Saxon Laws When the Earl of Leicester came to him to tell him he must come and hear his sentence he told him that as much as his soul was better than his body so much more was he bound to obey God and Him than an earthly King and for his part he declared he would not submit to the Kings judgement or theirs in as much as he was their Father and that he was only under God to be judged by the Pope and so appealed to him Which being an appeal to the Pope in a Civil cause about accounts between the King and him it does plainly shew that he did not think the King had any Authority over
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
who so meekly resigned his Crown to the Popes Legat and did swear homage to the Pope declaring that he held the Kingdom in Fee from him upon the annual payment of a thousand Marks And I desire it may be observed that the Oath of Fealty extant in Matthew Paris and the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register which King Iohn made to the Pope hath no other expressions in it than are contained in the Oath which all the Popish Bishops now take at their consecration only with the variation of necessary circumstances And although Sr. Tho. Moor once denyed any such thing as King Iohns Resignation of his Crown yet the matter is now past all dispute by the concurrence of the Records of the Tower and the Vatican Register and the Authentick Bull of the Pope and the Epistles of Innocent the third published out of MS. by Bosquet now a Bishop in France wherein the devout Pope attributes thus resignation of his Crown to no less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and saith the Kingdom of England was then become a Royal Priesthood and in another Bull he accepts of the Resignation and declares that whereas before these Provinces were subject to the Roman Church in Spirituals they were now become subject in Temporals too and from hence he requires an Oath of Fealty from himself and all his Successors and charges all persons under severe penalties not to dare to infringe this Charter And although the Parliament 40 Edw. 3. did deny the payment of the Popes Tribute upon the invalidity of King John ' s Charter not being done by the consent of the Barons as the Pope said it was yet we are to consider what Gregory the seventh said to the Princes of Spain that a Kingdom once belonging to the See of Rome can never be alienated from it but although the Use be discontinued yet the Right still continues so that although the thing be never so much null and vain in it self yet it still serves for pretence to usurp the same temporal Power over our Princes when opportunity serves them And it is certain that Henry the third did swear homage and Fealty to the Pope at his Coronation and promised to pay the tribute which was performed several times in his Reign till the King and People protested against it in the Council of Lyons as a grievance of the Kingdom which was extorted by the Roman Court unjustly in a time of War and to which the Nobles had never consented and never would But whatever opinion the Nobles were of the Pope had the Bishops sure to him for upon his Message to them they all set their hands to King John ' s Charter of Resignation which highly provoked the King and made him swear that he would stand for the Liberty of the Kingdom and never pay the Tribute more while he breathed In the same Council the English complained that infinite numbers of Italians were beneficed among them that more money went out of England every year into Italy than the Kings Revenues came to that the Popes Legats grew more intolerable and by reservations and Provisions and one trick or other the Patrons were defrauded of their Right and the Clergy impoverished by unreasonable pensions and whoever would not presently submit his Soul was immediately put into the Devils Custody by Excommunication Notwithstanding all these complaints the Pope goes on in the same way with them and resolved to try how much the Asses back would bear without kicking the English Ambassadours go away highly incensed from the Council and resolved to defend their own rights but they yet wanted a Prince of Spirit enough to head them Before this time the insolence of the Roman Clergy was grown so intolerable to the Nation that the Nobility and Commonalty joyned together in a resolution to free themselves from this Yoke and threated the Bishops to burn their goods if they went about to defend them they sent abroad their Letters to several places with a Seal with two swords between which were written Ecce duo gladii hic in abuse of the Roman Court and it seems they destroyed the goods of several Roman Clergy-men but Matt. Paris saith they were all excommunicated by the Bishop of London and ten Bishops more although Matt. Mestminster saith the Bishop of London was cited to Rome for favouring them and having his Purse well emptied was sent home again It seems the Pope was so nettled at the Remonstrance of the English Nobility at the Council of Lyons that he entred into a secret consultation with the King of France either to depose the King of England or to bring him wholly to his will so that neither he nor his people should so much as dare to mutter against the oppressions of the Roman Court and the Pope offered the utmost assistance of his Power for it but the King of France declined the employment However the Pope goes on with his work and grants a Bull for raising ten thousand Marks out of vacant Benefices in the Province of Canterbury which so incensed the King that he made at Proclamation that whosoever brought Bulls of Provision from Rome should be taken and imprisoned but this did little good saith Matth. Paris because of the uncertain humour of the King The same year a Parliament was called about the intolerable grievances of the Roman Court in which many of the Bishops favoured the Popes party but at the Parliaments meeting at Winchester the Ambassadors were returned from the Pope who gave a lamentable account of their Ambassy viz. that instead of any redress the Pope told them the King of England kicks and playes the Frederick whom he had deposed from the Empire in the Council of Lyons he hath his Council and I have mine which I will follow and withal they say they were scorned and despised as a company of Schismaticks for daring to complain Upon this the King issues out another Proclamation that no money should be sent out of England to the Pope At which the Pope was so enraged that he sent a severe Message to the Bishops of England under pain of excommunication and suspension to see his Money punctually paid to his Nuntio by such a day in London and the King by the perswasion of the Bishop of Worcester and some others fairly yields and gives up the Cause to the Pope After this the Pope sends for a third part of the profits of all Benefices from Residents and half from Non-residents with an Italian Gentleman called Non obstante that had almost undone the Nation the Clergie meet at London about it and make a grievous Remonstrance of their sad condition declaring that the whole Kingdom could not satisfie the Popes demands but it seems the Bishops brought the inferiour Clergie to it against the consent of the King and Parliament The next year the Parliament made
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
State of Affairs so mightily changed among them since 1662 Will not the same Reasons â— old good still that the Iesuitical party is not to be trusted in these matters have they made any renunciation since of any of those doctrines which were thought so dangerous then or are they quite gone from us and to use Mr. Cressy's own comparison like Rats have forsaken a sinking Ship It would be great Joy to the whole Nation to hear we were so well rid of them but which way went they in what storm were they carried Was it in the late great Hurrican or were they conveyed invisibly through some passage under ground But they are subtle men they say and full of tricks and therefore may seem to be gone and not be gone even as they please Mr. Cressy it seems hath a a Power beyond Proclamations for he can send away the whole Fry in a trâ—ce but a turn of his hand and not a Iesuit or a man of his principles appears more in England But for all this neither the Benedictins nor Secular Priests can get rid of them so easily they swarm and govern too much for their interests they have too many Colleges in England to forsake them so easily and too rich a Bank to run away and leave it behind them it may be some of the poorer Orders would fain be fingering of it and therefore represent the poor harmless Iesuits as the only dangerous persons to the Civil Government whereas they think themselves as honest as their neighbours and say they hold no doctrines but what other Divines hold as well as they and if they understood themselves they would find to be the doctrine of the Catholick Church for six hundred years only a few temporizing Secular Priests and some others out of spight to them and hopes to get a better harvest to themselves when they are gone would lay all the blame upon the Iesuits whereas the doctrine they own was the general doctrine of their Church and received here in England the Council of Lateran which decrees the Popes power over Princes having been received here by the Council at Oxford A. 1222. and what aâ—do is made now with the Iesuits as though they had been the first broachers and only maintainers of the doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes which hath been decreed in Councils accepted by Churches and only opposed by some out of the passions of fear or hopes from temporal Princes What do ye tell us say they of the Sorbon a Club of State Divines that act as if they believed the King of France 's infallibility though they will not own the Popes What matter is it what some few men say that are over-awed by Secular Princes Shew us the Divines at Rome where men may speak freely that hold otherwise Was the Popes Nuncio that appeared so bravely for the Catholick Cause in the Head of an Army in Ireland a Iesuit or were 〈…〉 adherents that cast off the Kings Authority there Iesuits Are all the Anti-Remonstrants in Ireland Iesuits And what think we are not all those who opposed the Irish Romonstrance very ready to give full satisfaction in these matters Nay in the good humour Mr. Cressy found all English Roman Catholicks it was pitty he had not gone farther and who knows but in so lucky a day the Pope and Cardinal Barbarine might have subscribed the Censures of the Faculty of Paris But well fare the honest Apologist for the Iesuits who answered the Reasons unreasonable and declares that he is no Iesuit yet he saith plainly it would be a temerarious oath to for swear in general terms a deposing Power in the Pope but to detest it as an heresie would be absolutely Schismatical but he gives very foolish Reasons why the effect of that power need not be feared in England because forsooth Constantine left out England in his Donation to the Pope did he so indeed it was a great kindness to the place of his Nativity But withall he adds though there be much talk of King Johns Resignation of his Crown to the Pope yet the Deed of Conveyance lies so dormant in the Vatican that it could never be awaked or produced on any provocation And is this the security the Pope will never exercise his deposing Power in England But do not you think the Pope makes too much of it to shew it to all comers and yet this Apologist need not have gone to the Vatican to have seen that very Bull of the Pope wherein King John 's Resignation is contained for it was â—ately to be seen in England But suppose King John 's Original were burnt at Lions as our Historians think hath the Pope never challenged any Power over Princes but where they were feudatary to hâ—m Alas for his Ignorance the Pope â—or a need hath a threefold claim to this Pâ—wer and he can make use of which he thinks best the feudatary the direct temporal and the indirect temporal The Feuâ—ataâ—y is by voluntary resignation the direct teâ—poral by the Canon Law and the indirect by the Sins of Princes for those if they happen to be of a right kind as Heresie Apostasie Mis-government c. give the Pope a notable title to their Crowns for then they fall to him by way of Escheat as the principal Lord but suppose the Pope should to save quarrels quit the Feudatary Claim what security is there against the two other that may do as much mischief as the first For all that I can see then Mr. Cressy had not sufficient Letter of Atturney to declare in behalf of all the Roman Catholicks that they would subscribe the Censures of the Sorbon for the Popes deposing Power is yet good doctrine among many of them But why did Mr. Cressy take no notice of any difference among them about these points Must we Protestants be still thought such pittiful Animals as not to know that which hath been publickly canvased among them about the full Age of a man viz. near seventy years Alas for us we never heard of Blackwell and Barclay and Widdrington of one side nor of Bellarmin and Singleton and Fitzherbert of the other We have only a little Grammar Learning and can make a shift to understand the Greek Testament and read Calvins Institutions or Danaeus upon Peter Lombard but for these deep points it is well we have ever seen those that have heard others say they have seen the Books that handle them But why should Mr. Cressy so slily pass over the business of the Nuntio in Ireland was that nothing to the purpose Did not the Person of Honour mention it several times that he could not avoid seeing it But we must forget all those things and Cardinal Barbarins Letters about the Irish Remonstrance and whatever is material if it cannot be answered is better let slip Yet is it possible for us to believe that all Roman Catholicks are so willing now to renounce the dangerous doctrines when
England makes them guilty of violating the Rights of the Crown If they say the Case is not the same now upon the Change of Religion I desire to know of them whether any ancient Rights of the Crown are lost by casting off the Popes Authority if they be not they are good still and what are they then that deny them if they be lost then our Kings have lost some of their Soveraign Rights which their Ancestors valued above half their Kingdoms and how could they lose them by casting off the Pope if they did not receive them â—rom him If they received them from him then they make the Kings Power to be so far at least derived from the Pope for if it were independent upon him how could they lose any Power by casting off the Popes Authority If it be said that these were priviledges granted by the Popes I utterly deny it for our Kings challenged them in spight of the Popes and exercised them in direct opposition to their Bulls and Decrees even the Decrees of Councils as well as Popes as is fully manifested in the foregoing Discourse How then can such men plead for the repeal of Poenal Laws whose principles do so directly contradict the ancient acknowledged Rights of the Crown of England For others that will not only own these ancient Rights but give sufficient security without fraud and equivocation of their sincerity in renouncing the Popes power of deposing Princes and other Principles destructive to Government since it was never the intention of our Laws to persecute such they need not fear the enjoyment of all Reasonable Protection by them But it doth not become me to discourse of such points which are far more proper for the Wisdom and Council of the whole Nation And I know no true Protestant would envy the quiet and security of innocent and peaceable men where there is sufficient assurance that by favour received they will not grow more unquiet But we cannot take too great care to prevent the restless designs of those who aim at nothing more than the undermining and blowing up our established Church and Religion Which God preserve Thus much may serve for an Answer to these points of Mr. Cressy's Book the rest I leave to a better hand And now My Lord what reason have I to beg pardon for so tedious a Discourse But I know your Lordships love to the Cause as well as to the Person concerned will make you ready to excuse and forgive My Lord Your Lordships most humble and obedient Servant Edw. Stillingfleet Caramuel Commentar in Regul S. Bened. n. 831. Prefaâ—e n. 33. p. 23. P. 7. P. 17 19 â—0 Epistle Apologetâ—cal sect 1 2 3. from p. 6. to p. 39. P. 6. P. 7. 1 Pet. 2. 23. Mat. 5. 22. 11. 29. Eph. 4. 31. Exod. 32. 19. P. 11 12 13 15 16. P. 7. Mr. Crâ—sâ— Ep. Dedicat. P. 35. P. 52. P. â—2 Postscript p. 1â—1 P. 2. P. 3. Epist. dedâ—c Preface to the Reaâ—der P. 63. Preface to Faâ—at 〈◊〉 Epistle Apologetic p. 12. Prâ—face to Idolatry Preface to the first part of the Answer Epist. Apologet from â— 16. to â— 24. Answer first part from p. 260. to p. 291. Epist. Apologet from p. 72. to â— 84. From n. 53. to n. 72. Fanaticism sect 2. n. 10. P. 23. Aâ—madvers p 26. Epist. Apologet sect 26 â— 27. ib. Fanaticism p. 1. P. 11 P. 181. Epist. Apologet n. 37. Maximil Sandaei Clavis Mystica c. 3â— Carol Hâ—râ—â—â—nt Comment in Dioâ—ysâ—de Mystiâ—â— Theolog Prâ—â—fat Româ—â— Churches Devotions vindicated Sect. 1. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. 〈…〉 â— 16. c 6. â— 11. Sect. 1. c. 4. n. 14. Sect. 61. Sect. â— Epist. Apolog n. 37â— 1 Cor. 2. 14 Tract Apologâ—t intâ—g Societ de Roâ—eâ— Cruce dâ—fendens A. 1617. P. 17. V. Ioh. à Iesu Maria Thâ—olog Mystiâ— c. 6. p. 64. 1 John 5. 3. 4. 20. 12. Joh. 14. 15. 15. 14. O. N. Roman Deâ—votions vindicated sect 7 sect 51. Fanatâ—â—sm p. 49. P. 41. Aâ—imadv p. 58. Roman Devotions vindicated sect 9 10 11. Roman Devotions vindicated sect 16. S. Teresa 's Life p 2. c. 1. Eâ—iâ— 16 1. at Aâ—â—â—p c. 4. p. 16. P. 17. C. 5. p. 25. P. 26. C. 6. p. 28. P 32. P 33. P. 38. C. 10 11 12 c. P â—0 P. 62. P. 111. P. 113. P. 122. P. 140. P. 141. P. 142. P. 148. P. 149. P. 150. P. 42. P. 18â— P. 66. 176. p. 236. P. 181. P. 194. p. 180. P. 18â— P. 181. P. 184. P. 185. P. 187. P. 204. P. 215. P. 216. P. 221. P. 224. P. 225. P. 226. P. 228. P. 234. P. 229. P. 232. P. 233. P. 238. P. 240. P. 237. P. 240. P. 241. P. 242. P. 244. P. 245. P. 246. P. 247. P. 261. P. 323. P. 324. Roman Churches Devotions vindicated p. 23. 2 Cor. 12. 1 2 5 6. P. 364. P. 312. O. N. sect 13. O. N. â—â—ct 19 20 21 22 23. O. N. sect 29. O N. sect 13. p. 20. O. N. sect 14. Baâ—on A. D. 173 n. 7. 25 Euseb. Eccl. histor l. 5. c. 16. C. 17. Epiphan harâ—s 48. sect 2. Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Psal. 115. 11 Diâ—inarum gâ—atiarum Cor â—atio oâ—rium Reâ—â—laâ—ionâ—m mat riam a eriens Venet 1626. p. 14. P. 34. Sâ—ct 7. Sect. 10. Hieroâ—yâ— prafat in Nahuâ— Prafat in Habac. 1 Cor. 14. 30. Vâ— 33. Pâ—afat in Isai. l. 1. â— 1. in Isai. 33. S. 〈◊〉 in Psa. 45. 1. In 1 Cor. 12. hom 29. S. Basil in Isai. 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 O. N. p. 16. Tâ—rtull de Aâ—imâ—â—9 O. N. sect 6. Diaâ—o de Diano â— 24. O. N. p. 13. O N. from sect 32. to sect 40. Aug. â— Fortunat Tom. 6. Confess l. 7. c. 2. C. 1. L. â— c. 4. L. 10. c 40. L. 7. c. 10. L. 9 c. 10. De quantit anim c. 33. De Mâ—rib Eccles Cathol c. 31. C. 32. Ioh. Boâ—a de discret Spirituum c. 14. n. 4. Lut. Paris 1673. Paul Zacch Quaest. Mâ—dico-legal l. 4. tit 1. q. 6. n. 4. Plato in Coâ—viv in orat Alâ—ibiadis p. 220. ed. Serâ— A. Gâ—ll. Noct. Attâ— 1. c. 1. cajâ— t. iâ—â— 2. 7. 175. aâ—t 1. Proâ—lâ—â— c. 30. Bâ—rniers Memoires par 2 p. 136 〈…〉 c. 4. 2. 2. q. 175. art 1. corp art Card. Bona de dâ—ser Spirit c. 14. n. 5. Ioh. à Iesu Maria Theolog Myst. c. 8. Cajet in 1. 2. q. 17. art 7. Sanct. Sophia tr 3. sect 4. c. 3. n. 11. Fortunat. Sâ—acch de not sign Sanct. sect 8. c. 3. 〈…〉 Sanct Soph. â— 19. Boâ—a ib. p. 250. Caset â— 12 2. q. 173. art 3. 〈…〉 Carol Clâ— not in Gaâ—â— ab 〈◊〉 c. 3. Paul Zacâ—h quâ—st Medico lâ—g l. 4. 〈◊〉 1 qu. 7. Paâ—l Zacch l. 4. tâ—t 1. q. 6. n. 33. Bona de disâ—ret Spirit c. 20. p. 411. Scacch p. 612. Saâ—cta Sophia Tr. 3. sect 3. c. 6. n. 22. Bona ib. p. 415. Saâ—cta Sophia Tr. 3. sect 4. c. 3. n. 10. 14. Ioh. Ã
so many scruples about oaths of Allegiance to Princes that they make none at all about this which as far as I can see leaves no room for Allegiance to them any more than a person who hath already sworn Allegiance to one Prince hath liberty to swear the same thing to another which it is impossible he should keep to both The first contriver of this Oath to the Pope was no other than Gregory 7. who could not be thought to understand less than the strictest Allegiance by it since he required Fealty from Temporal Princes and forbad all Clergy-men paying homage to them In the Council held by him at Rome A. D. 1079. the Archbishop of Aquileia took an Oath in the same form with that published by Raynaldus out of the Vatican MS. and therein he is sworn to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of S. Peter which makes me wonder how the form extant in the Canon Law should have it Regulas Sanctorum Patrum instead of Regalia Sancti Petri for we are not to imagin that Gregory 9. had any such thought to bring down the Royalties of S. Peter to the ancient Canons and the oath which was taken had the Regalia sancti Petri alwayes in it from Gregory 7. time unless they hoped to deceive the simple by this means for we find that even Cassander himself thought there had been no other Form besides that in the Canon Law till the Bishop of Munster sent him the Form he was to take wherein were the Regalia sancti Petri as they are now in the Pontifical But if the strictest tye of Allegiance to the Pope as their Soveraign were not intended by this oath why could not the Popes be contented with the former oath of Canonical Obedience which from the time of Boniface was required by the Pope of all Metropolitans together with the Pall although many refused to submit their necks to that Yoke Before A. D. 450. Petrus de Marca observes nosuch thing as an Oath of Canonical Obedience from Bishops to the Metropolitan was used in the Church and therefore Leo 1. reproves Anastasius of Thessalonica for requiring it from Atticus a Bishop under him but afterwards by degrees it came into Use as appears by the words of the Bishops of Aquileia in Baronius to the Emperour Mauricius and the profession made by Adelbertus to Hinomarus his Metropolitan Whereas the Metropolitans themselves made only a bare profession of their faith and a promise to their suffragan Bishops to observe the Canons of the Church But when Gregory sent Boniface as his Missionary into Germany he made him take an Oath over the Reliques of S. Peter in the Vatican to be true and faithful to the interests of the Roman See but still it was within the compass of the Catholick Faith and the ancient Canons and this 〈◊〉 being a very faithful servant to the 〈◊〉 See makes it his business to perswade the Bishops of Germany and France to profess subjection to the Bishop of Rome and all the Metropolitans to receive Palls from thence and to give Canonical obedience to the Popes decrees these things went very hardly down with the Bishops for two years after A. D. 744. Boniface complains to Pope Zachary that he was afraid they would not keep their words but he assures the Pope it was none of his fault but at last they were wheedled into it under this pretence that it was only a mark of honour to receive the Pall and not a badge of subjection and Hincmarus told Nicolaus 1. That he could receive no more power by it than the Canons had given to Metropolitans already but when they were brought to receive the Pall the promise of subjection went down with it the Form of which is extant among the ancient Formulae published by Sirmondus wherein they promise to the Pope only debitam subjectionem obedientiam which is properly Canonical Obedience Now if Gregory 7. had understood no more than that why did he alter the Oath and put in so many expressions which properly imply the same Fealty which Vassals owe to their Lords or Subjects to their Princes I know not how it came to pass that so jealous a Prince of his own Rights as Henry 1. came to suffer the new Archbishop to take this oath to the Pope but this is certain that it was extreamly disgusted in other Countries For Baronius tells us that the Kings and Nobility of Sicily and Poland were very much offended at it as a thing there was no ground for in the ancient Councils as though saith Paschal 2. in answer to them the Councils could set bounds to the Popes Authority which was bravely said and like a Prince that endeavoured to make the greatest Bishops his Vassals but I cannot imagine what satisfaction this could give to Secular Princes who might easily discern how much their own Power was lessened by these manifest encroachments upon it by the exacting oaths of Allegiance from some of the most considerable of their Subjects to a Forraign Power § 8. After the death of Henry 1. the Papal power got more ground in the troublesome Reign of King Stephen than ever it had done before For his title being very bad he saw it was the more necessary for him to strengthen it by the Popes Authority To which end after his Consecration by William Archbishop of Canterbury who together with Stephen had before sworn Allegiance to Maud the Empress he sends to the Pope for a Confirmation of his Title which the Pope very amply sends him and the Bull is extant among our Historians wherein among other things he takes notice that on the day of his consecration as the Pope calls it he promised obedience and reverence to S. Peter which no doubt went very far in his Title and the Bishop of Winchester his Brother told him as Malmsbury relates who lived in that time that he came to the Crown not by any military power but by the Churches Favour and therefore he ought to be kind to it and so he was it seems at first for he yielded to their own terms as Gul. Newburgensis saith and the Bishops did swear only a conditional Allegiance to him viz. as long as he preserved the Liberty of the Church To give them therefore all the satisfaction they desired he made that Oath extant in Malmsbury wherein he put all Ecclesiaâ—tical Persons and Things under their own jurisdiction and when afterwards he violated this Liberty his own Brother being then the Popes Legat presumed to summon him to appear before his Ecclesiastical High Court of Iustice and to give him an account of what he had done in daring to imprison the Bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln For said he if the Bishops do any thing amiss the King hath nothing to do to judge them but they must be left to the Canons and withall he adds that the King was bound to
him but that the Pope had a temporal Power over Princes to hear and determine Causes between them and their Subjects And in his Letter to the Pope upon this appeal he saith that he was called as a Laick to answer before the King and that he insisted upon this plea that he was not to be judged there nor by them For what would that have been but to have betrayed your Rights and to have submitted spiritual things to temporal and if he should have yielded to the King it would have made him not a King but a Tyrant And whereas the Bishops pleaded obedience to the King he saith they were bound corporally to the King but spiritually to himself What in opposition to the King about his own Rights which were so plain in this case at Northampton that the Bishop of Chichester charged him both with Perjury and Treason because these things related to the Kings temporal Honour and Dignity and therefore the Bishops were not bound to obey their Archbishop The Pope applauds Becket for what he had done and nulls the sentence against him which was still taking more upon him the exercise of a Temporal Power over the King But Fitz Stephen who saith he was present at Northampton with Becket saith that when the Bishop of Chichester charged him with his Oath at Clarendon he replyed that what was against the Faith of the Church and the Law of God could not lawfully be kept now these customs were never supposed to be against the Faith of the Church till Gregory the seventh had very subtilly found out the Henrician heresie i. e. the heresie of Princes defending their own Rights against the Papal Usurpations and he particularly insisted on this that the Pope had condemned those Customs and he adds that we ought to receive what the Roman Church receives for he knew no difference between the Câ—urt and Church of Rome and to reject what that rejects and concludes all with this that his Oath at Clarendon was an unlawful Oath and could not bind him But what pretence were there for this if he had only contended for the antient Municipal Laws what unlawfulness could there be in swearing to observe the Kings Laws although different from former Laws So that the only way to excuse him from manifest perjury is to suppose that he looked on the Customs of Clarendon as repugnant to the Popes Decrees and therefore not to be kept by him and the Pope tells him that God had reserved him to this time of tryal for the confirmation of Catholick and Christian Truth in which it must be implyed that which Becket defended against the King was a part of the Catholick Faith in the Popes judgement In his Epistle to Robert Earl of Leicester he pleads for the Liberty of the Church which Christ hath purchased with his blood who then saith he dares bring her into slavery who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own Master he ought to stand or fall And all that he adviseth to for making up the breach is their repentance and satisfaction for the injuries done to Christ and his Church And whereas the Bishop of London had told him that the King was willing to submit to the judgement of his Kingdom about his antient Rights Becket replyes Who is there in Earth or Heaven that dares judge of what God hath determined humane things may be judged but divine must be left as they are In his Epistle to all the Clergie of England he saith that at Northampton Christ was judged again in his person before the Tribunal of Pilat for him he understands by the name of President In his Epistle to the King he pleads that the Liberty of the Church which he contended for was purchased by Christs own blood and adds farther to the very hearts desire of Gregory the seventh that it was certain that Kings did receive their power from the Church and not the Church from them but only from Christ from whence he infers that the King could not draw Clergie-men to secular Tribunals or establish the Customs in dispute between them I do not say as Hoveden doth that these words were spoken in a Conference at Chinun for they are a part of the Epistle sent to the King not long after his banishment and written in justification of his opposition to the Rights which the King challenged Therefore I desire to know what theâ—e words can signifie to his purpose unless they do imply such a derivation of Civil Power from the Church that the Church may take cognizance of male-administration or of the Civil Authorities taking to it self any of the priviledges belonging to the Church For if all this related only to the Ceremonies of Coronation it were to no more purpose than for an Archbishop of Canterbury to plead now that the Kings power is derived from the Church because the ceremony of inauguration is performed by him Who would not smile at such a consequence But we know that the Popes temporal Power over Princes was never more asserted than in that Age that Alexander the third at that time challenged and exercised it over the Emperour and other Princes and that no man was more stiff in the Popes Cause nor more eager for the exercise of his Power over our King than Becket was and his actions discovered this to be his opinion why then should men study to find evasions for these words which neither agree with the course of his actions nor with the doctrine of that Age Doth not Becket himself magnifie the Popes power to the greatest height In his Epistle to the Bishâ—p of London he saith that none but an Insidel or Heretick or Schismatick dares dispute obedience to the Popes commands that no one under the Sun can pluck out of his hands And in one of his Epistles to the Pope he makes very profane addresses to him applying what the Scripture saith only of God and Christ to him Exurge Domine noli tardare super nos illâ—mina faciem tuam super nos fac nobiscum secundum misericordiam tuam Salva nos quia perimus and immediately adds let not our adversaries triumph over us yea the adversaries of Christ and his Church quia nomen tuum invocavimus super nos And lest any should think these were addresses to God although contained in a Letter to the Pope it follows Non nobis Domine non nobis sed in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi fac tibi grande nomen repara gloriam tuam For at this time the Kings Ambassadors promised themselves great things in the Court of Rome and boasted of the Favour they had which put Becket into such a Consternation that in the very Agony of his Soul he poured out these prayers to the Pope And we may judge of Beckets opinion in this matter by that of his great Friend Cardinal Gratianus for when the King saw himself