this definition of Iohn the XXII against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever For these two positions have no contradiction 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal and civil too if you please in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church 2. This coactive power humane corporal and civil too or not civil as you please is not altogether independent in it self but is subordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes That they are not contradictory or inconsistent we see by the example of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals For the inferiour tribunals notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively are subordinat to the superiour And so I have done at last with this long discourse occasion'd by the fourth objection or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church I have proved to be very false as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church Which Catholick doctrine or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently nay abundantly demonstrated by reason Scripture and Tradition Therefore now to The fift and last of all these objections which I call'd remaining for the reason before given that objection I mean built upon the contrary judgment or opinion as t is pretended of St. Thomas of Canterbury and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore and of his canonization also therefore and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious martyrized Saint therefore This objection I confess is very specious at first as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Divine or Canonists or both it appears to and works so T is onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death but what they read in their Breviary which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me though peradventure enough to solve any T is onely amongst those who do not consider duely nor indeed have the knowledg or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely what it amounts to in point of Christian Faith as to others or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto that any one Bishop how otherwise holy soever in his own life should have especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in general or of this or that Immunity in particular or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust I care not which made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities or those were onely pretended I care not also which T is onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion or of moe perhaps and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obedient humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently represented to them because they had other sufficient manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving though I do not averr any such prepossession here nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material T is onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposition to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen and on his exile death miracles canonization invocation appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes who are supream themselves to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoever living within their dominions Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance as you have that Censure of theirs page 120. of this first Part be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines I leave to the Reader 's own better consideration when reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it he observes moreover particularly the day of the date of it so signally express'd by them in these tearms Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus ac decidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta ac servata die â—9 Decembris gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis Angliae quondam Primatis mortyrio consecratae Anno Dominae Incarnationis 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canterbury as most proper for such a censure I know not certainly but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy glory martyrdom and how that 29. day of December of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal signal date of theirs made me ever since now and then reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground Though to confess all the truth I never met any that fram'd it methodically or put it into any due or undue form of argument for them or of objection against me but onely in general objected that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second Which is the reason and that I may leave nothing which may seem to any to be material unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self I put all which my adversaries would be at in this concern of St. Thomas of
stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him and at their representing to him how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death unde Rex sayes Hoveden ad an 1164. plurimum in ira adversus eum commutus minatus est ei suis exilium alias exilium mortem and I say when by such means he had sworn in retracting at last on better advise so rash an oath and refusing to confirm those pretended customes by his seal or subscription 8. And lastly in refusing either to absolve the excommunicated Bishops but in forma Ecclesiae consueta or consent that his own Clerks which came with him out of France should take any unjust or unlawfull oath contrary to the two material demands or commands to him in behalf of Henry the second by his four murtherers Willelmus de Traci Hugo de Mortvilla Richardus Brito and Reginaldus filius Vrsi For to their third which was that he should go reverently to the young King and do him homage and fealty by oath for his Archiepiscopal Barony as Parker relates it its plain enough he never refused that not onely because he did so at the time of his investiture to Henry the second himself the Father King but also because that upon his return from exile which was but a month before his death he was on his journey as farr as London to the young King's Count to do and pay this young King also all the respects and duties becoming but was by the Queens Brother Gocelinus as Hoveden writes commanded in that very young King 's own name not go to Court nor proceed further whereupon he return'd back to Canterbury In all which eight several Instances as also in all their necessary Antecedents Concomitants and Subsequents I confess again ingenuously it is my own judgment that St. Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side because in some he had all the laws of both God and man for him and in the rest he had for him the very just and politick municipal laws of England as yet then not legally repealed these very laws I mean rehearsed by me in my seventh observation and because there was not any law of God or man against him in the case or in any of those Instances being the laws of the land were for him in all and because the design of Henry the second to oppress the people of England both Clergie and Layety but especially the Clergie and to render the Sacerdotal Order base and contemptible as we have seen before observed out of Polydore Virgil required that the Archbishop of Canterbury should stand in the gap as farr as it became a Subject by denying his own consent as a Peer and as the first Peer too of the Realm and by proceeding yet as a Bishop and as the Primate also of all Bishops in England and by proceeding so I say in a true Episcopal manner against such as would by threats of death force oppressive customs for new laws on both Peers and people Clergie and Layety against their own known will and their own old laws And therefore also consequently do acknowledg my own judgment to be that the Major of the Syllogistical objection against me or this proposition whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel c against Henry the Second is fals may be by me admitted simply and absolutely without any distinction Though I add withall it be not necessary to admit it for any such inconvenience as the proof which I have given before of that Major would inferi or deduce out of the denyal of it In which proof I am sure there are several propositions or suppositions involved which no Catholick Divine not even a rigid Bellarminian is bound to allow As 1. that neither Church nor Pope can possibly err in matter of fact or in their judgment of matter of fact though relating to the life or death or precise cause of the death of any Saint or Martyr which matter of fact is neither formally nor virtually expressed nor by a consequential necessity deduced out of holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For Bellarmine himself confesses that even a general Council truly such may err in such matters of fact And the reason is clear because the judgment of the Church in such matters is onely secundum allegata probata depending wholly on the testimony of this or that man or some few or at most of many mortal and sinfull witnesses or of such of whose veracity in that the Church hath no authentick or absolutely certain revelation from God but humane probability or at most humane moral certainty which is ultimately resolved into the humane credit or faith we give an other man or men or to their veracity who possibly may themselves either of purpose too deceive us or be deceived themselves however innocently And the case is clear in the famous and great controversy about those heads were called the Tria Capitula all which concern'd matter of fact of three great Bishops in the fourth and fift general Councils under Pope Leo Magnus and Pope Vigilius And is yet no less clear in the controversy about Pope Honorius which was of matter of fact whom two general Councils condemn'd for a Heretick for a Monothelit so long after his death and out of his own writings and yet Bellarmine defends him from being such and on this ground defends him that those Councils were deceived in their judgment of matter of fact by attributing to him that doctrine which he held not 2. That the infallibility which Catholicks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infallibility of judgment concerning this or that fact of any even the greatest Saint whereof we have nothing in holy Scripture or Apostolical tradition For the Infallibility of the Church is onely in preserving and declaring or at least in not declaring against that whatsoever it be matter of fact or Theory which was delivered so from the beginning as revealed by God either in holy Scripture or Apostolical Tradition 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy maâ—tyr or great miraculous Saint in his life or death or after his death at his tomb were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it from first to last were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man though it had been so or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist had been so according his own inward judgment and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure holy religious resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the
credit given to this ungodly suggestion or of any kind of proceedings after in pursuance thereof by the same young King against Thomas That the ground or colour of this suggestion was no other but that Thomas held those Bishops for excommunicated who did use Pontificals contrary to the Popes command and custom of the Church and of England also in the Consecration of the said young King and use them so in the Diocess of another Bishop without his Licence That no man is so blind or was then so blind as to hold that the young Kings being King depended of his being Consecrated at all by any Bishops whether excommunicated or not excommunicated And therefore that albeit I grant as I do verily grant That St. Thomas had been guilty of Actual Treason if he had sought in any wise or at any time against the Law of the Land to depose either of both Kings the young or old the Father or the Son yet nothing material is alledged to prove that ever he did so Besides I answer That on the other side there are so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and in Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter to have been whereas no kind of proof hath been or hath been offer'd That I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of St. Thomas of Canterbury First Argument His wonderful austere holy devout life with so perfect a contempt of all that was pleasant gay or glorious in the world immediately upon his Election and ever after to the hour of his death and this life so devoted wholly to God attested even by the confession of Parker himself but seen particularly and exactly in all the contemporary Writers of the Saints own time as Hoveden and others whom I have before quoted Second Argument His having lived the most retired contemplative life could be in three several Monasteries in Flanders and France even all the time of his Exile first in St. Bertins at St. Omers in Flanders next at Pontiniacum in France and lastly in the Abby of St. Columb in another part of France when and after he was forc'd from Pontiniacum by the Threats of Henry the Second to the Abbot of this place to banish out of the Dominions of England all the Monks of his Order if he did any longer entertain or relieve Thomas In which Abby of St. Columb he for the four whole last years of his Banishment and until his Return to England led that life which merited as he was in prayer and after he was reconciled to his King to hear a voyce from Heaven saying to him Surge velociter abi in sedem tuam glorificabis Ecclesiam meam sanguine tuo tu gloriaberis in me Hoveden ad An. 1170. Third Argument That notwithstanding Henry the Second had Legates favourable enough to him and a Pope also yet neither before them nor in his Letters or Messages to the Pope himself he ever did for so many years of the Saints Banishment or after his Return during the Saints life as much as once insist upon any Treasonable practice of his against himself or Son or Crown or Kingdom nor even as much as once lightly charge him with any for ought appears out of History and that Histories tell how when the former Legates once lightly objected his raising the King of France c. whoever put that into their mouths The Saint answered so clearly and convincingly That there was not a word of proof or even as much as reply against him Fourth Argument That not even after the Saints death not even then when all Christendom with horrour and amazement looked upon and cryed against Henry the Second as a most impious Murtherer and execrable Tyrant thinking the Saint was murthered by his command or consent not even then when he was therefore taken for an excommunicated person and the worst of those excommunicated against whom as Actors any way or Authors of the Saints death Pope Alexander so formidably Thundered Curses and Anathems from Rome and this too at the passionate instance of both the King and Clergy of France That I say not even then or at any time after nor then when at his own earnest solicitation special entraordinary Legates came along from Rome to hear him plead his own excuse or what he could alledge for himself to extenuate the horrour of his guilt he or his Son did or the Bishops of their way did or any other for them or either of them did as much as once pretend any Treason or any other Misdemeanor at all of the Saint whereby as much as to extenuate the heinousness and hideousness of the Murther committed on him but only made it their work to justifie themselves by Oath That they never consented to nor as much as suspected his death upon any account whatsoever Fifth Argument That Henry the Second himself so great a King as he was and so passionately bent against the Saint in his life-time did for having been only unknown to himself or without design the occasion of the Saints death undergo such Pennance and perform'd it so devoutly and unfeignedly invocating the Saint at his shrine that 't is not any way probable the Saint was ever guilty of the least Treason or that the King ever entertained any such Thought of the Saint For what rational man much less so Royal and interested a person would have in such manner invoked a Traytor Sixth Argument That God shewed by so many prodigious signs and wonders incontinently and continually after the Saints death wrought above all the power of nature That he was no Traytor Amongst which though I do not rank those extraordinary temporal blessings poured from Heaven upon this penitent King and on that very day wherein he ended so devoutly his Pilgrimage and his Fasts and Watch and other corporal Afflictions endured first by coming in a penitent Weed and Bare-foot for Three whole Miles that is from the place where he first saw the Church of Canterbury where the Martyr was Enterr'd leaving the very print of his steps all bloody behind him the keen stones cutting his tender feet so that much blood ran from them all along continually and next in the Church of Canterbury by receiving there and on his naked shoulders so many sharp lashes of Disciplines as they call them from the hands of all the Bishops Priests and Monks present yet being those extraordinary temporal blessings were so signal as the overthrow of the whole Scottish power on that day and as the taking also of their King prisoner on that very same day too by his Armies in the North of England I cannot say but the Catholick Writers of that Time had Reason to attribute even these earthly favours of God to the Kings so exemplary and satisfactory Humiliation and to the Saints benign propitious and powerful intercession with God for
Kings Absolution by the Cardinals having this Title Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis and beginning thus Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales Apostolicae Sedis Legati salutem in eo qui dat salutem Regibus Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions Now I demand Whether there be any kind of likelihood that so knowing and so great a King as Henry the Second was then for he had Conquered Ireland that very year and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy of purpose to purge himself and be absolved so as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome And he had the whole Sea-side of France and far in to the Land all along to Navarre in Spain under his dominion and in actual possession and had Scotland also Tributary though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots should have made so wonderful a submission and in such words and received Absolution on such terms if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury And that he also performâ—d all and more than all this for appeasing God's wrath against himself for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death we have seen already and in part before in his extraordinary Pilgrimage to and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument And we may in part also gather hence That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Benedicts Order Prior of the Monastery of Dover who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick and Primacy of Canterbury and in a Legatine power Apostolick also being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second to succeed so and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third at Anagnia in Italy Et paulo post sayes Parker Archiepiscopus Primas Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit Hic electus Regi fidelitatem juravit salvo ordine suo nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis Behold eight several Arguments which if at least taken all together and especially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Appendix to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury that I see not how any rational indifferent person may or might have ever entertained any such thought of him And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges who under Henry the VIII above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr condemn'd him for a Traytor repeating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII in this matter who ever he was That it was neither Treason nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury put him on so execrable an Enterprize Sed avaritia illa quae caâ—tivavit discipulum comitem Christi captivavit militem custodem Sepulchri as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme civil coercive power of temporal Princes or to my own Doctrine which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasionally of the sanctity of his life and glory of his martyrdom and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves as we see that other great and undoubted Saints and even the very Princes of the Apostles have fallen into such humane errors without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives or glory of their martyrdoms that Peter erred so out of zeal to gain both Jewes and Gentiles in Judaizing among the Jews c. and who reprehended him in that did no less himself err so in another occasion in making himself a Nazarâ—te and in circumcising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit and elsewhere And finally whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second as much as err so that is not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves And yet I must tell my Reader that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury had contested so or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See or many others after Austin for some Ages and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See I could not justifie any of them for contesting so but plainly condemn them Because in their Times the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points as they are at this day and have been so as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason Murther Felony c. a long time and perhaps several Ages in England as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes and notwithstanding the conditions of his Purgation Absolution and Satisfaction and then almost uninterruptedly till the change and after the change by Henry the VIII until this present as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons who ever he was that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exemption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories which I quoted before and proved to have not been repealed at any time after until Henry the Second's Reign And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks
the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury and by the Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself 's own raigne and until after this controversie happen'd criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court Ecclesiastical â—ay that not only by the same laws all Clergiemen 〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops but that all the very 〈◊〉 of the Church were â—â—all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church Which being in or as to both differences the law of England contrary to which iâ— both differences oâ— cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans because St. Thomas had in both as in all his other differences the sublimer â—oâ—â—ers in the law of the land for himself who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God or the natural law of God or the law of Nations or the Imperial law or even any Church law or Papal law or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes which second head was such as subjected all Clergie-men in all kind of causes civil criminal mixt spiritual and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts as you may see by turning to and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16 And who seeâ— not but he might at the same time without any contradiction inconsequence oâ— contrariety maintain that still it was true that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉 because not legally repealed all Clerks in England were by the laws of â—eason and laws of God and doctrine of the Fathers and many Canons too of Popes and Councils subject in all temporal causes both civil and criminal to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second Nay who sees not but for any thing alledg'd or known out of the Histories of either his life or death or martyrdome or canonization or miracles or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint and even martyrized only too if you please in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities who sees not I say but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories he not only might be but was rigidly and constantly of this judgement and opinion especially being these Histories tell us in one instance that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads as the royal customes of Henry the First he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First or were no customes at all and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and expected from him albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn Sed cum descriptas consuetudines sayes Parker himself in the life of our Saint perlegisset Thomas for when he swore to observe them he did not see them in writing nor were they digested at all into heads and therefore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called â—nitas consâ—â— tudines his Grandfathers customes and royal customes â—ulâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 an ill â—um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae itâ—â— diem deliâ—â—◠〈…〉 sigillum chirographum adhiberet petiit and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial which he had studied and of the laws of England where he lived and judged so long as Chancellor Or who sees not briefly that that there is no contradiction that a most rigid 〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie and be therefore a Marâ—â—◠〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights or at least many or some of them 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ch he dyed as for example that of exemption came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land and only from such laws of the land and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane of nature or Nations or of the Church Pope or Emperour if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature approve all just laws of every land 〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them Finally who sees not also that notwithstanding all this or notwithstanding the municipal laws of England were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary out of the Acts of his life or other Historians that as by no other laws of God or man or reason so neither by those very laws of England either himself or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream civil coercive power or even could be exempt during their being subjects or their acknowledging to be so or their living in the quality of subjects 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it and either essentially or at least necessary implyes this which is to be subject to the supream coercive power at least in some cases and some contingencies 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops taking the Pope himself too in the number did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes or patronizers of the criminals and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure t is evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal coâ—rcion cuia salus populi suâ—rema lex esto 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a compulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks against the will of the same Clerks as to seizing their persons imprisoning them whiping them taking away their temporal goods confining them
by whom or wherein Thomas of Canterbury after some ages and upon a review of his life or actions and knowledge of his nefarious turbulencies and tragedies and of his intollerable arrogancy in raising himself above the royal power laws and dignity as he sayes was so condemn'd It seems he was either ashamed to name the person or raign of Henry the eight in such a matter and in opposition to such a Saint or verely he would impose on his unskilfull Reader and make him think it might peradventure have been so by a King and so in a time that was not reputed Schismatical by the Romanist's themselves and thereby would wholly undermine the credit of a Saint who certainly could be no true Saint if Parker was either a true Bishop in the truth and unity of the Catholick Church or true Christian in the truth and integrity of the Catholick Religion And I give it moreover to take notice of his wilful imposture where he sayes that that nameless King found out what kind of man Thomas was what evilt he had raised c. and sayes also that that nameless King found out all this in a great Conneil of all the Prelats and Peers of the Kingdom meaning so to impose on his Reader as a truth without as much as the authority of any writer for he quotes none in this nor could but against all truth that the Bishops of England in that Kings time concurr'd with him in his judgment or condemnation of Thomas of Canterbury for a traytor viz. against the Kings person or people of England or their laws or all three For certainly he could not be on any rational ground declared traytor or even to have been such at any time in his life not to speak now of the instance of his death or of any time after his reconciliation to Henry the Second but upon one of these three grounds or as having acted either against the Kings own person or royal rights or against the liberties of the people or against the sanctions of the municipal laws of England And O God of truth who is that is versed in the Chronicles of England can imagine any truth in this sly insinuation of Parker concerning that of the Bishops to have concurr'd with Henry the Eight in the condemnation or prophanation and sacriledge committed against St. Thomas of Canterbury so many hundred years after his holy life and death and so many hundred years after he had possessed not England alone but all the Christian world with the certain perswasion of his sanctity attested so even after his death by such stupendious miracles at his tomb and wrought there at or upon his invocation and by such stupendious and known miracles I say that Parker himself hath not the confidence as much as to mutter one word against the truth and certainty of their having been or having been such Nay who is it can upon a a sober reflection perswade himself that either Henry the Eight himself or any other whatever and how even soever atheistical Councellor of his could pretend any as much as probable ground in natural reason laying aside now all principles of Religion to declare this Thomas of Canterbury so long after his death to have dyed a traytor nay I say more or to have lived so or to have been so at any time in his life T is true that in all branches and each branch of the five membred complex of those first original and lesser differences which preceded that great one of the sixteen customs he for some part did not comply with the Kings expectation and for other parts positively refused to obey the Kings pleasure or even command But so might any other Subject and might I say without being therefore guilty of treason nay without being guilty of any other breach of law or conscience had he the law of the land and liberty of a Subject of his side as Thomas of Canterbury had in each of these five original differences And that he had so the law of the land for him even in that very point of them which Henry the Second took most to heart that I mean of the two criminal Clergymen besides all what I have given before at large of those very laws to prove it this also is an argument convincing enough that Henry the Second was not where he had the law of his side a man to be baffled by any Subject whatsoever nor would be so ceremonious as to call so many Councils or Parliaments of Bishops and other Estates to begg that which by law he had already in his power without their consent And therefore certainly had the law of the land been at that time for him that is for the ordinary coercion of criminal Clerks in his lay Courts and in what case soever or even in case of felony or murder committed by Clerks he had without any further ceremony at least after he saw the Archbishop refuse to comply with his desire or obey his command and after he saw also the Priest was in the very Ecclesiastical Court convict of murder sent his own Officials to force him away to and before the lay Judges and sent his Guards too or Souldiers were this necessary Neither of which he as much as attempted to do And therefore had we no other argument who sees not that it is clear enough out of this very procedure that the Archbishop committed no treason in this very matter wherein of any of also the branches of that whole five membred complex he most positively and plainly opposed that King though by such a kind of opposition as might become a Subject that is by an opposition of dissent without any interposition of arms or force 2. T is true also that after this Thomas of Canterbury opposed mightily but with such a kind opposition as I have now said all those sixteen heads of Henry the Second pretended by him to have been the Royal Costoms of his Grandfather and that after giving a forced consent and taking a forc'd oath to maintain them he retracted again freely and conscientiously his said consent and oath and refused to give his hand or seal for introducing or establishing them But I am sure there was no treason in this not only because he saw or apprehended they were against the former laws and for an evil end too press'd by that King so violently but also because he saw or apprehended that the very pretence was false that is that some of them had never been customes Is it not lawful without treason nay or other breach of law for any Peer and so great a Peer as the Archbishop of Canterbury to deny his own assent in Parliament or even to revoke and for as much as belongs to himself his own former assent at least when otherwise his conscience is wounded and when he proceeds no further by force of arms and that the laws is yet only in deliberation to be establish'd but not
him As there can be no Reason at all to think that true Miracles true Prodigies and Wonders above the power of Nature should be wrought by the invocation of God and by his condescension at the Tomb and in the name of a Traytor Seventh Argument The Saints voluntary coming into England against the advice of his Friends and in pursuance of the foresaid Vision his offering himself to the slaughter and suffering indeed consequently so like an innocent Lamb so like Christ himself the great Bishop of our Souls without any reluctance at all when he might otherwise choose For he had warnings enough for the whole Month before his death after his coming into England and signs enough That his Martyrdom was near at hand And he could not want opportunities enough and Friends enough to shift him out of the way and return to France or Flanders if he pleased and if he had found himself guilty of Treason sure it would have pleased him to go out of the way Nor could he want wayes and Friends to save himself even on the very day of his slaughter after he had the evening before known by the faces and discourses of the Murtherers that his death was sworn But he would not as much as keep himself from them within his own Palace where yet he might be safe enough nor when they came to murther him in the Church at Evening prayer would he suffer the Sextons to shut the Church-doors against them when the Sextons would Non est Ecclesia Dei sayes he so unlike a Traytor against or an Usurper on the temporal power castrorum more custodienda Whereof and of so many other particulars both of his holy preparation for this glorious death and that for a whole Month before it and of his own so many Predictions during that time of it and of all the circumstantials of his death when and immediately before it happen'd after that the bloody Murtherers rush'd in to the Church with their Swords drawn and the Bishop came out of the Quire to meet them not answering at all when they cryed Vbi est Proditor ille Where is that Traytor But when they asked Where is the Archbishop answering Ecce ad sum Behold I am here Knowing very well sayes Hoveden that he was unjustly and falsly called by the former name of Traytor of all such matters I say the same excellent contemporary Historian Roger Hoveden may be read partly in the life of the Saint which he inserts ad an 1170. and partly where he treats of his death ad an 1171. In both which places he so describes his life and death as no indifferent man reading him can be persuaded That a Traytor could live so Holily and dye so Gloriously or live so Angelically and dye so Divinely that is so desirously meekly contentedly confidently and in a word Christianly as beholding Heaven it self opening it self and all its Glories to receive his Soul on the instant of her separation from his body Could a Traytor live or dye so Eighth and last Argument is That form of Henry the Second's Purgation of himself before the Popes Legates from the death of St. Thomas and of his tye of satisfaction forasmuch as he could not find the Murtherers as he said to be seized on and because he feared they committed that execrable Fact by occasion of the sudden passion of anger they saw him fall into against the Archbishop And that form also of his Absolution by the said Legates in a great Council of all the Archbishops Bishops and Abbots of Normandy at Abrinca in the year 1172. as Hoveden hath both Forms and as I give here the former of the two out of him the Title of the said former in him being this Purgatio Henrici Regis pro morte Beati Thomae which after proceeds thus Henricus Rex Angliae Pater Henricus Rex filius ejus Rotrodus Rothâ—nagensis Archiepiscopus omnes Episcopi Abbates Normaniae convenerunt apud Abrincam Civitatem in praesentia Theodini Alberti Cardinalium In quorum audientia Rex Angliae Pater quinto Calendarum Octobris feria quarta festo Sanctorum Cosmae Damiani Martyrum in Ecclesia Sancti Andreae Apostoli purgavit innocentiam suam coram pradictis Cardinalibus onni Clero Populo praestito Sacramento super Sanctorum reliquias super Sacro-sancta Evangelia quod ipse nec praecepit nec voluit quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis occideretur quando audivit vehementer doluit Sed quia Malefactores illos qui sanctae memoriae Thomam Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum occiderunt habere non poterat quia timebat ipsos illud profanum opus perpetrasse causa animi motus turbationis quam in eo viderant de satisfactione tale praestitit Sacramentum Juravit itaque imprimis quod ab Alexandro summo Pontifice Catholicis Successoribus ejus non recederet quamdiu ipsum sicut Regem Catholicum habuerint Juravit etiam quod neque appellationes impediret neque impedire permitteret quin libere fierent in regno suo ad Romanum Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis ita tamen ut si ei suspecti fuerint aliqui securitatem faciant quod malum suum vel Regni sui non quaerant Juravit etiam quod ab instante Nativitatis Domini usque in Triennium Crucem accipiet in proxima sequenti aestate in propria persona Hierosolymam iturus nisi remanserit per Alexandrum summum Pontificem vel per Catholicos Successores ejus Sed si interim pro urgente necessitate in Hispaniam super Saracenos profectus fuisset quantum temporis in illo itinere consummaret tantundem Hierosolimitanae spatium profectionis posset prolongare Praeterea juravit quod interim tantum pecuniae dabit Templariis quantum ad arbitrium fratrum Templi possit sufficere ad retinendum ducentos milites ad defensionem terrae Hierosolimitanae per spacium unius anni Praeterea perdonavit iram malevolentiam suam omnibus tam Clericis quam Laicis qui pro sancto Thoma erant in exilio Et concessit eis libere in pace ad propria redire Juravit etiam quod possessiones Cantuariensis Ecclesiae si qua ablatae sunt in integrum restituet sicut habuit uno anno antequam ab Anglia egrederetur beatus Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus Juravit etiam quod Consuetudines quae inductae sunt contra Ecclesias terrae suae in tempore suo penitus dimittet Et haec omnia juravit se fore observaturam bona fide sine malo ingenio Fecit etiam Henricum filium suum haec omnia Capitula jurare tenenda praeter illa quae propriam ejus personam contingebant Et ut haec in memoria Romanae Ecclesiae haberentur Rex pater fecit apponi Sigillum suum scripto illi in quo supradicta Capitula continebantur una cum Sigillis praedictorum Cardinalium And the second form or that of the
Valentinian and with his Arrian Mother about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians did not I say this so great and so holy and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour that indeed the lands of the Church were under his power and therefore payed him tribute but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles when he sayes that by natural reason because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae therefore the cannot in any wise or for any use or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction To his fifth and last argument I need not say much because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature For to pretend or alledge even true miraculous extraordinary judgments or punishments from God on the Profaners of holy places or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons as also on a Prince or People for having made first or observed after out of covetousness hatred envy pride ambition or any other sinful end such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem or reverence which must be due to either such places or such persons what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places and with the careful protectors of such persons or with either Prince or People that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law which being observed by Church-men will make them more holy and more reverend Besides how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men and against such as could pretend no such exemption and against such too as had no right of their side but from the positive civil Institutions or Laws made by other meer lay-men If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case that is wrought by the invocation of God and either expresly or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases and all respects from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Princes then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature But neither for Churchmen or Church doth he as much as pretend to any such material miracle or any such extraordinary punishments from God And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends That the sacrilegious robbers or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness that I say such a Prince had an evil or strange and suddain end Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides did God himself now expresly and intelligibly and evidently reveal it to all the world that notwithstanding any pretence or even any positive laws of men hitherto all kind of Churchmen and Churches and their persons goods lands houses c. were as other men in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate yet from the providence and goodness and justice also of God we might rationally expect sometime and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary miraculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God to govern well questionless to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God and let us suppose them still truly miraculous and from God in a special way which yet will be hardly proved of most of them seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity Exemption or Liberty Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be admitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wickedness of those very men so punished miroculously Or must the single conjecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law whatever it was made by Nicephorus Phocas and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiastical Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature which onely is our present business or dispute Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes that is to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie if I say there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made and after that law was again abolished and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religiously observed as ever or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons Do not the Greek Historians of those times Curopolates and Cedrenus Zonaras and Glycas do not Baronius and his Abbreviator Spendanus ad Annum Christi 962. 964. confess with those Greeks That Nicephorus Phocas though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince had been charged with several other exorbitances as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Emperour by the Army notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus both lawful Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire and
with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Empress notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive and no other cause to divorce from her and that besides he had received her or the said Theophanes's Son as a Godfather out of the Sacred Font and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens to be accounted and invoked as martyrs Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars and not with that law onely And if so as questionless it is so how could Basilius Porphyrogenitus or Bellarmine or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie in case I say that law was such that Empire suffered in after days and not rather for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws or suffered not for that law in it self but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it For a law may be good in it self and yet the intention of the law maker and his use of it very wicked And after all whether it was so or no what proof I beseech you is that bare saving conjecture opinion or judgement of Porphyrogenitus That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatsoever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations That saying of Basilius Porphyrogenitus doth not touch this matter at all So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely Which himself did know so well that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter yet in the chapter immediately following which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric he dares not give this doctrine of his own any better title or any better assurance not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs criminal or civil causes from any civil power whatsoever supream or not supream not even from the most inferiour civil Courts or Judges or of any kind of Exemption at all established for them in temporal matters by any law divine either natural or positive that I say as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling to wit after he had seen all his other arguments out of human law or out of the civil and Canon law for his exorbitant exemption answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book For in those former editions himself taught in express tearms against the Canonists Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas quam quoad bona jure humano introductam esse non divino That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters as well concerning their persons as their goods was introduced by humane law not by divine Nay also as Barclay well notes de Potestate Papae c. 15. made it his business to wit in those former editions besides which the foresaid Barclay the Father knew of none to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understanding of it to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point 3. because sayes he nullum prâ—ferri potest Dei verbum quo ista exemptio confirmetur there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it and yet would not yield to victorious Truth he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention or pretension rather nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem but even of a natural law divine and further confound the law of nature with that of nations and yet in the end of all pretend no more cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God nor for his natural but such a third degree c 29. as by his own explication of the third degree is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks Princes and Subjects the State and Church being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world I leave the indifferent Reader to judge For I have done my part and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments LXVIII That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical the case is also clear enough of my side both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power nay nor in any kind of meer temporal cause whatsoever criminal or civil from that supream civil power were it necessary for my present purpose to add this as it is not Though I confess they have been exempted and very justly too by several both imperial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes and in some Countries by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries exempted also in some criminal causes in prima instantia from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges and other Judges that