Violent but having to do with a Prince both Resolute and Prudent he found but bad success The Pope perswades the King to an expedition into the Holy Land to promote vvhich business He exacts the Tithes of Church Livings in France and reserves the Collation of all Benefices there to himself The King excuses the one and plainly denies the other The hot Pope sends the Bishop of Apamea to threaten him with Censures and Deposition unless he yielded to him The King calls the States and upon Consultation with them resolves the Legat deserv'd to be imprisoned but for reverence to the See Apostolic banishes him and for his Threats contemns them The Legat not content to scape scot-free falls a new to Threats which the King resenting commits him to custody to the Metropolitan The Pope complains of the breach of Ecclesiastical Immunity and commands his Legat should be immediately return'd These Letters being read in an Assembly of the States the Count of Arras as hot every jot as the Pope throws them into the fire This put the Pope quite out of patience Wherefore he Cites both King and Bishops to Rome where he had appointed a Synod and in the mean time declares the Kingdom of France for Contumacy Felony and Violating the Law of Nations devolved to the Apostolic See writing thus peremptorily to the King We would have you to know that you are subject to us both in Spirituals and Temporals and who thinks otherwise we repute Heretics The King upon the receipt of these Letters calls the States again and by their Advice frames an Answer every jot as smart and something more homely We would have your foolishness know we are subject to none in Temporals and who thinks otherwise we take for mad men And withal appeals to a future General Councel and objects several Crimes to the Pope to be made good when the Councel should sit and in the mean time forbids all intercourse vvith Rome This Answer being brought to Rome by three Bishops deputed for that purpose the Pope began to be startled and at last confesses That to usurp the Kings Jurisdiction belonged not to him nevertheless that in respect of Sin the King could not deny but he was subject to the Pope This put them to examine how far and in what manner he was subject to him and one of the Cardinals in a Consistory in which the French Embassadours were present resolves the case in this manner That Supream Dominion belong'd properly to the Pope but the Administration to Kings and therefore all Christian Kings vvere subject to the judgment of the Pope even in Temporals in regard of his Supream Dominion But this satisfi'd not the Embassadours at Rome and the States in France resuming the Debate declar'd positively the King in Temporals vvas subject to God alone and ow'd his Crown and Power only to him Nevertheless this Subjection on the account of Sin seems to be the ground of the distinction betwixt Direct and Indirect Power though I conceive it borrowed from Innocent the IVth some time before upon occasion of a Contest betwixt John King of England and Philip Augustus of France vvho prosecuting the King of England for default of Homage for some Dukedoms in France c. King John appeals to the Pope Philip maintained that being a Temporal business he had nothing to do vvith it The Pope was vvilling to favour the English and therefore assumes cognisance of the Cause upon pretence that there was an Oath in the case the violation of vvhich being Sin belong'd properly to his Tribunal And this Resolution having been put into a Decree and that Decree into the Canon-Law seems the principal foundation of Indirect Power I must confess I do not well understand how either this Canon which is in the Decretals C. Novit Ille de Judiciis or the other C. per Venerabilem Qui filii sint legitimi which are the two usually cited both of Innocent III. make to the purpose The former was made upon the occasion now mentioned and in it the Pope speaks thus We intend not to Judge of the Fee whereof the cognisance belongs to him the King but to decree of the Sin whereof the Censure without doubt pertains to us which we may and ought to exercise on every one None of sound Judgment is ignorant that it belongs to our Office to correct every Christian for any mortal Sin and if he despise Correction to constrain him by Ecclesiastical punishment c. Where the Pope saies Correct the Gloss adds Indirectly which single word and that not explicated is the main Authority for the distinction of Direct and Indirect Power now in question The other Canon per Venerabilem was made upon this occasion Philip Augustus of France had put away his Wife and taken as I remember the Countess of Anjou and had Children by her These Children at his request the Pope Legitimates while the suit yet depended of the validity of his former Marriage For the King alledged it was invalid But as the Example of Kings is apt to be follow'd Some body leaves his Wife too and has Children by another Woman and then sollicites the Pope to Legitimate them as he had done the King's The Pope refuses to yield his Request but withal owns a Power to have granted it if he had found it reasonable and proves it by several Arguments and amongst other passages has these words We exercise temporal Jurisdiction not only in the Patrimony of the Church where we have full power in Temporals but in other Countries also casually upon inspection of certain Causes These certain Causes the Gloss interprets to be when He is required Now both these Cases seem to me far enough from the inferring the Deposing Power which was not at all in question but Legitimation in the one and Cognisance of a Temporal business in the other And though the Pope assume both yet he is very sollicitous to prove they are within his Sphere as both may be and yet nothing follow in behalf of his Indirect disposing For he may Legitimate Children in order to Spiritual capacities and leave them in the same condition in which they were before as to Inheritance and other Temporal concerns Again He may Judge of Sin and punish it in his own Court with Spiritual punishments and let Temporal punishments alone to whom they belong the Temporal Magistrate And since he expresly limits himself to Ecclesiastical punishments methinks it is to strain Logic a little to far to infer out of them a right to Punish by Deposition However in my opinion this difference in the manner of Explicating this Power sometimes Casualiter sometimes Indirecte sometimes Ratione peccati which differ sufficiently though they Cite the Authorities indifferently as if they were all one is a sign they were at first not very cleer in this business in Explicating which they hit it no better Notwithstanding the Indirect Power has at last got the Vogue and most
should place the Emperor by himself in respect of his temporalities he should grant two beginnings which were Heresie In good Faith Sir I cannot think otherwise but if these men say true your Catholic Princes let them keep as fair as they will with the Pope are all Heretics in their hearts And then what follows Hark what a Cardinal and which I grieve an English man hath publisht to the World Card. Allen against the execution of justice p. 87. The Cannon Laws says he being authentical in the lawful Tribunals of the Christian World do make all Heretics not only after they be namely and particularly denounced but by the Law it self ipso facto as soon as they be Heretics are de jure excommunicated for the same to be depriv'd of their Dominions Philopater p. 154. Another tells us The whole School of Divines and Canonists do hold and that 't is certain and of Faith that any Christian Prince whatsoever if he shall manifestly deflect from the Catholic Religion and endeavour to draw others from the same does presently fall from all power and dignity by the very force of human and divine Law and that also before any Sentence of the supreme Pastor or Judge denounced against him and that his Subjects whatsoever are free from all Obligation of that Oath which they had taken for their Allegeance to him as their lawful Prince and that they may and ought if they have forces drive out such a man as an Apostate or Heretic and a Backslider from the Lord and Christ and an enemy to the Commonwealth from all Dominion over Christians lest he infect others or by his example or command avert others from the faith and that this certain definite and undoubted opinion of the best learned men is wholly agreeable and consonant to the Apostolical doctrine Upon these grounds it was publickly maintain'd that Henry the third of France was lawfully murthered before any sentence of excommunication past against him because though in hidden crimes formalities be requir'd yet evidens notitia facti sententiae locum tenet non percipit formam publicus dolor And that he had long liv'd as an excommunicate person de facto de justa abdic Hen. 3. l 4. c. 2 though the law had not past sentence upon him for favouring Heretics for Simony for entring into league with Hereticks the Queen of England and King of Navar for seizing the goods of the Church without the Popes privity and other offences against the Bulla Caenae Upon these grounds I have seen that execrable Villain Chastel who attempted upon Henry the Fourth what Ravillac after performed defended by a public Apology and I see no attempt can be so barbarous and inhumane which may not be defended by them So that by your favour your Catholic Princes are not secure Quiet they may be but never safe and for their quietness they may thank the lucky conjuncture of those stars which have influence upon the times of their government and restrain the malignity of these Doctrines Otherwise if they be not very cunning in school subtilties they may chance forfeit their Kingdoms and all their power per triccum de lege without ever knowing when or how live all their life time in the erroneous belief that they are very Kings and those who obey them their very Subjects and be deceiv'd all the while But be it as it will this answer which would justifie the innocence of these doctrines by the security of Catholic Princes comes pitifully off when instead of securing it takes them quite away which is a fine kind of security for it is plainly a much easier task to maintain by these doctrines that there is never a true Prince in the Christian world no not in those whom you call Catholics than it is to maintain the doctrines And yet when all is done 't is nothing to purpose neither For our Prince and People are of the number of those whom your Church takes for Heretics and can expect no other treatment from you than what you maintain belongs to Heresie Wherefore however your Catholic Princes satisfie themselves I neither see how he can be satisfied of the fidelity of such of his Subjects as approve of these opinions nor with what face they can pretend security and protection from him Pray think of this while I pass to what I put for a second answer and what I have sometimes heard alledged These opinions will you say are moot-cases probably disputed amongst private men in which the Church is neither engaged nor concerned Pray God this Church be not as slippery a word as either Heresie or Popery These men who thus magnifie the Pope certainly are not of our Church and I believe Presbyterians and Fanaticks of all sorts will disown them too so that even for pitty and not to make Infidels of them you must needs take them into yours But they who speak so kindly of the Pope need not fear disowning We see they are both acknowledged and esteemed and are all Capita alta ferentes Now 't is strange your Church should be unconcern'd in men whom you account Orthodox and learned and whose books come out with the approbation of those whom your Church commissionates for that purpose Me-things the Act of her Officers acting by her Authority should be taken for the Act of the Church Unless you will have the Pope pass for one of those careless Princes who deserve to be deposed for negligence and be ignorant that his Officers abuse their trust and licence unsound doctrines and this at Rome it self where a body would think sufficient care is taken that nothing pass which is not esteemed Orthodox Bring me a Book printed at Rome wherein the contrary doctrine is maintain'd and I will acknowledge there is some sense in this answer In the mean time let me give you a few instances and those at home by which it may appear the Pope is so far from ignorant and unconcern'd in these positions that he approves and countenances them and that both â—hotly and constantly In the reign of King James upon the occasion of the execrable Powder Treason the Oath of Allegeance was enacted by the pious wisdom of the Parliament to secure his Majesty and Successors from the like attempts for the future The Superior of the Catholic Clergy at that time was one Blackwell He after much and long debate of the matter with his fellow Priests at last resolved the Oath according to the plain and common sense of the words might with a safe conscience be taken by the Catholics and afterwards both took it himself and by his admonitions to Clergy and Laity recommended it to them as a thing both lawful and fitting The greatest part of the Clergy who repair'd to London upon that occasion followed the resolution of their Superior and had the Pope been either a little more ignorant or a little more negligent I think it had been better for you
by Election or succession or Force came to be Emperors I mean till the Empire was translated to the West for as he had a great hand in that translation he has ever since appeared more but I speak of the times before And all this is evident beyond all dispute Reconcile this who can with Constantins Donation If he put the Pope in possession of the Western Provinces how could he bequeath them to his Son And if he put him not in possession how could he be said to give them It is a mockery not a gift to say these Provinces are yours which I keep to my self during life and dispose to others after my death Livery and Seisin are pretty material circumstances in such conveyances where nothing can be understood to pass without them If Constantine gave them the Pope must have had them and that he had them not is as plain as History can make any thing where it is particularly with uniform consent recorded in whose hands these Western Provinces were what changes hapned from time to time and by what means from the death of Constantine till the Arms and favour of France under Pipin and his son Charles put into the Popes possession most of what he has It is known and by Bellarmine himself confest that Popes during those times were Subjects at least de facto which is enough for our present purpose there needing no more to shew they had not those Countries which Constantine is said to have given to them Not but that both he and divers others after and before him too were extreamly munificent to the Church by which munificence much Land in several places was setled on her by way of Alms and actually in her possession But she enjoy'd the revenues only of those Lands Administration of Justice and all Regalities were reserv'd to the Temporal Lords This has deceiv'd some who finding mention of Possessions belonging to the Church in former Ages imagined they so belonged to her then as they do now with entire and independent subjection Whereas till Popes were by the liberality and power of the French rais'd to the state of Temporal Princes the Lands of the Church were in the same condition with the estates of other Subjects the immediate owners receiving the Profits and both their Lands and Themselves subject to the supreme Lord. They were given to other Churches as well as Rome for maintenance of the Clergy and Poor for the expences of buildings and reparations and Divine Service and that so plentifully that some refused offered Patrimonies others restored what they once had not willing to be burthened with more than was needful These Lands paid publick duties as other Lands did till the Laws exempted them But these things are besides the matter To return to our Argument if the successors of Constantin continued the only known Masters of those very Countries which are said to be given away if Popes acknowledg'd them for such as well as the rest of the World and never so much as put in any claim or pretended any thing to the contrary And all this be so plain that nothing can be plainer no fiction can be more palpable nor more wild than this of Constantin's Donation It is undeniably evident that neither Popes nor Emperours nor any body else in those dayes knew any thing of it And it is as evident that they must know of it if it had been at all At least if they did not none else could in after times This Donation was not heard of in the World till long after Baron ad an 1191. n. 52. Marca de Conc. Sacerd. Imp. l. 3. c. 12. Baronius thinks the pretended Charter forged by the Grecians after the tenth Age Marca by the Latins in the time of Pipin and by his consent to stop the mouths of the Grecians who made instance that the Lands recovered from the Lombards and by Him given to the Church should be restored to the Empire However it be for the Time or Author of the fiction that the Charter is a meer and late forgery is acknowledged both by Baronius and by most of the learned men even of the Popes Communion That the Donation cannot be pretended with any shew of Reason but in force of the Charter is plain For 't is next to madness to say the West was given and produce no Evidence of the Gift Any man may claim any mans Estate with as much colour and the Pope from such a claim can expect no more success than another man But there is nothing which can be alledged in proof of this Donation besides this Charter Wherefore the whole business of which you seem to be jealous is in it self a pure Chimera absolutely contradicted by the course of Nature and consent of History and the only Evidence producible for it acknowledged a forgery by our selves And if this give you much disquiet I cannot but think you wonderful fearful Let the worst come to the worst 't is not the case of England alone France and Spain and Germany were Western Provinces as well as Britain and as much concern'd as we While we have such Outworks we need not much fear our Fort. The truth is our safety depends in reality on them For let his Right be never so good till it have seiz'd on them it cannot fasten on us and when it has we cannot escape let it be never so bad Mean time I think you may sleep quietly on the noise which will be made in the World when any of these Countries leave their native Princes and become subject to a Forreigner and quit their long setled Customs and Laws and Liberties in reverence to Constantin's Donation will wake you time enough But if you sleep till then you will go near to be the 8th sleeper and alone out-slumber all the seven Thus far of our Journey we have good company with us and the best part of Christendom being of the Caravan travel with security enough But now the Road parts and we must shift for our selves Henry II. say you from Baronius acknowledged the Kingdom of England Fendatory to the Pope in a Letter extant in Petrus Blesensis You might have added the Cardinals Comment upon the Popes confirmation or rather approbation of K. Stephen's election which he says was therefore mentioned in the Coronation Oath because the Kingdom was feudatory to the Pope Baron ad an 1135. 21. so that every new King receiv'd confirmation from him Which also was acknowledged by Hen. II. in the Letter of Blesensis Ad an 1172. n. 5. Besides he produces afterwards from the Acts of Alexander III. a clause of the Oath made at the conclusion of the difference upon the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury wherein the Kings both Father and Son are made to swear That they will receive and hold the Kingdom of England from the Pope and neither they nor their successors repute themselves Kings of England till the Popes for
the time being acknowledge them Catholick Kings We have here the Cardinals word the authority of his Acts and the testimony of Petrus Blesensis For the Cardinals word it had been more for his credit if he had not engaged in it a manifest untruth People would have been more apt to believe him in other things It is not known more certainly that there have been Romans and Saxons Danes and Normans in this Island than that the supreme Government is and alwayes has been Independent on any but God Truly I grieve and am ashamed to see Zeal to the Pope carry it in such a man above Zeal to Truth For thus much of his saying That England is feudatory he does indeed bring proof such as it is but for the latter part that every new King receiv'd Confirmation from the Pope he does not so much as offer at any And yet the business is of such a nature that the proof must needs be evident and obvious if the thing were true But the contrary is notorious every body that knows any thing of our matters knowing that no King of England ever receiv'd Confirmation from Rome no not King Stephen himself There was indeed this preamble not to the Coronation Oath as Baronius mistakes but to the ratification of what King Stephen had promis'd when he was Crown'd at Westminster in an Assembly at Oxford Ego Stephanus D. G. assensu Cleri Populi in Regem Angliae electus à Willielmo Cant. Archiepiscopo S. Rom. Ecclesiae Legato consecratus ab Innocentio S. Rom. Sedis Pontifice confirmatus c. Upon this plain song the Cardinal descents in the manner before rehears'd and might as well and as truly have concluded that the Kingdom was likewise elective For 't is at least true that he was elected but it is not true that he was confirmed The Popes Letter to the King is extant in Richardus Hagulstadensis Confirmation is so far from appearing there that the word is not so much as mentioned He says only that since for avoiding the mischiefs likely to ensue upon the death of Henry I. He had by unanimous consent been chosen to succeed He the Pope was well pleas'd with what was done and with paternal affection receiv'd him for a special son of the Rom. Church and would treat him with the same honour and familiarity which he had used to his Predecessor of famous memory This is far enough from Confirmation and the language of a supream Lord No State in Christendom or out of Christendom but confirms Kings as well as the Pope if this be confirmation When any Prince has a flaw in his Title He seeks to be acknowledged by the Neighbour Princes and when they acknowledge They confirm him as much as the Pope did K. Stephen And this was plainly the case Maud the Empress daughter to Henry I. was the true Heir of the Crown King Stephen himself had by a solemn and late Oath acknowledged her right and engaged to maintain it He had reason to colour his proceedings as well as he could and provide something to say that he might not pass for a manifestly perjur'd man And so he reckons up Election and Consecration and Confirmation which yet altogether were not sufficient to make him a good Title in the judgment even of the Pope himself For when K. Stephen desirous to secure the succession to his son Eustace required the Bishops to crown him in his own life time they with the hazard of their lives constantly refus'd to do it being forbidden by the Pope to crown the son of a man who had usurped the Kingdom contrary to his Oath Had the Pope been thought supream Lord and his consent necessary K. Stephen must have had recourse to him in the first place and could not have taken the Crown till his ratification was come But 't is plain he was crowned before the Pope was made acquainted with the business and before he knew how the Pope would take it and however he had taken it I believe would have kept the Crown which he had gotten Indeed he thought it for the advantage of his affairs to call the Popes acknowledgment a Confirmation but neither is there any ground in the Letter on which to raise such a construction and besides 't is plain that 't was not dependence of the Crown but defect of Title in himself to which that Confirmation such as it was can be applied So that Baronius is quite out and the worst Commenter that ever was it being so far from true that every new King receiv'd Confirmation from Rome that no one ever did it not the very King out of whose fact he so vainly infers all the rest But that the force of Prejudice is almost inconceivable one would hardly believe so learned and judicious a man should falter in this manner However it be He must excuse us from taking his word in a case where no body that I know would take the word of the Pope himself For his Acts they are a relation of no body knows who and that me thinks is a pleasant Title to no less than a Kingdom The Author is a nameless man of whom it cannot be understood either that he was well informed of what he delivered or faithfully delivered what he was inform'd of Had the Cardinal reflected a little better on it I believe he would have been more tender in exposing such proofs to a censorious World These unauthentick Acts are plainly contradicted by such as are Authentick Roger Hoveden in his Annals has preserv'd a Copy of the agreement made by the Popes Legates with Henry II. upon the death of S. Thomas of Canterbury There the Oath is set down as it was taken which was this That They Father and Son would not recede from Pope Alexander and his Catholick Successors as long as he should treat them like their Ancestors and Catholick Kings This was sealed by the Kings and Legats for an authentick memory of what was concluded and this Baronius himself has set down at large out of Hoveden With Hoveden agree the other Historians nearest those times Bromton and Gervasins Dorobornensis for the rest mention not this particular at all and with this agrees the relation sent by the Legats themselves to the Archbishop of Ravenna extant in Hoveden Against so clear an evidence to bring a nameless Author is more to weaken the credit of his own proofs than strengthen the Popes claim People will be wary how they trust Acts produc'd by Baronius when he produces such as these and be convinc'd that if the Pope himself be infallible all who write of him are not There remains Blesensis of whom so much is known that he might possibly be emploid to write a letter for the King to the Pope But that he did write this letter and by order from the King needs some better proof than that it was found among his papers It might be a rough draught never sent In
there was exactness enough to take notice of single pence the Crown sure could not pass by unregarded If any man fancy want of fidelity in our Historians might possibly suppress so ungrateful a Truth let him produce those more faithful Forreigners who have recorded it But considering the Zeal of those times and mighty opinion they had of Rome when the greatest Kings frequently became Pilgrims and sometimes left their Kingdoms wholly and became Monks there the suspicion lyes on the other side it being more rational to fancy an amplification than suppression of things to their advantage However such an Alms as a Kingdom could not but make a noise loud enough to reach even our ears and had the Romescot charity been extended to the Regalities we must have heard of it as well as of private houses By the way I am not ignorant what Comments have been made on that Alms but I think it not convenient to lose time in confuting them 'T is to give them more credit than they deserve for he enhances the value of Trifles who treats them like things of moment The memory of passages since the Heptarchy is too fresh and too minute to leave place for suspicion that a matter of such moment should scape unobserved And besides there is among the Works of Lanfranc a Letter of William the Conquerour to Pope Gregory VII which puts the matter out of doubt That Pope had the confidence to demand of that King an acknowledgment of subjection Fidelitatem or Fealty as the phrase runs I know not upon what ground For though I have read somewhere that the Conquerour to gain the Pope to his side when he attempted the enterprize promis'd in case of success to hold the Kingdom of the Pope Ep. Lanfranc VII yet it appears by the Kings answer that he was mistaken who said so Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo says the King quia nec ego promisi nec Antecessores meos Antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio So that till the Conquest England was free and that it became subject since sure no body will imagin The first Kings of the Norman race were men of too great spirits and contested with the Pope about matters of less importance too warmly to be suspected of giving away their Kingdoms He that reflects what bustles there were about Investitures in the dayes of Henry I. and Immunities of the Church in the dayes of Henry II. will find it neither likely nor possible the greatest rights of the Crown should be thrown away while Princes were so tenacious of the less It is true that both these Kings yielded at last to the Pope but with a condescendence so far from any sign of subjection that there was more of appearance than substance in the first case and a great deal of caution in the second no subjection nor shew of any in either The Contrast between Henry I. and the Pope was about Investitures the King desirous to continue the custom of ratifying the election of Bishops and Abbots by delivering a Ring and Staff to the Elect and the Pope resolv'd to break it The conclusion was that the Ceremony should no more be used but so that the King should chuse or cause to be chosen the person and receive homage from him that was chosen Investituram Annuli Baculi indulsit in perpetuum retento tamen electionis regalium privilegio says Will. Malmsbury Upon the same terms In Hen. 1. lib. 5. a few years after the same difference was compounded with the Emperour in which if I understand any thing the same expedient was then used which is generally observed since To preserve reputation and Appearance to the Pope and substance to Princes For while They had the chief influence in elections and none could be promoted but by their interposition the rest was a Ceremony which might without any great prejudice be left off Again when the persons Elect were by homage to acknowledg themselves Subjects to their Princes they had as much as they desir'd Indeed till this point was yielded by the Pope for it was a while stifly stood upon no agreement could be made But after Peace soon followed The quarrel of Henry II. was about the Customs of Clarendon in which the chief point was that of Appeals This point the Pope gain'd of the King yet with this caution that the Appellant should give security to attempt nothing to the prejudice of King or Kingdom It was now a time if ever for the Popes supreme Lordship to appear He was in the humour of asserting at least all that belong'd to him The World was incens'd against the King for the foulness of the late murther and ready to take the Popes part The King found it necessary to buy his peace even at the rate of pretensions very dear to him and for which he had long and earnestly contended Had the Pope been supreme Lord he would hardly have scaped so good cheap Murther and Sacriledge might have cost him the whole Kingdom For feudatory Lands are forfeited by great crimes However this supreme Dominion must needs have appeared in the transaction The King was not in case to refuse any thing due to the Pope who yielded up what till then he thought not due and besides the tenor of the agreement must have been quite different and drawn in terms us'd betwixt Vassals and Lords But instead of an acknowledgment of this nature all the disadvantage the King had in treating could not prevail with him to acknowledg the Pope so much as Pope longer than the Pope should acknowledg and treat him as King So that by the favour of the Cardinals Acts this King left the Crown as free as he found it nor can the King be yet found out on whom the suspicion should fall of having made it subject If I am not much mistaken the Popes in those daies were of a judgment very different from that which Baronius has taken up in ours For how can the conceit of a Vassalage in the time of this King consist with what hapned a little after in the reign of K. John Neither could K. John make England tributary if it were so before neither could the Pope desire he should Besides disobedience in a Vassal and what is more stubborn contrasting with a supream Lord especially when that supream Lord is the Pope would sure have been thought as great a crime as refusing an Archbishop made without his privity and against his will Why was not this laid to the Kings charge and called Rebellion When the severity of the proceedings against him perhaps needed all the colour which could be laid on Without all doubt the Pope when he had the King at his mercy would never have been contented with the bare acknowledgment of subjection if he had known subjection was due before He had prosecuted the King to the utmost extremity Interdicted the Kingdom excommunicated his Person and at last deposed and
Election at least till his Brother consented as he soon did the same title which K. Stephen and after him K. John had to the Crown I should think their Examples a very good Reason that the proceedings of those times are not to be drawn into consequence For if they may it will follow that the Kingdom of England perhaps is at least has been Elective Which I suppose no Englishman will admit if they may not I know not to what purpose they are alledged For these reasons I am perswaded nothing can be drawn from the proceedings of the first Norman Princes to justify the Resignation of King John which is so far from being binding to our times that it never had any validity at all But not to leave the matter disputable betwixt my No and the Yea of who will maintain the contrary I will fairly put it to Judgment and say whatever was done and by whatever right about the times of the Conquest that K. John in particular could not validly do what he did and that this has already been decided and in such manner that there is nothing so firmly setled in the world which may not admit of question as well as this In the reign of Ed. III. the Pope demanded the long unpaid one thousand marks granted by K. John and threatned by legal process to recover this rent A Parliament was called chiefly for this business and it was unanimously resolv'd Rot. Parl. 40 Ed. 3. That neither K. John nor any other could bring Himself his Kingdom or People into such subjection without their consent and against his Coronation Oath And that in case the Pope should by process or otherwise attempt to constrain the King or his Subjects to perform the premisses They would become Parties and resist him with all their Power This is plain and peremptory and directly to the point I cannot but muse to observe them speak doubtingly of the matter of Fact Supplication of Souls and the more because Sr. Tho. More very positively denies the Church of Rome could in his or any time produce such an Evidence When I consider He was a learned man and no Enemy to the Pope had great means of being well acquainted with Records and passages of former times unknown to others and speaks as if he had good ground for what he said I hardly know what to think of it I wish he had inform'd us what his grounds were peradventure there is more to be said than we are aware of But since he has not and the Parliament does not directly deny the Fact I for my part must be contented to take things at the worst and not deny what I cannot disprove I have this for my comfort that if the Fact were true it was in Sr. Tho. More 's words right naught worth and the Authority of Parliament to bear me out By the way our Author in alledging the consent of the Barons at that time the only representative of the Kingdom speaks against a solemn Declaration of Parliament and this undeniable proof may be joyned to what I produc'd before to make good my denial of their consent However the Question is positively decided and by an Authority irrefragable to Englishmen But lest we should be suspected of partiality in our own case let us put it to the Judgment of Forreigners When the differences betwixt this King and the Barons became irreconcileable they sought protection from France The Pope sent a Legat to disswade the French King and his Son from medling with a Kingdom the Dominion whereof belonged now to the Church The word was hardly out of the Legats mouth when the King of France reply'd suddenly M. Paris ad an 1216. That England never had been nor then was nor ever should be the Patrimony of Peter And this besides what he else alledged because no King could give away his Kingdom without consent of his Barons an error which if the Pope would maintain He would give a most pernicious example to all Kingdoms The Nobility present with great heat justify'd this speech of their King and declared they would stand for that point to death viz. that it was not in the power of any King to transfer his Kingdom or make it tributary at pleasure You see I spoke not altogether out of my own head when I refus'd to yield an arbitrary right of disposing Kingdoms even to Conquerors and that I shall not want who will take my part But to let that pass it cannot be attributed to the partiality of our either Country or Times that we hold this Deed of K. John null when it was condemned for such by those who were contemporaries to it and as much abroad as at home Who desires more security is in my opinion a very scrupulous man Notwithstanding let us put it to the Judgment of the very Contrivers of the Deed. I am much mistaken if Themselves had not the same sentiments with the rest of the world If They did not understand well enough that the consent of the Barons was necessary to the validity of the Deed why did they insert that clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum A thing of this consequence undoubtedly was not carelesly hudled up Great deliberation was without question us'd and they would never have put in what they themselves and every body else knew was false but that they were sensible All was to no purpose without it So that in the hard choice of framing a Draught either without Truth or without validity They had an eye to the latter and let the first shift as it could The truth is They had reason it being obvious enough that if they could carry things out at present the Charter it self as all Records are would be a strong Presumption for the truth of what it contains to Posterity But since it is as evident as that there was a Charter that this Clause was untrue it is likewise evident that Those who put it in thought it necessary Wherefore even in their Judgments the Grant was invalid as wanting what themselves thought absolutely requisite You now perceive of what importance this point is of the Consent of the Barons of which I forbore to speak while I was examining whether they consented or no. Neither do I mean to dilate upon it now it being enough to observe that the want of it absolutely invalidates the Grant and this in the Judgment not only of the Framers and of the King and Kingdom of France but of Parliament For you see They positively declare that neither K. John nor any other could bring the Kingdom into subjection without consent of the People who at that time had none but the Barons to consent for them So that not to acquiesce in this point is to refuse the highest Authority of the Nation and who does so is not fit to live in the Nation But shall I venture to joyn our Author himself to the rest of this good company and
say that whatever out of the strength of his wit He alledges on the other side yet this Charter is no more valid in his judgment than in other folks And I do not mean that 't is become now invalid by the force of Prescription for this he has sufficiently declared but that it was originally and always invalid Truly I am mistaken if this may not be concluded from what he says elsewhere when dis-engaged from the desire of making good his Argument he frankly discovers his true sentiments Pag. 239. considering an observation made in a former Letter on the particular Fact of the Emperour Frederick he replies That whether supreme Princes may put it into a Forreigners power to compel them to cession by a direct deprivation of their Right of Government is a case which he thinks none will easily grant to be either Just or Secure for the Common-wealth for which they were concern'd I conceive that when K. John resign'd his Kingdom and receiv'd it again to hold of the Pope as principal Lord to whom he became a Vassal He put it into the power of a Forreigner to compel him not only by Ecclesiastical Censures but by a direct deprivation of his Right of Government And this he declares to be Unjust and Unsafe for the Commonwealth King John then even in his own opinion did unjustly and against the good of the Commonwealth that is had not Right to do what he did and his Act was invalid from the beginning I suppose therefore He will acknowledg on second thoughts that there are other ways to bound the actions of supreme Princes besides Compacts and Concessions and that Justice and the Safety of the Commonwealth are two of those ways in which other Princes were obliged to walk as well as K. John and if they did not their Actions are not to be drawn into example I will hope the Question is resolved to satisfaction For I know no fairer nor surer way to end a difference than to put it to Judgment And since 't is judged on my side by an Authority from which there lyes no appeal and by those who one would expect should be most partial on the other Those who contriv'd the Deed and Him who urges it Of the Popes Temporal Monarchy I should think there is no more to be desir'd If any mans curiosity reach further he may find wherewith to satisfie it in those who have already handled this Subject particularly the learned Crakanthrop But to touch briefly what is more largely treated elsewhere the Charter contradicts and destroys it self reserving in one place what it grants in another There is in it an express saving of the Rights given away by this clause Salvis nobis Haeredibus nostris Justitiis Libertatibus Regalibus nostris Nothing can be more manifest than that the Independency of the Crown belongs to the Regalia and again that subjection is opposite to Liberty And yet the Regalia and Liberty are expresly reserv'd at the same time when the Crown is made Dependent and Subject This is just I give you a hundred pound which hundred pound I keep to my self Which is an unvalid and self-destructive Act and passes nothing and is in truth a piece of Non-sence not a Gift Again that the Regalia Imperii are Inalienabilia without consent of the Subjects is a point setled by a consent so unanimous of all Nations that there is no Maxim more known 'T is very troublesome and more idle to fill paper with Quotations for a point better known than the Author to be quoted This too is a receiv'd Maxim that Metus cadens in virum constantem nuls the Act extorted by fear of which besides a hundred examples in all nations some even of Popes themselves who upon that ground have voided their own Acts the Pope to whom this Grant was made has left a very pregnant instance in the case of this very King The Barons a little after obtained the Magna Charta from him confirmed by all the security they could devise The Pope solemnly declares all proceedings void because extorted by fear But it is most evident that K. John had no greater cause of fear when he past the Magna Charta than he had when he signed the Charter to the Pope Pandulph brought him to it by exaggerating his imminent danger the French with a vast Army ready to land backt with the Ecclesiastical power of the Clergy and Arms of the Laity whereof many of the principal were said to have oblig'd themselves by authentick Charters to assist the French The King yielded confusus valde mente nimis perturbatus videns undique sibi periculum imminere in the words of M. Paris Could there be more fear from the Barons alone than from the same Barons and French and Pope too Or could his fear in one case make his Act void and signify nothing in the other So that there is this very good reason to believe that the Pope himself to whom the Kingdom was granted judged the Grant nul because he declared an Act of the same King nul by a less fear than that which extorted his Grant This too was understood by those who drew the Charter and inserted this other clause Non vi inducti nec Timore coacti sed nostra bona spontaneaque voluntate By which it is apparent that there was more than one clause contrary to Truth and that more was requisite to the validity of the Act even in the judgment of the Contrivers than could be had Which is that the Act was invalid as wanting what themselves thought necessary to make it valid By this and much more alledged by divers the Nullity of that Grant of K. John appears I think very undeniably supposing in him all the Right which can be supposed in any King of England But by our Authors favour what he takes for granted that K. John had undoubted Kight to the Crown at the passing of this act is very far from undoubted A Sister of Arthur's was then living and long after in whom the Right of Arthur could not but be When K. John by his success at Mirabel got Arthur into his hands he made use of the opportunity of his victory to seize likewise upon his Sister Elianor whom he brought into England and confin'd to Bristol Castle There was another and I think an elder Sister but what became of her I know not In likelyhood she died before these times But this Lady surviv'd her Uncle The Pope mentions her among those who had right to the Crown to the Embassadors of Lewis M. Paris ad an 1216. who sought to justify their Masters title to England and the French objected against her what if it have any force in their Law has none in ours For it is a plain case that the elder line takes place of the younger in the inheritance of the Crown and no act or forfeiture of K. John could bar the right of
which often consideration as it happens in other cases diminishes nothing of the surprize The more I consider the more I wonder and as wondring people do gaze and stare and hardly know what to say I have a great mind bluntly to deny the thing as I would an incredible story related without proof Nothing that ever I heard not the inchantment of O Brazile sounds more incredibly But M. Paris and the rest who record it have never been taxed of feigning and Baronius says he found it in the Vatican 'T is not for me to oppose my perswasion to their credit though all their credit cannot hinder it from sounding still incredibly There are many Islands nearer Rome Cyprus and Candia Sicily Sardignia and the rest If the Pope have a claim as I think he has to some of these surely it is not purely because they are Islands For to some I do not know that he ever pretended The Coast of America has many very considerable Hispaniola Cuba and our Jamaica to say nothing of the rest and nearer at hand the Canaries as little as they are are yet worth having It is as incredible a thing as any can be that Ireland alone should be claimed by a pretence common to innumerable others there being no continent which has not many and no claim made to any of the rest England at least Britain is an Island too How came it to scape and all this bustle made with King John to gain a litigious and unmaintainable pretence to what was clearly the Popes before Again why has this pretence never been set a foot before nor since in no case by no body Were it not for this Bull it could not be known there ever was such a conceit in the world and notwithstanding the Bull it never entred for ought I can learn Eccles E B. Apost Petri Pauli pro continuatione Luminariorum pâ—ssessionum praedâ—a contulimusâ— tam in oriente quam in occidente vel diversis Insulis c. Privileg Constan dist 96. into the head of any other man But whence should this subjection of Islands come From their receiving Christianity If this were so I percieve no difference betwixt Islands and Continents that Christianity should not work the same effects in both For certainly what Christianity does it does every where But that Christianity has no such effect that non eripit mortalia qui regna dat coelestia is known and confest and has been discourst enough formerly If such a thing were once admitted of Islands such another Bull might turn the whole world into one great Island and all were the Popes without more ado Or may the famous Donation of Constantin because it has the word Islands ground this pretence The word indeed is used once but nothing more is said of them than that some revenues are granted out of some of them as well as other places towards maintaining lights at Rome Besides the Donation it self signifies nothing and if it did cannot be stretcht to Ireland which never was in the power of Constantin to dispose of A claim to all Christian Islands can never have its origin from Constantin who was not possess 't of nor so much as acquainted with the hundredth part of them and yet before the end of the world we hope The sun of Justice will shine upon them all Truly I am utterly at a loss and which way soever I turn me can make nothing of it unless the Right of which this Bull speaks be understood of a Spiritual Right Such an one the Pope may claim and that in vertue of their receiving Christianity and if he spoke only of Islands I would think the reason was because the question being only of Ireland it was not to his purpose to speak of Continents So that I would understand the Bull in this manner You desire my favour and counsel in your design upon Ireland which you mean to undertake for the good of the Country in general and the Church in particular Islands belonging to my care as well as the rest of the world I am glad all the good be done there which can and so approve your design and wish you to go on I know not whether I shall not pass for too bold an interpreter but I will hope at least that this is the sence if it be not I should be beholding to him who could instruct me what is But be it what it will I am sure a single line inserted in an old writing no body knows why or upon what ground and never insisted on before nor since no not by the most partial Abetters of the Popes Prerogatives is a sorry evidence by which to claim a Kingdom The Kings of England have held that Country above 500 years and all that time been acknowledged absolute Lords of it by all the world and Popes as well as the rest No Homage no Tribute no Investiture no sign of subjection to the Pope has all this while appeared save in the resignation of King John nothing perform'd on our side nothing so much as demanded on the other The world would run into a fine confusion if such a Title should be questioned because some words are found in a writing 500 years ago which no body can understand Popes have not been careless in their Rights England in some of the intermediate times has been even scrupulously affected to them and a great deal more ready to add to than detract from their due It is not possible but if this Title had been any thing worth we should have heard of it at some time or other elsewhere than in the Bull. At least in the transactions with King John it must of necessity have appeared That King was not in terms to refuse any thing the Pope should demand Had he known of any right to Ireland it had been but saying so for it was upon the matter Ask and Have any pretence in that conjuncture would have served turn And this Bull was not then so old that it could be worn out of memory But it is plain that England and Ireland are both on the same terms in the grant of King John and no right pretended to either but in vertue of that grant Neither indeed can such a pretence consist with the words of it Instead of Offerimus libere concedimus it must have been said we restore or acknowledge or something equivalent by which there might have appear'd not creation of a new Right but recognition of an old For that cannot be granted which is the Grantee's before the Grant nor does a supream Lord receive a Fee from a Vassal by way of gift but obliges the Vassal to acknowledge by Homage and customary duties that it is so or if disuse have withheld his duties and weakned his Title to restore things again to their old condition This instead of granting King John should and the Pope would have made him have done had there been any knowledge of a
a little how the world has gone and goes with those who gratify you in this matter What was the event of that unwearied constancy which the learned Withrington shew'd in it He lost his good name his Friends all comforts of life all sweetness of society with those of his own communion and had not so much as Liberty from you but liv'd and dy'd a Prisoner Walsh succeeds him in learning in fidelity in constancy and in all likelyhood fortune He has appear'd so far in this business that I believe he thinks it not safe to appear in any part of the world where the Pope bears sway and yet for ought I know has as little security at home as abroad His Liberty and Life are at the mercy of every informer it not being in the power of any Judge before whom he shall be brought to save him from the punishment appointed for Treason Harold is another who has appeared in this cause with the same success He lives confin'd in a convent of his own order in or near Bruxels because he refuses to retract the Irish remonstrance without an express saving of fidelity to his King This by the Congregation de Propaganda at Rome was judged a captious exception and the man is by the Internuncio of Bruxels confin'd against his will and notwithstanding the permission of his own Superiors to retire elsewhere Coppinger and the rest of the regular Remonstrants in Ireland to say nothing of other and those many and grievous vexations are either actually banisht by the late Proclamation against Bishops and Regulars or live in extream danger and fear of being discovered and expos'd to the law by those who hate them for their constancy to the Remonstrance And this is the sate of all who gratify you with those testimonies of Loyalty which you are perpetually urging Time was when you objected against me that we had an unintelligible way of Government among us Permit me to say I can as little understand yours He was a wise Prince who caused the Oath of Allegiance to be made with design to distinguish the dangerous Principles which he thought concurred to the Powder Treason from others which were innocent Who can understand why those who by that Distinction are found on the right side should always be in worse condition than those who are on the wrong Did K. James or the Parliament when they establisht a Distinction by Law mean to find out the Innocent by their distinction that they might be the worse for their Innocence To impute Danger and Treason to one part and punish both and the not-dangerous and not-Traitors more For so they are though not by you This is the effect of your Distinction though sure it was never the design The Act seems made to distinguish the Treason for which you say we suffer from the Religion for which you say we do not And when all is done they are not so much as exempt from the punishment of Traitors who by this Act are exempted from the guilt of Treason Withrington was no Traitor his actions and writings clear him sufficiently Walsh is no Traitor on the contrary he has given proofs of Fidelity which few could and fewer perhaps would And yet the Law looks on him and may to day or to morrow pass on him as a Traitor Truly it is not intelligible at least to my dulness how it should be for your interest that things should be carried in this manner This I know that while they are so few will comply with you I mean where with a safe conscience they may For Hopes and Fears are the main motives which carry human nature and 't is not to be expected people should gratifie you when they have nothing to hope and more to fear than when they do not For my own part I think you very unreasonable to quarrel at me for being conceal'd and single At least I am not so unreasonable as to court any man by joyning with me to run the fate of Walsh and Withrington and will avoid it my self as long as I can I relish not their uncomfortable condition finding it uncomfortable enough to live in perpetual fear of the Laws But I declare they shall not take hold on me for Treason For I again disclaim those positions which you say are Treasonable More I could and would say to you if none saw my letters but your self But thus much I profess to all the world and besides that I am Your very humble Servant This following Quotation out of Dr. H. Ferne late Bishop of Chester should have been inserted with those other Quotations taken out of Dr. Stillingfleet c. which you have before at the end of the Protestant Gentleman's Letter pag. 7. But the Book of the said Dr. Ferne which has it came not to hand soon enough to insert it there And yet being so directly and fully to purpose I would not omit giving it here I Believe and do suppose there are some Popish Priests who in the simplicity of their hearts and out of meer Conscience of Religion do labour the propagation of it whilst others more directly are guilty of Seditious and Treasonable Practices It is my wish there could be a distinction made between the one and the other that the punishment which the Law adjudges all Priests to that are found within the Land might only fall upon them who are indeed guilty of such practices which being so frequently found in their predecessors and the State being not able to distinguish between them who are all Missionaries of Rome caused those Laws to be made for the security of Prince and State And if they that come into the Land without any Treasonable intent do suffer for it they must thank their fellows as the above-mentioned Seculars do the Jesuits whose restless attempts forced the State to forbid them all entrance into the Land under pain of Treason To conclude it is not Religion nor the Function nor any Ministerial Act belonging to it that is punished in Romish Priests but Treason and Seditious practices to which Religion Sacraments Ministery of Reconciliation and all that is reputed Holy are made to serve and all this to advance and secure the Papal Vsurpation Dr. H. Ferne in his Book entituled Certain Considerations of present Concernment touching This Reformed Church of England Printed in London 1653. Chap. 5. Paragraph 9. Pag. 169. FINIS The Fifteenth and Sixteenth OF THE CONTROVERSIAL LETTERS OR Grand Controversie Concerning The pretended Temporal Authority of POPES over the whole Earth And the True Sovereign of KINGS within their own respective Kingdoms Between two English Gentlemen The one of the Church of England The other of the Church of Rome LONDON Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun and Benjamin Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1679. FRIEND I Have got a new Flea in my Ear which you must needs pull out It is like enough my importunity may not be over-welcom and you
and men of several qualities The same person is both a man and a Rich and Proud man a Powerful and an Angry man and we see Wit and Ambition Goodness and Ignorance Learning and Fantasticalness often coupled together and a hundred several mixtures of several qualities united all in one material Man Now consider what fine work there would quickly be if every one of these useless formalities as you call them must be chargeable with all actions if Riches must be taken away because the Rich Proud man has scorn'd and Power because the Powerful Angry man has wronged his Neighbour if Wit must bear the blame of Ambition and Goodnesâ— the miscarriages of Ignorance and Learning the Errors of Fantasticalness Reason is our very Nature and yet I think there are few to whom Nature has not given Logick enough to see that we do not always act as reasonable and who are not learned enough to separate the Animal from the Man To speak yet plainer a severe Father a harsh Master do they not sometimes use their Children and Scholars unreasonably and so as utterly to spoil them A corrupt Judge does he not pervert Justice and render those Tribunals from whence men expect the relief of Injuries the seats of Oppression What then Must the Father and the Master and the Judge be condemned for the faults of the Man and none of these powers left in the world because they have been and daily are abused I think you and every body will confess that this were unreasonable and yet your Argument spares none of them For 't is all one to Children and Pleaders if they be materially opprest and misus'd whether this be done by the fault of the Office or the Officer and small comfort it is to tell them that their Judges and Masters acted in their case as passionate men not as Judges and Masters for they remain opprest still and the formality relieves them not Kings themselves are men too and not exempt from the failings of Mortality Our Country indeed has this amongst other things to thank God for that she has been extraordinarily blest with good Kings but History affords examples of such elsewhere as have been unjust and cruel and tyrannical And if you will not allow the King and his sacred Function to be free from the aspersions to which the Man is sometimes liable let me tell you Friend your Doctrine will be more dangerous and more inconsistent with Government than the Papal pretensions Now as in all these cases and a hundred more which happen every day and every where Nature teaches us to examine the formality from whence the mischief proceeds and endeavour to provide against that and let the rest alone so I think it ought to be in the case of the Church We condemn not Learning because some learned men are fantastical nor Riches for the pride of rich men why must the Church be condemned for the fault of Church-men Authority and Goodness and Wit are not blemisht by the errors of those who have them the Power of Fathers and Masters and Judges is and must be preserved in the world however Severity and Covetise daily abuse it and if this be so in all the rest of the world can you think it reasonable the Church alone should be exempted from the general rule and be more answerable for the faults of those who live in her communion than Authority for the faults of bad men in Authority The faults indeed should be taken away but the Church let alone And truly had your Reformation as you call it gone no farther than to retrench abuses such as these you mention and who knows but there may be other I might peradventure have call'd it so too But instead of abuses to take away Office and all and defie the supreme Pastor of the Church and alter the whole face of Religion there by your favour you reformed a little too far For the same Logic which makes the Church responsible for the errors of Church-men makes the Office responsible for the faults of the Officer and that is to take all Offices out of the world where men will be men and liable to be reduced from the path of vertue in spight of all preventions possible in such a nature as ours I hope by this time that distinction does not appear so airy and useless as you imagined you shall permit me to add that possibly you are no less concern'd in it than We. For we are not the only men amongst whom Principles inconsistent with Government may be found Remember who they were that ruin'd England by the late War and were guilty of things which to dilate were as unsavoury as needless They were so far from Popery these men that fear of Popery was a chief Engine employed in the mischief Sad fate by the way and preposterous wisdom to destroy our selves for fear of being destroyed and run into Fire and the Sword for fear of Ink and Paper Neither is England the only example Scotland and the Netherlands and Germany and France have felt lamentable effects from the Doctrines of men who would take it for an imputation to have learnt any thing of the Pope So that it is very plain that the Papal is neither the only nor the only dangerous King-deposing power in the world 'T is as plain that these men are neither Infidels nor of our Church so that you must even exercise your Pity too and take them into yours Or if pity will not prevail I hope at least you will take care so to defend your Allegiance a not to overthrow your Church And unless you make your Creed consist but of Eleven Articles I see not how you can disown the Communion of these men for 't will be a strange Catholic Church which communicates neither with the Church of Rome nor her Adversaries Wherefore if your Argument be good and Religion must answer for the faults of those who profess it there is no remedy but Princes to be secure must banish all Religion and People turn Atheists to be honest men and good Subjects Now whatever answer you would give to one who should charge such wicked principles upon your Church because they are maintained by numerous and learned and famous men amongst you the same I give for mine I believe for all your Pique to formalities you would go near to distinguish your Church or Believing men from the Erring men and say you communicate with the Men but not with the Errors So you shall permit me to say for mine and this farther that whatever you say you must of necessity either condemn your selves or absolve us 'T is not that the force of your Argument drives me to that way of answer which I have chosen it being easie to shew the Churches innocence even in your own way and without the help of your disliked formalities Your Argument in short is this Learned men in the Church hold wicked Doctrines therefore the Church
to satifie them all And as the Schools go now it is not hard to say almost any thing As men are of several tempers I will not deny but some may be truly perswaded of your Doctrines and defend them with an upright conscience thinking that to exalt the Pope is truly advantageous to Religion and beneficial to the World But I believe you will not find many so qualified Those you have named are some the Popes own Subjects most Italians or Spaniards upon whom He is known to have particular influence and if we judge that in this exalting the Pope they might have an eye to the preferment of themselves I think it will be no rash judgment Of latter times those have appeared the chief sticklers in this quarrel who are thought to have the greatest dependance upon Rome So that of all produced and produceable in behalf of those opinions I deceive my self if the number be not shamefully inconsiderable against whom there lies not a just suspicion of interest and of whom it may not reasonably be judged that Hopes or Fears or something besides pure Conscience swayed their judgments And Interest you know is a just exception against a Witness in all Courts As for private men what would you have them do Consider that all Catholics look upon the Pope as the chief Bishop in God's Church and supreme Pastor of the whole Flock If they hear any thing said over-lashingly of him can it be expected they should be forward to speak what they think til a due occasion urges them Or have less respect for him than common civilitie uses to every body For when any thing is said advantageous to a person with whom we converse if we believe it not we keep our thoughts to our selves and think it rudeness to oppose it to their faces Besides as I said at first this medling of private men with the concern of Princes is the Flies playing with the Candle Withrington quite burnt his wings Walsh has fairly sing'd them and if people learn wariness by the harms of other men I conceive they are not blameable As frightful and threatning as the Idea is which you have made of this danger no Prince that I know thinks it great enough to deserve that they should interpose and I think the man very foolishly wise who will pretend to understand their concerns better than themselves or better know what is fit to be done People of our private Sphere see but one thing Princes see that one thing in likelihood better than we and a hundred more of which we never dream and till they stir themselves for private men to obtrude their politic Ignorance upon them is so far from laudable that it is well if it be pardonable neither will their forwardness signifie more than an over busie diligence and peradventure saucy unquietness The old Monks wise counsel Sinere res vadere ut vadunt is as necesiary in the world as a Cloyster Besides for English Catholics in particular they have somewhat more reason to keep silence while their speaking is sure to be discountenanced on the one side and not sure to be protected on the other You may perceive by Caron's Collection that Catholicks are so much mealy mouthed men towards the Pope when there is fit occasion to speak what they think and God forbid that Forreiners should be better Subjects than English men I am sure they were Catholics who declared in Parliament that the imperial Crown of England is and at all times has been free from all subjection to the Pope And provided the Statute of Praemunire against such abuses as were then found inconvenient And they were Catholicks who refused to repeal this Statute in the days of Queen Mary when other Laws made against the Popes Authority were taken away But if you will have a touchstone of the fidelity of English Catholics look a little upon the year 88. The Pope had stretched his Authority as far as it would go and proceeded to Excommunication Deposition and Absolution of his Subjects from Obedience to her down right Commands to assist her Enemies and this Authority was backt by the Power of a great Prince in their thought and language invincible Besides the Title of the Queen born in time of a Marriage declared lawfull by the Pope was not free from dispute which carried the inclination of Catholics to the Title of Scotland since happily introduced and which I hope will long happily continue and this was if I mistake not the true reason of the jealousie and severity of those times against them Notwithstanding the unusual concurrence of so many and so great temptations They stood firm in their Allegeance and both our own and forrein Writers testifie that neither the subtil Arts of the Politic Spaniard or the enforcement of the Popes Authority could prevail to make any Party here but that the most learned and esteemed of the Priests by a solemn and authentic Writing acknowledged the Queen notwithstanding she was excommunicated and deposed by name to have still the same Authority and power as before and as much as any of her Predecessors and the Layty chearfully and universally offered to hazard their lives in defence of their Prince and Country and that as private Souldiers ther being too much suspicion in the jealousie of those times to pretend to commands In fine the Spaniards were so ill satisfied with them that the Duke of Medina Admiral in that expedition at his return plainly told the Dutchess of Feria an English Woman of the Family of the Dormirs that had he prevailed no difference had been made betwixt Catholics and others more than what the Sword could have found Of later times the whole Nation is obliged to bless God for the happy fidelity of some of them and we had still been groaning under our late miseries if this traiterous Religion had not principled even poor men into a fidelity stronger than the temptation of Gold And 't is not like the men who act thus would refuse to speak in fit occasion Things have been written even since the return of his Sacred Majesty which have been peradventure more zealous than seasonable but however which sufficiently discover the inclination of Catholics to say all that can be expected with reason from them when the conjuncture is proper In the mean time to consider the Dilemma you so earnestly recommend to me I must tell you it concludes not We are inexcusable say you if we renounce not those Positions when without injury to the Churches Authority or our own conscience we may Why so F A is there no excuse for an action but this that 't is unlawful People before they do any thing use to consider the Why as well as the What and examine not only whether the action be allowable but whether it be convenient But not to insist on this I will offer you a fair bargain Do you your part and I will do mine make it reasonable make
He has besides a second sentence of the Popes against the Barons of England by name wherein he speaks in this manner We would have you know that lately in a General Council we did excommunicate and anathematize the Barons of England moreover we do excommunicate and anathematize We aggravate our hand more strongly against them c. This bears date 17 Calend. Jan. the 16 Decemb. of the same year and 't is clear by the Pope's expressions that before this time the Council was ended and it may be had been a good while If these 60 Canons were all examined with that maturity which becomes a Council and so decreed Councils at that time were much nimbler then now a dayes If proceedings then had one quarter of the flegm we use now their suspicion is not altogether without ground who think the consultations then on foot were interrupted by the breaking out of suddain wars and nothing brought to conclusion Withrington takes another exception to this Canon which he says comes not home to the purpose nor can by the rules of Law be interpreted to extend to Soveraign Princes because as he says in construction of Law such Princes at least in penal or as they call them odious matters are never understood to be included in general words as Lords Magistrates and the like no more then the Pope when only Bishop is named or Abbot by the word Monk If it had been meant of Soveraign Princes it had been as easy to have named them expresly as temporal Lords and they were so named in other Decrees even of this Council Besides this very Decree in the very same words changing only spiritual punishments into temporal was publisht within 5 years by the Emperor and it cannot be imagined he meant to make Soveraign Princes subject to his Laws or had power so to do though he meant it These and several other things may be say'd but in my opinion they need not for there is another answer free from the intricacies whether of Law or History and which to my apprehension is both easy and plain Every body knows that Decrees of Councils are of two sorts Some declare what is to be believed others prescribe something to be done And every body knows that these two are of very different natures To refuse Decrees of Faith is to renounce the communion of that Church whose Representative the Council is that is the whole Church if the Council be general unless there be a just exception against their proceeding For Faith is that by which a Church is a Church and if you be of a different Faith you cannot be of the same Church But for the other sort of Decrees when they concern civil matters because those whose business it is to manage them are supposed to be better acquainted with them then spiritual men whose business it is to attend to spirituals neither reason nor custom allows them any force till they be received by particular Countries and by that reception made binding For it were very unreasonable one Law should bind all Countries when that which is convenient in one place may be and often is prejudicial in another We in England acknowledg no Law but by consent of Parliament In France they require Verification as they call it in their highest Courts of Justice Every Country has its particular method but what has not past this test is currant no where And this is a notorious thing for default of which there is none who knows not that these kind of Decrees of the Council of Trent are not obliging in France to this day Again t is equally notorious that the Canon in question is of this second sort Wherefore 't is as plain as can be that unless it can be made appear It has been duly receiv'd and by such reception become binding of itself it is not binding any where I mean where both powers are not united to command it For where the Pope has the Authority of a temporal Prince there both powers concur I forbear to touch several things mentioned pertinently enough As how Bishops in Council should order temporal penalties who out of Council unless they have a share of temporal power communicated otherwise to them cannot go beyond spiritual A Congregation of Bishops is but so many Bishops nor is it easy to conceive how their meeting together should invest them with an authority of another kind and such as is not proper to Bishops To which purpose a famous Canonist upon occasion of temporal penalties inflicted by a certain Canon inquires what the Pope had to do with temporals and answers truly nothing but he ordered that penalty in vertue of the Emperors consent who was present and approv'd it So that when Councils make such kind of Decrees 't will be hard to make out any other Authority by which they make them than the consent of Princes concern'd But these considerations and several other I pass by the former being plain in it self and plainly doing the business The Decree in question is of that kind which all the world knows is not binding but where and only where t is receiv'd Either produce this reception or t is to no more purpose to urg it then to alledg the authority of a Bill thrown out of one of the Houses or not assented to by the King Upon the whole if there had gone a little more knowledg to Bellarmin's zeal 't would have been so much the better He undertakes to prove that general Councils teach evidently that Princes may be depos'd by the Pope and brings in proof a Decree which teaches nothing but orders that which none is bound to obey unless he live in a Country who have made it a Law to themselves if any such Country there be And if this be his evident teaching it will be concluded that his Doctrine in this point can be taught no otherwise then by a teaching which evidently is no teaching Bellarmin concludes with the Council of Lyons under Innocent 4. in which there was publisht a sentence of deposition against the Emperor Frederick 2. This as Art requires at a close he sets forth as gloriously as he can Having related the later part of the sentence This says he is the sentence of the Soveraign Bishop with approbation of the whole Council that is with the consent and praise of the Vniversality of Christian Prelates And yet one I know not who dares dispute against it and publish his Book and cast a mist before the eyes of the simple and so goes on to the end of the Chapter amplifying the boldness and rashness of standing in opposition to so many and so learned and so holy men whom for the greater solemnity he gathers all into one great Council excommunicating and deposing by Apostolick Authority Heretical Princes or Patrons of Hereticks And upon this fancy of making one Council of all ages he is so intent that he quite forgets that Heretical Princes were no part of the
depos'd for vvhat no repentance could cure Again in the Nevv Lavv he vvould make us believe Chilperick vvas depos'd for insufficiency Did the Pope admonish him to repent the grievous fault of having so little vvit and allovv him time to provide himself of better brains and better organs and vvhen he found him incorrigible and all persvvasion lost upon him and that say the Pope vvhat he could he vvould not do vvhat he could not do then at last after fruitless and long deluded patience cast him off Wherefore though Bellarmine do require such Formalities as cannot conveniently be spared yet possibly he may not think their necessity so absolute as that the Deposition should be void if they concur not But let him think vvhat he pleases vvhile vvith all his insignificant Buts he preserves this substance that a King may be deposed if instead of three be require three hundred Ceremonies the opinion is still inconsistent vvith Civil Government And for our Case in particular our Soveraign does not think fit to repent vvhat Bellarmine cals Heresie and a deposing fault for this reason because he does not think it a fault and is for that reason very like to be incorrigible in it too and vvhoever thinks he may therefore be deposed is himself pernicious and not to be endured in his Dominions And so much for the taking avvay But. For the giving But he tels us The Pope may also give the Kingdom to another yet not at pleasure to whom he thinks fit for so indeed Kings were but precarious Kings But He is ty'd to the order of Justice whether Succession or Election take place or if there be none can claim then to him whom reason profers I fear the truth of this may be questioned Sure I am that vvhen Q. Elizabeth vvas deposed and her Kingdom given to the Spaniard there vvere better Titles afoot in the vvorld then K. Philips Thanks be to God the Throne of England has not been vacant and the Popes reason never troubled to fill it When Kingdoms are expos'd to prey 't is catch that catch can I see no great order of Justice in that But suppose it vvere true vvhat signifies this order of Justice and vvhat bar to the Popes pleasure in Succession or Election If the next Heir or next Elect be a man vvho pleases not the Pope I suppose he must be pass'd by and so as many as offer till they come at last to some body who is rectus in Curiâ For the first might stand as vvell as any of these vvho I conceive are all in the number of those vvho cannot claim and then vvhat does Succession or Election hinder but the Pope still gives at pleasure since none shall succeed or be elected but vvhom he pleases Again vvhat difference betvvixt giving a Kingdom to vvhom the Pope pleases and to vvhom Reason meaning the Popes Reason prefers Preference of Reason is nothing in the vvorld but that the Pope pleases to think it fitter this man should be prefer'd then the other So that Election and Succession and Reason are nothing in truth but the Popes Pleasure and all that Bellarmine affords us is a meer sound of vvords vvhich signifie nothing and if they did vvere nothing to purpose neither For vve are all this vvhile beside the Cushion It makes nothing I think to the justification of a Robbery that the prey vvas equally shared and vvhen a King is dethroned he is as much dethroned if he be succeeded by the next heir as by a stranger neither do I believe he is much concern'd vvho comes next upon the Stage vvhen his ovvn part is ended Our Question at Present is whether Kings in Bellarmins doctrine be only precarious Kings By the way Precarious is not very currant English I think we should call it holding at will or pleasure or if you will coyn a new word Tenure by Intreaty But however let us keep our Authors word Barclay objects that Bellarmin makes Kings precarious because he allows the Pope to take away and give Kingdoms and this whenever he has a mind as being sole judge in the case Bellarmin answers that Kings were indeed Precarious if their Kingdoms could be dispos'd of at pleasure but because the Pope is ty'd to the order of Justice in that point they are not precarious As if Barclay insisted on that or thought their being Precarious depended on that disposition The Son in defence of his Father laughs at that notion of Precarious and rightly observes that Precarious is not said with relation to him that gives but him that takes away 'T is the power of revocation if that word fit him vvho never gave plac'd in the Pope the power of deposing when the Pope thinks fit which makes a King precarious let the Kingdom be dispos'd how 't will afterwards the King is still precarious purely Tenant at vvill But pray tell me truly Do you in earnest find any thing in these healing Buts of Bellarmin which makes his opinion a jot sounder then the Canonists a jot safer for Princes or more dutiful for Subjects For my part I profess seriously I find nothing unless non-sence will do the feat There is a little more non-sence in this opinion then the other and if that be a security for Princes it would do vvell if the vvorld ran mad as fast as it could While men are in their wits they vvill go near to think never a Barrel better Herring Just such work he makes vvith Barclays next Proposition which was this To judge when 't is necessary for the good of Souls that a King be depos'd belongs only to the Pope and none is to question his Judgment This he saies is like the former and if it be ill understood is false but rightly understood is true but then concludes not what Barclay would have it Now am I terribly afraid that ill understood is as much in Bellarmins language as truly understood or so as it truly signifies and rightly understood means understood otherwise then as it signifies For else I cannot for my heart see but if the Pope may depose when there is necessity and judge when this necessity happens and none must call his judgment in question and these words mean as they sound Kings are purely Tenants at will and the Pope may depose them whenever he pleases to judge it necessary which is what Barclay would conclude What is the good meaning in which vve must rightly understand it Why It does indeed belong to the Pope saies he to judge whether it be necessary a King should be depriv'd of his Kingdom Very well So Barclay understood it and so Bellarmin himself understands it Why does it not conclude then that Princes may be depos'd at pleasure Because of another But. But saies he it does not belong to the Pope to feign necessities at pleasure or serve his passions under pretence of necessity Bellarmin is as unlucky it his Buts as Distinctions Whoever said it belong'd to
so many Copies as have been made from the time in which he lived till the time his works appear'd in the world it may have been alter'd Vestrae Jurisdictiones est Reg. Angliae quantum ad Feudatarii Juris obligationem vobâ—s dumtaxat obnexius teneor Experiatur Anglia quiâ—d possit Rom. Pontifex quia materialibus armis non utitur patrimonium B. Petri spirituali gladio tucatur Pet. Bles Ep. 136. And indeed who considers what goes before and what comes after will see the two periods which concern this matter do not well fit the place The letter demands Counsel of the Pope upon the undutiful carriage of his Children whom though he could reduce by force to their duty yet the affections of nature hindring him from that course He prays the Pope to interpose to whose arbitration he promises to stand And this hangs pertinently together But then to make the King say that England is feudatory and wish it may feel what the Pope can do suits so ill with the rest that it seems no part of the original piece but patcht in by some body else and he but a botcher For what is it to purpose to mention Vassalage where He only seeks advice As if the Pope could give counsel to none but Vassals and as if it were the custom of Vassals to have recourse to their Lords for counsel It is Justice and Protection which Vassals expect from their Lords and this the King would have demanded of the Pope if he had been his Subject And then He tells him that He has no material Arms which is as much as to say that He is not supreme Lord. For Soveraignty without material Arms is no very material thing and indeed is not Soveraignty So that the King is made very wisely to say and unsay with the same breath Again while He himself abstains from Rigor to press the Pope to the utmost rigor he can use agrees very ill-favour'dly Besides Blesensis dedicates his Letters to this very King Whoever knows any thing of his humour and how positive he alwayes was in maintaining less rights of the Crown than its independency will not easily believe he would permit such a clause to pass and much less become publick He was more jealous of his Authority than so Farther had such a Letter as is now read in Blesensis been ever sent by the King Baronius sure would have met with the original somewhere or other For certainly the Vassalage of England and Patrimony of St. Peter here are things of that importance that it deserved some more than usual care to preserve an Evidence so extraordinary and not to trust to chance and the credit of an insignificant Copy for so great and so unknown an advantage of the Church For if Blesensis had never been printed the thing had never been heard of If such proofs as these may be hearkned to against Kingdoms truly their Fate is very hard and much worse than of the meanest Subject who lives in them He that in a Suit but of 40 shillings should produce no better were sure to be cast I conceive there is no great necessity of saying more because sentence will alwaies be given for the Defendant where the Proofs of the Plaintiff are insufficient but yet let us look into the matter a little farther and see whether this fancy of the Cardinals can be reconciled to Nature and History And I consider in the first place that the Tenure of Kingdoms is no private thing to be guest at by incertain testimonies pickt up and down among Authors of doubtful credit but known as much as the Kingdoms themselves and no more concealable than their forms of Government It may as well be doubted whether they be Kingdoms or Commonwealths as whether they be independent or no. At every death at every change of a King there must be in Vassals recourse to the supream Lord his consent required Homage performed Duties paid and all publickly in the face of the world it concerning the supream Lord and he alwaies taking care that these demonstrations be made with the greatest shew that can be In all Treaties in all Letters and whatever transactions the stile betwixt Independent Princes is different from that betwixt Lords and Vassals In Competitions for the Crown one part would alwaies fly to the supream Lord and he by his influence make his Superiority appear A hundred things of this nature must of necessity be registred in authentick records and read in the Histories which treat of our matters Baronius little reflected on the nature of the business when instead of producing Authentick Records whereof there must have been many at Rome as well as here if there had been any such thing he alledges Blesensis It cannot be said that the Records are lost by Time and Accidents For their number in a case so often hapning would preserve at least some of them and he has found records both more antient and of less concern Besides Histories remain still Whoever among so many as have writ ever mentioned any homage done by our Kings to the Pope or any confirmation required Many letters are still extant from the one to the other and no hint of subjection in any of them There have been many Competitions for the Crown and none of the Pretenders ever dream't of fortifying their claims by the Influence of his supreme Lordship though for the Influence He had as supreme Pastor they desired to make him their friend In fine not to insist upon the silence of Histories and Records and want of proof in Baronius it is evident that the Vassalage of a Kingdom not evidently to appear is evidently not to be because it cannot be without being notorious and known to all who know the Kingdom In the next place I would fain understand when and by whom the Kingdom could be or rather was made thus subject to the Pope For I wave at present the want of power in Kings to do such a thing if they would and only enquire which King it was who can be supposed to have done it If the suspition fall on the times of the Heptarchy which Age and want of Writers render more obscure it is apparent that no Act of any King then could be binding to the whole Nation For no King let him be never so absolute can bind more than his own Kingdom But besides that He who will recur to those times may indeed hide himself in their darkness but cannot strike out of them any light to his pretence and must speak purely out of his own head without any warrant or colour from any other Author so I think 't is a good argument that no such thing was then done because things of less moment which were done then are remembred The grant of Peter-pence by Ina of the West-Saxons and Offa of the Mercians is recorded too plainly to leave a suspicion that the grant of a Kingdom could be concealed While
set the power of France upon him It is not possible he should take for sufficient satisfaction for faults which in his judgment deserved all this rigor a confession that his own was his own and a gift of what was his before But the Kings resignation made amends for all and cleared scores so fully that the Pope ever after was fast to him and heartily took his part in all his necessities Then and not before Popes assumed the liberty to term the Kings of England their Vassals which is a plain acknowledgment that they understood this submission and nothing else authoriz'd them so to do Agreeable to this were the outcries remembred by M. Paris Heu Anglia Ad an 1216. Anglia hactenus Princeps Provinciarum facta es sub tributo ut Terra tua ab antiquo libera ancillaret excogitasti factus de Rege liberrimo Tributarius firmarius Vassallus servitutis c. 'T is evident the novelty of the Kings submission put these complaints into the Peoples mouths and that no such thing had formerly been heard of To conclude commend me to this fiction of Baronius for an example of zeal not according to knowledge To speak without proof in a matter of this consequence is pretty well of it self But to want proof where the nature of the thing must needs afford a thousand to fancy the Tenure of a Kingdome could lie conceal'd I know not how long and at last be discovered by his either pains or luck to be quite contrary to what was apprehended by the rest of the world which could no more be ignorant of the Tenure than of the Kingdom to imagine England subject when no person can be imagined who should subject it nor time in which it should become subject to say nothing of the manifold inconsistency of his story and contradiction to palpable evidence These are strains which as I admire in him so I hope not often to find elsewhere And for Blesensis either he knew not what he said or which is more likely those two periods have by chance or fraud crept into his writings without his privity In fine he is no good Englishman who does not acknowledge that the Kingdom of England is and at all times has been free and subject to none but God A Declaration made both with particular reference to the Pope and by those who acknowledged his Authority in spirituals And so we are come at last to the point of greatest difficulty both of its own nature and by the smartness with which 't is prest the Fact of K. John Our Author not to leave the wound he makes without cure assigns us Prescription for a remedy You have not an entire confidence in this plaister and I must confess I cannot blame you not that I think it bad but I like better to be sound and need none Most points of Law and this of Prescription as well as the rest are full of learned Quibbles and I do not love to trust our security to a moot case The rights of Kingdoms are of too great consequence to depend on the Triccum de Lege For what if some fiction of Law be pretended against our Prescription What if the Pope by some Act or other of which we never had intelligence have continued a Legal or Civil possession all the time of our Natural possession and so interrupted or voided our Prescription It is not safe in my opinion to venture our whole stock in a bottom which possibly may prove leaky Wherefore though Prescription may do well enough yet while we have in my judgment a better game to play I think it best as you say to play surer Of the Considerations propos'd in this matter with great sharpness by our Author I take these to be the most material That K. John past this grant when he had undoubted right to the Crown without any Competitor his Nephew Arthur being dead before That this right of his was then unconfin'd Magna Charta not being yet framed nor any power communicated to Barons or People or Parliaments for intermedling in the succession And that however the Deed was confirmed by his Barons who were they alone that then had any thing to do in the greater affairs of State On these because they will decide the Question I shall insist more largely and endeavour to shew He is mistaken in all three First for the consent of the Barons although this clause Communi Consilio Baronum nostrorum be inserted in the Charter yet nothing can be more apparent than that in truth there was no such thing It was so far from this that there was an express dissent Cui etiam manifeste contradictum fuit ex parte universitatis Regni reclamatum quid talia nullo modo facere potuisset per os venerabilis Stephani Can. Archiepiscopi quo non erat tunc major in Regno c. M. Westm ad an 1245. M. Paris ad an 1245. For Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury protested solemnly against it and this publickly at the high Altar before all the company and in the name of the whole Kingdom This protestation of his was averred to the Popes face and that in full Council by Will. Povick or Powevick one of the Embassadors at the Council of Lyons whither he was sent to complain in behalf of the Kingdom I think it will not be denied but the Clergy in those dayes had at least as much influence on publick affairs as the rest of the Nobility and that there could be no common consent where the Head of the Clergy publickly dissented Especially considering that this protestation was not made for himself only or his Order but in the name of the whole Kingdom For it can hardly be that he should arrogate to himself to act in the name of the Kingdom without the privity of the rest and consent of so many at least as might keep his Act from appearing ridiculous But that the rest of the Nobility were as far from consenting as the Clergy is not left to guess Their sense is manifest in the next words of Povick In quod tributum nunquam Patres nostri consenserunt nec aliquo tempore consentient as Mat. Westm relates them or according to Mat. Paris In quod nunquam Patres nobilium Regni vel ipsi consenserunt nec consentiunt neque in futurum consentient c. This was said in circumstances uncapable of the suspition of falsity The man who spoke was an Embassador commissionated to speak for the Kingdom He spoke to the Pope himself in a full Council and while the memory of things was yet fresh and if he had not said true might have been convinc'd by every body perhaps in the company But neither the Pope himself who certainly knew the truth and was most concern'd in it nor any body else had anything to say against it Besides even in the daies of K. John the K. of France and his Son Lewis when Walo
the Popes Legat would have diverted them from their design on England by representing that the Kingdom held now of the Pope maintained both to his face M. Paris ad an 1216. that K. Johns grant was void and this among other things because there was no consent of the Barons It is not possible they should so confidently avouch this to one who could not but know the truth unless it had been notorious and undeniable even by Walo himself Wherefore it is manifest that the clause above mentioned was inserted for forms sake without truth it being not more known that there was a Charter than that it was made without the consent of the Nobility What the consequence of this is will fall into consideration by and by when we have discours'd of what remains The next point is that K. John had an undoubted right to the Crown when He past this Deed. Suppose he had what then Right to wear the Crown and Right to give it away are very different things and very far from inferring one another He urges that the Regal power in disposing of the Crown was the same then as at the conquest That the Conqueror both receiv'd the Crown by gift from K. Edward and dispos'd of it by Testament That although K. Edwards gift should pass for invalid yet the very title of Conquest was sufficient for an Arbitrary power of disposing it the very grant of Magna Charta from the Prince to the People being a plain Argument that at least the power of our Norman Princes was originally arbitrary and unconfined till themselves were pleas'd to restrain it by voluntary compacts and concessions which hapned not till after the fact in question Thus does our Author discourse with a Tide of smartness threaten Shipwrack to our liberties which way soever we steer To deny an arbitrary right in the Conqueror seems to question the right of his successors To grant it seems to confirm the Deed in question and expose us to the mercy of the Pope Before I answer particularly I take leave to suppose not because it cannot be prov'd but because no body will require proof of what every body acknowledges That rights questionable in their origin become unquestionable in tract of time The Goths and Vandals broke into the Roman Empire and mastered a great part of it with a known violence but unknown Justice Should ear be given to the exceptions which might be made against their Title and the right of their posterity and all who hold under them questioned till the right of the first occupants were clearly made out the world would be embroyled in inextricable confusion and suffer little less from our disputes than their Arms. Few either Princes or private men would enjoy their Estates with a safe Conscience The bonds of Obedience would be broken the security of Life and Fortunes taken away and the Ligaments of human society dissolv'd These things are so evidently contrary to the good of mankind that speculations which would infer them are evidently contrary to reason Speculate what you will of Justice it is most certain that to ruin the world is a most unjust thing or if you will criticize upon the notion at least irrational and wicked and intollerable Wherefore whatever were the origin of establish't Powers when they are establish't and by long continuance become necessary to the quiet and security of mankind they are most certainly just and to question them is madness in all and Treason in Subjects To examin by what means this comes to pass how true Right is acquired in Time and even bad Titles become good at last I conceive an Argument too high for me and besides see it needless to meddle with it For while the thing is universally acknowledged and cannot be deni'd without extream mischief to the world the labour of enquiring more particularly into it may be dispenc'd with Two things I take to my present purpose which I suppose none will deny me 1. That the Right of succeeding Kings cannot be questioned on pretence of doubt nay if you will defect of right in the proceedings of such as have reign'd so long since as the Conquest 2. That Power and Right being manifestly two very different things it follows not that because things were then done which ought not be questioned now I mean with prejudice to Posterity that they were therefore well done and according to Right To speak now particularly to what is alledged It is true that the Conqueror had or pretended a Gift from K. Edward I suppose to have something to say But 't is apparent that not K. Edward's gift but his own sword gain'd him England The Ratio ultima Regum was his only unanswerable Argument and had Harold got the Victory and preserv'd the Kingdom he would have preserved Right enough to it notwithstanding the Gift of K. Edward and as much right been acknowledg'd in his Successors as now in those of the Conqueror It is true also that the Conqueror did dispose of the Kingdom to the prejudice of his eldest Son but 't is likewise true that Duke Robert did claim and put for the Crown notwithstanding his Fathers Testament and had he prevailed had transmitted a Right to his Posterity which by this time had been unquestionable These are matters purely of Fact of which kind there are innumerable in History but from which according to the maxim that Fact does not infer Right no Argument can be drawn What the Conqueror did He did by the power which his Conquest gave him success and length of time has establish't what depends on his actions into a firmness which admits of no dispute But this concludes not that all he did was just even in him and much less that the same Actions are justifiable in his Successors As for what is next urged That Conquest sufficed for an arbitrary Power it is undoubtedly true for he did arbitrarily dispose of things as he pleased But that his Conquest gave him Right so to do or transmitted such a Right to his Posterity is not to be admitted without very good proof It is universally agreed that Conquest gives right only where the War is just which I think signifies that his Conquest gave him none at all For the War is not just unless he have a good Title who makes it and if he have Conquest only puts him into possession of what was wrongfully with-held but his Right is antecedent to and independent of his Conquest Indeed where the revenge of some collateral wrong or other cause put just Arms into the hands of any Prince there what he gains is thought justly his own by vertue of his Conquest But this is not our case The only cause of this War was because Harold with-held the Crown to which if the Conqueror had a just Title that which made it so gave him his Right if he had not the War was not just and Conquest could give him none Whether his Title were
the Children of his elder Brother who were Heirs not to John but Richard and by John wrongfully excluded This Lady never married but liv'd to a good Age M. Paris ad an 1241. Y podig. Neustriae p. 59. one example of many of the little comfort there is in unsupported greatness She dy'd in the year 1241 and was buried among the Nuns of Amesbury to whom by permission of Henry III. She gave the Mannor of Molsham Her Right was buried with her but while she lived it cannot be said K. John had no Competitor This being so all pretence from K. Johns Fact is cut up by the roots there being not so much to be said for it as that himself had right to what he gave away And yet for my part I think if he had had a Right as unquestionable as our Author supposes it is equally unquestionable that his gift was no more valid than if he had had none Whether I have acquitted my self of what I undertook and shewn the three material points of our Authors discourse viz Consent of the Barons undoubted Right and unconfin'd power in K. John are all mistakes I am not to be my own Judge It is the readers right and to him I leave it To pass farther and examine what else is urged seems needless When the Root is dig'd up the Branches may be let alone and I am far from taking pleasure in contradicting especially a man whose Learning and Candor I esteem Yet because peradventure to neglect what he says may shew more unhandsom than to dissent from it I shall briefly deliver my opinion of the rest In the next point viz. That the Popes Title was the more confirm'd by his uninterrupted Practice I think He is mistaken too 'T is true that Henry III. did at his Coronation take an Oath of Fealty to the Pope the same which his Father had taken before And there was a very pressing necessity which oblig'd him so to do Lewis Son to the King of France was in the Bowels of the Kingdom with a strong Army and many of the Nobility took his part The King was a Child unable to do any thing for himself and forc'd to depend entirely on those who would assist him Among these the Pope was the most considerable whose Legat was with him and with unweari'd earnestness laboured for his Interest It was not for him in such a conjuncture to break with the Pope For it was evidently to ruin himself So that 't was wisely done of his Councel to provide for the greater danger first and leave the rest to time It is true also that King John made use of this subjection to annul his concession to the Barons But it does not therefore follow there was no Interruption The Archbishop of Canterbury protested at very first and in the name of the whole Kingdom the Barons refus'd to submit to the Popes sentence and stood to their obtain'd Concessions notwithstanding his Excommunications the French rejected his claim with great ardor solemn opposition was made in the Council of Lions both by King and Kingdom in the reign of Henry III. succeeding Kings positively deni'd all marks of subjection and were abetted by unanimous consent of Parliament A Practice so much opposed I think cannot be called uninterrupted Opposition sure is Interruption or at least as good For the the act of one part can never confirm a practice The Pope may do what he pleases but unless the Kingdom do something too his Title will never be confirmed It may be said that the Tribute was paid by Henry III. suppose it were what is this to the Kingdom Henry III. could not be hindred from disposing of his own and paying what and to whom he pleased But his Act cannot be thought binding to the Kingdom unless the Kingdom consented And the Kingdom was so far from consenting that it positively dissented Wherefore the practice being urged as a Title to the Kingdom it seems very plain that this Title was so far from being more confirm'd that it was not confirm'd at all nor could be by any practice of the Popes unless the Kingdom had concurred to it The next point that the Pope never solemnly devested himself I conceive not to purpose For if his Title were never good 't is no matter whether he ever disclaimed it or no. And yet if the Author of the Eulogium said to be in the Cotton Library be of any credit this too may be deny'd For he expresly says that in a Parliament at London 1214 where the Clergy cum tota laicali secta were present the obligation was by the Popes command wholy releast For my own part I must confess I know not how far this Author may be trusted not finding any mention of so remarkable a passage any where else But though his credit be obscure this is clear that if K. Johns Act were invalid of it self there needed no Act of the Popes to make it so And I take it to be no less clear that it was invalid and that we may spare the labour of inquiring whether the Pope ever gave away what he truly never had The last thing urged is that the Pope admits of no Prescription which if it be true the less reason have we to put our selves upon that trial But I think it is not true For the Canon Law allows Prescription and that against the Church of Rome as well as any other Only by way of Priviledge more time is required to bear her Plea than others But I have already declared I like not to enter into that dispute It depends on Law a study which the Interests and Passions of men have embroyl'd with so many intricate perplexities that 't is little better than a labyrinth without a Clew Nothing in my opinion is more fruitless nor perhaps more dangerous than to submit the Rights of Princes to disputes where there will be alwayes something to say and not half of what is said understood but by men of the Trade Besides there is another Consideration which to my Judgment absolutely excludes this Topick Prescription is a Plea establish't by the Civil and Canon Laws which appoint the cases the persons the times and all conditions of it Who has a Suit depending in a Court where sentence is pronounc't according to those Laws may be concern'd to study the nature of it but with us where neither Law is in force it seems wonderfully from the purpose to amuse our selves with it What have we to do to examin whether our Possession have all the conditions required to Prescription by those Laws which themselves signifie nothing If they pronounce sentence for us we are not a jot the better and if against us not a jot the worse England is a Country Independent of Forreigners and govern'd by Laws and Customs of her own What Emperours and Popes think fit to establish among their Subjects concerns us no more than what we do concerns them By our
claim to Ireland independently of this Grant So that whatever Pope Adrian mean't it is evident his Successors never understood his meaning gave them any right to that Island Nothing is more foolish than to catch at words and interpret the meaning by the sound when we have Actions immemorial practice and custom to guide us securely and assure us the meaning whatever it be cannot be contrary to these Allow that method once and you leave no stability even in what the good of mankind requires should be most stable the settlement of Commonwealths In short if our Kings Title to Ireland be not good there is no good Title in the world At least I know none establish't on a surer foundation And were it the question believe I could make it out But we are not now enquiring what Title our Kings have but whether the Pope have any For which reason I forbear to meddle with the Book you mention which seeks to overthrow the Title of England not to establish that of the Pope Only in short I must acknowledg I never read any thing with more grief nor so much shame The best is the Curs't Cow has wondrous short horns As ill as He means in my opinion he does more good than harm For Truth is well proved when 't is perceived it cannot be disproved but weakly And nothing is weaker than his discourse What is most material is directly contrary to History but his chief business is to bring as you say hard names to prove what is not a jot to purpose when 't is proved He casts away the greatest part of his pains upon the Punctilios required to Prescription by the Civil and Canon Laws in Suits betwixt Subject and Subject and never considers that those Punctilios and those Laws have nothing to do with the case and that the Rights of Princes are establish't upon a higher and more steady Basis than local and mutable constitutions But I have discours'd of this point before and mean not to trouble you with repetitions and that in a Question which concerns me not No better answer can nor other need Hist of the Irish Remonst p. 739. 742. be given to this Book than what was given in Ireland where an 1648. the supreme Council of the Confederat Catholicks caus'd it to be burn't at Kilkenny by the common Hangman and the National Congregation too of the Irish Clergy I mean Roman Catholick at Dublin an 1666. condemn'd it to the same fate And for the rest whoever doubts of his Majesties right to all and every part of his Dominions is a Traitor without more ado and cannot complain if he be us'd like one nor any body for him This answer I conceive may serve for Scotland too with which I shall make short work believing your Jealousies in that particular are not very pressing The only stumbling block that I know in this matter is the letter you cite of Boniface VIII to Edward I. in which Mat. Westm ad an 1301. with a phrase as unintelligible as that of Adrians Bull it is said qualiter ab antiquis temporibus Regnum Scotiae pleno jure pertinuit adhuc pertinere dignoscitur ad Ecclesiam supradictam meaning the Roman And again ex quibus nulli in dubium veniat Regnum Scotiae praelibatum ad praefatam Rom. Ecclesiam pertinere While I read this Letter and the Kings answer I was inclin'd to believe the meaning of this was that the Pope as a common Father of Christendom had right to interpose in emergent differences in Scotland as well as other places I observed that he alledges Debitum Pastoralis Officii for the reason why he meddles and respect to his seat and Person for the motive why the King should yield to his request Again the Ex quibus whence he concludes this subjection are because Scotland used not to admit a Legat not particularly directed to that Kingdom That the Arch Bishop of York could not obtain sentence at Rome in favour of the Primacy claimed by him over the Scottish Churches and that the Kingdom was converted by the Relicks of Saint Andrew These have so little to do with Civil subjection to Rome and what he mentions besides has a great deal less that I could not imagine a Pope from such Premises could draw such a conclusion Besides that the King in his answer does not take the least notice of such a sence But coming to read the answer of the Nobility to whom the King purposely left that point I percieve they understood the words as they sounded I shall therefore give their answer and make an end Your letters being read say they tam sensibus nostris admiranda quam hactenus inaudita in jis audivimus contineri Scimus enim nec ullis temporibus ipsum regnum in temporalibus pertinuit vel pertinet quovis jure ad Ecclesiam vestram supradictam and again nec etiam Reges Scoterum Regnum aliis quam Regibus Angliae subfuerunt vel subjici consueverunt Pursuant hereunto They would not consent the King should send Proctors as the Pope desir'd to Rome to make out his Title there nay they declare They would not permit the King to do it although he would it being too great a prejudice to his known Rights to submit them to Trial. If this do not satisfy I know not what will At least it did satisfy the Pope who in Pol. Virgils words statim refrixit Pol. Virgil lib. 1â— in Ed. â— ut scilicet si pertinacius contenderet ne inhoneste causa caderet and never that I know touch't upon this string more And It must satisfy all Englishmen For it was a resolution of Parliament or at least of a great Council of the Nobility which in those days was equivalent I Am come to the end of your Letter and I think of writing too Unless you do something on your side besides asking questions painful to resolve and fruitless when they are resolved you have my last it may be your full wish my first too For I cannot answer it to reason to continue sowing in barren ground and believe while so much trouble is coming on us all your self would counsel me not to run into more that of breaking my brains to no purpose There has been already said what I hoped might have wrought more favourable inclinations towards us Since the Physick works not whether by your indisposition or its own inefficacy 't is peradventure to play the foolish as well as unskilful Emperick to go on administring But yet since Losers have leave to talk permit me to make use of that liberty it may be the only one which I shall long enjoy As much reason as I have to grieve yet truly I cannot but wonder as much at your proceedings Can it possibly be your interest to keep a party alwayes in fear of the Law and by that fear prompted to wish a change in it I mistake if it be not the
bolt Those who were Actors in these matters have long since given account to an Impartial Judg nor have I to do with their intentions but Bellarmin's argument which in two words I conceive little efficacious both because the concurrence of the Council seems questionable farther than as it happens sometimes in consistories where matters are propos'd in some cases for forms sake and shall be executed as they are preresolved however the Cardinals vote And though it were not the Council at most is but a particular Council which according to Bellarmin himself is of no irrefragable and binding authority For the rest 't were strange if the Pope should not find Bishops enough to joyn with the spiritual power when the Emperor wanted not who stuck as fast to the temporal And so much to 8 of the 10 Councils We are now at Paulo majora canamus The two Councils which remain are propos'd with more pomp and in truth challenge a greater respect as being general Councils both The first is that of Lateran under Innocent 3. out of which is urged the famous Canon known by every one and which for as much as concerns us runs Thus But if a temporal Lord required and admonisht by the Church neglect to purge his land from this Heretical filth let him be excommunicated by his Metropolitan and Com-provincial Bishops And if he stand in contempt and make not satisfaction within a year let the Pope be made acquainted that he may from that time declare his Vassals absolved from their fealty to him and expose his lands to be seiz'd on by Catholicks who chacing away the Hereticks may without contradiction possess and preserve it in the purity of Faith saving the right of the principal Lord provided he bring no obstacle nor hindrance to the Premises observing nevertheless the same rule with them who have no principal Lords Bellarmin is wonderfully agog with this What says he would Barclay say here If this be not the voice of the Catholick Church where shall we find it and if it be as most truly it is he that out of contempt as Barclay hears it not is he not to be esteemed a Heathen and a Publican and in no manner a Christian and pious If the Pope have not power on earth to dispose of temporals even to the deposition of those Princes who either are Hereticks themselves or any way favour Hereticks why at the setting out this Canon did none of so great a number make opposition Why of so many Embassadors of Emperors and Kings not one who durst so much as mutter These Parasites to temporal Princes were not yet sprung up who under pretence of establishing temporal Kingdoms take away the eternal Kingdom from those whom they flatter I marry here 's a fit of triumphant zeal But I suppose if he had cast a little water on the flame it would have been hot enough for the occasion This Parasites and Flatterers Heathens Publicans and Impious are expressions a little too zealous In what a case are they who condemn'd all this zeal and had they not had more respect to his Purple then his argument in all likelyhood had burnt it too and yet had as good ears in the opinion of the world as Bellarmin and could hear the voice of the Catholick Church as soon But to be serious what Barclay would have said here I cannot tell but I suppose if Death had not stopt his mouth he would have said something For this Canon is no such secret that he could be imagin'd ignorant of it or unprovided against it At least his son did find something to say for him to which I can no more tell what Bellarmin would say then he could what Barclay would say to the Council I shall have occasion to mention part of what he says by and by In the mean time as this Council never fails to be layd in the way of all who travel this road people have several turns to avoid it There are who question whether any thing at all was defined there at least in a Conciliar way or if any thing were defin'd that the world was duly made acquainted with the business For which besides that some Historians expresly say nothing was concluded they have these presumptions The Canons which we have discover by their stile that they were not made in the Council They run some of them in this manner It was piously provided in the Lateran Council 'T is known 't was forbid in the Lateran Council c. which are phrases very unlikely to have been used by the Council if that fram'd the Decrees Again the whole authority of this Council rests as far as I see upon one Cochlaeus The Councils had been set out and this omitted either not known or not procurable by him who managed the business Against another Edition this Cochlaeus furnisht the Press with the Copy which we now have Whence he had it himself I know not but methinks the credit of a private man is a weak support for a matter of this consequence Besides how much time ought in reason be allow'd to a Conciliar discusion and determination of threescore Canons Carenza has threescore and ten and somewhere I have heard of another number which disagreement by the way is a suspicious thing M. Paris tells us the Council was summoned for the first of Nov. and met I suppose at the day The Pope first makes an exhortation afterwards causes 60 Chapters to be read and concludes with a second exhortation concerning the H. Land All this as far as can be gather'd by him past in one day which if it did the Council could not possibly contribute more than the hearing to any thing Besides he plainly says these 60 Chapters to some appear'd easy to others burthensome which is very far from a Conciliar approbation Now he says not precisely when the Council ended but 't is apparent by him that it lasted not long The Pope in this Council at the Kings instance suspends the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury This suspension bears date pridie nonas or 4th Nov. Besides he vacats the election of his Brother Simon Langton to the Sea of York and excommunicates the Barons of England These sentences are not recorded as the other but in liklyhood past at the same time M. Paris mentions immediately the end of the Council Quo facto after which says he two of the three Agents which the King of England had there returned to bring him the good news They found him at Rochester from whence he marched to St. Albans and came thither time enough to have the suspension of the Arch-Bishop attested by the seal of the Convent 13 Calend. Jan. or 20 Decemb. By this account how long could the Council last Or how much time could be spent in duly weighing so many Canons some of such importance when men who had seen the conclusion of the Council which began not before Nov. were in England by the 20th of December