was in defence of these Which I shall the rather do since I find his Life very lately published in French with a high character of him and dedicated to the King of France but especially because I find that those among us of that Religion who disown Gregory the sevenths principles are willing to believe him a Martyr upon other grounds viz. that his quarrel with the King was upon the account of the antient Municipal Laws of England which had a respect to the immunities of Clergie-men I shall therefore prove 1. That the matters in Dispute between the King and Becket were the very same that Gregory the seventh and his successors contended about with Christian Princes 2. That the pleas made use of by Becket and his party were no other than those which Gregory the seventh and his successors used so that they had no relation at all to the Municipal Laws but to the controversie then on Foot between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power In both which I hope to make some passages clearer than they have yet been having had the advantage of perusing several MSS. relating to this matter and especially that Volume of Epistles which Baronius accounts an unvaluable Treasure and as far as I can perceive the Cotton MS. is more compleat than the Vatican which Baronius made use of 1. For the matters in Dispute between them The whole controversie might be reduced to two heads 1. Whether Ecclesiastical Persons were unaccountable to the Civil Power for any misdemeanours committed by them 2. Whether the Pope had the Soveraign Power over Princes and all under them so that he might contradict the Kings Laws and Customs and command his Subjects against his consent to come to him and whether the Kings Subjects in such cases were not bound to obey the Pope let the King command what he please These in truth were the points in debate and the most weighty particulars in the Customs of Clarendon were but as so many branches of these In that Copy of them which is extant in the Cotton MS. and was drawn up by the Kings own Order the occasion of them is set down to have been the differences which had happened between the Clergie and the Kings Iustices and the Barons of the Kingdom about the Customs and Dignities of the Crown the most considerable of those which the Pope condemned were concerning 1. The Tryal of Titles of Advowsons and Presentations in the Kings Courts 2. The Tryal of Clergie-men before the Kings Iudges and the Churches not defending them after conviction or confession 3. That neither Archbishops Bishops or others should go out of the Kingdom without the Kings consent and giving security to the King that in going staying or returning they will do nothing to the prejudice either of the King or Kingdom 4. The profits of Ecclesiastical Courts upon absolutions for they demanded not barely personal security of all excommunicated persons to stand to the Churches judgements but Vadium ad remanens as the Law term was then which implyes real security or so much money laid down which was to come to the Court if they did not perform the conditions expressed For it was one of the things the Kings Ambassadour complained of to his Mother the Empress that the matters in controversie were not things of advantage to mens souls but to their own purses and that the Faults of Offenders were not punished in the Ecclesiastical Courts by the injoyning of Penance but by the giving of money And the Empress her self in her discourse with Nicholas de Monte the Archbishops Friend insisted on these pecuniary mulcts for sins as one of the great occasions of the troubles which made people suspect this pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty to be only a cloak for their own profits But however the good Pope whether he understood this Vadium ad remanens or no at all adventures condemned it For what should the Court of Rome do without exchanging Money for Sins 5. That no Person who held of the King in capite or belonged to him should be excommunicated or have his Land interdicted without making the King acquainted with it or his Iustice in his absence 6. That in matters of Appeal they were to proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop and from thence to the King and not to proceed further without his express leave These were the main things in dispute and what do they all amount to but the very same Rights of the Crown which the Kings predecessors did insist upon and what could be the sense of Becket in opposing them but that Clergie-men were not accountable for their Faults to the Civil Power and in case of the Popes command whether upon appeal or otherwise Bishops and others were to go to his Court in spight of the King as Anselm and Theobald had done before It is agreed by Baronius himself that the quarrel brake out upon the Arch-bishops denying to deliver up the Clergie-man that was accused and convicted of Murder after Ecclesiastical Censure to the Secular Power which the King earnestly desired and Becket as peremptorily denyed And upon what principle could this be done but the highest pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty that ever Gregory the seventh or any other asserted And it is plain by this that the King did not deny the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction nor hindered the proper Censures of the Church upon offenders but the Question was meerly this Whether Ecclesiastical persons having committed crimes against the publick peace were only to be punished with Ecclesiastical Censures and never to be delivered over to Civil Iustice Which was the main hinge of the Cause and which Becket stood to to the last And that this was the true State of the Controversie appears by the representation made of it to Alexander the third by the whole Clergie of the Province of Canterbury who confess that the peace of the Kingdom was very much disturbed by the insolence and crimes of some of the Clergie for upon the account of this exemption any Villains were safe if they could but get into any kind of Orders the King for the safety of his people pressed the Bishops after their Censures to give such guilty persons up to the Laws because bare degrading was by no means sufficient punishment for wilful murder which was all the Church censures reached to This all the Bishops at first opposed as derogatory to the Churches Liberty but afterwards Becket excepted the rest saw a necessity of yielding at present for as they confess themselves this liberty was extended even to a Lector or Acolythus and the Empress Matildis said that the Bishops gave orders very loosely without titles by which we may easily imagine what a miserable state the whole Kingdom might be in if these things were suffered So that we see the plea insisted upon at the beginning of the quarrell was that no persons in any Ecclesiastical
omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum contra Dom. Papam Alexandrum B. Thomam Archiepiscopum quod eorum non recipient literas neque obedient mandatis Et si quis inveâ—tus foret literas eorum deferens traderetur Potestatibus tanquam Coronae Regis capitalis inimicus Here we see an Oath of Supremacy made so long ago by Henry the second and those who out of zeal or whatsoever motive brought over Bulls of the Popes made lyable to the charge of Treason but the Archbishop by vertue of his Legatine Power took upon him to send persons privately into England and to absolve them from this Oath as is there expressed The same year the King being in Normandy sent over these Articles to be sworn and observed by the Nobles and People of England 1. If any one be found carrying Letters from the Pope or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury containing an Interdict of Religion in England let him be taken and without delay let justice pass upon him as upon a Traytor to the King and Kingdom 2. No Clergie-man or Monk or Lay-Brother may be suffered to cross the Seas or return into England unless he have a Pass from the Kings Iustice for his going out and of the King himself for his return if any one be found doing otherwise let him be taken and imprisoned 3. No man may appeal either to the Pope or Arch-bishop and no plea shall be held of the Mandates of the Pope or Archbishop nor any of them be received by any person in England if any one be taken doing otherwise let him be imprisoned 4. No man ought to carry any Mandat either of Clergie-man or Laick to either of them on the same penalty 5. If any Bishops Clergie-men Abbots or Laicks will observe the Popes interdict let them be forthwith banished the Realm and all their Kindred and let them carry no Chattels along with them 6. That all the Goods and Chattels of those who favour the Pope or Archbishop and all their possessions of whatsoever rank order sex or condition they be be seized into the Kings hand and confiscated 7. That all Clergie-men having revenews in England be summoned through every County that they return to their places within three months or their revenues to be seized into the Kings hands 8. That Peter-pence be no longer paid to the Pope but let them be gathered and kept in the Kings Treasury and laid out according to his command 9. That the Bishops of London and Norwich be in the Kings Mercy and be summoned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear before the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in interdicting the Land and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh by vertue of the Popes Mandat and publishing this excommunication without Licence from the Kings Iustices I hope these particulars will give full satisfaction that the Controversie between King Henry the second and Becket was not about some antient Saxon Laws but the very same principles which Gregory the seventh first openly defended of the Popes temporal Power over Princes and the total exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from Civil Iudicatures § 14. 2. This will yet more appear if we consider that the Pleas used by Becket and his party were the very same which were used by Gregory the seventh and his Successors The beginning of the quarrel we have seen was about the total exemption of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Orders from civil punishments which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors and it seems by Fitz Stephen that several of the Bishops were for yielding them up to the Secular Power after deprivation and said that both Law and Reason and Scripture were for it but Becket stood to it that it was against God and the Canons and by this means the Churches Liberty would be destroyed for which in imitation of their High-Priest they were bound to lay down their lives and bravely adds that it was not greater merit of old for the Bishops to found the Church of Christ with their blood than in their times to lay down their lives for this blessed liberty of the Church and if an Angel from Heaven should perswade him to comply with the King in this matter he should be accursed By which we see what apprehension Becket had of the nature of his cause from the beginning of it for this was before the King insisted on the reviving the Antient Customs at Clarendon Where it seems Beckets heart failed him which the Monks and Baronius parallel with S. Peters denying Christ but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance was his Cross-bearer who told him that the Civil Authority disturbed all that wickedness raged against Christ himself that the Synagogue of Satan had profaned the Lords Sanctuary that the Princes had sat and combined together against the Lords Christ that this tempest had shaken the pillars of the Church and while the Shepherd withdrew the sheep were under the power of the Wolf A very loyal representation of the King and all that adhered to his Rights After this he spoke plainly to him and told him he had lost both his conscience and his honour in conspiring with the Devils instruments in swearing to those cursed customs which tended to the overthrow of the Churches Liberty At which he sighed deeply and immediately suspends himself from all Offices of his Function till he should be absolved by the Pope which was soon granted him The Pope writes to the King very sharply for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs and threatens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement and tells him of Saul and Ozias and Rehoboam and parallels his sin with theirs and bids him have a care of their punishments And was all this zeal of the Pope only for the good old Saxon Laws When the Bishop of Exeter begged the Archbishop at Northampton to have regard to his own safety and theirs too he told him he did not savour the things of God he had spoken much more pertinently according to P. W. if he had told him he did not understand the Saxon Laws When the Earl of Leicester came to him to tell him he must come and hear his sentence he told him that as much as his soul was better than his body so much more was he bound to obey God and Him than an earthly King and for his part he declared he would not submit to the Kings judgement or theirs in as much as he was their Father and that he was only under God to be judged by the Pope and so appealed to him Which being an appeal to the Pope in a Civil cause about accounts between the King and him it does plainly shew that he did not think the King had any Authority over
great and rich mens beds when they lay a dying in hopes of a prey their drawing people to confess to them their obtaining private Testaments their commending their own Order and discommending all others to that degree that the people commonly believed they could not be saved unless they were ruled by the Mendicant Friers Nay they were so busie not only to get priviledges but to insinuate themselves into Courts and great Families that no businesses almost were managed without them either relating to money or marriages with much more to the same purpose in him and if we believe the concurrent testimony of these Historians there were never greater Hypocrites known since the Pharisees and before the Jesuits than these pretenders to perfect Poverty who hated that in their hearts to which they made the greatest shew of Love We may perceive by chaucer what wayes they had of wheadling great persons into an opinion how much better it was to be buried among them than any where else the Bishops saw well enough what all this was designed for viz. to have the profits of burials and therefore in behalf of the Parochial Clergy they opposed it as long as they durst but Pope Innocent 4. declared their Churches to be Conventual and then to have liberty of burying in them which they made good use of both here and in other places to their great advantage So that what by the Favour of great Persons whom they flattered to become their Confessors what by their Masses and extraordinary Offices what by Burials and the charitable benevolence of well disposed persons to them they made a good shift to keep themselves a good way out of the reach of the Perfection of Poverty while in the mean time they pretended to nothing more than that But they found more comfort in their own purse-opening way than the Parochial Clergy did in their setled maintenance they having found out the knack of pleasing those humours in persons that had the greatest command of their purses but besides these wayes when the charity of particular persons began to coole towards them they had a certain rate upon houses which they lived upon which Sancta Clara confesses and saith it was easie for the people and abundantly sufficient for them So that laying all these wayes together although they had sworn so much affection to perfect Poverty and professed to love and admire it above all things yet they endeavoured with all their care and diligence to keep it from coming within their Doors § 15. But all this would not satisfie them for the Conventual Friers were never quiet till for the greater height of their poverty they procured leave from the Pope that they might enjoy Lands and possessions as well as others so much is confessed by their Martyrologist and the defender of their Order against Bzovius upon this a new Reformation began among them first by Paulutius Fulginas but very little regard was had to it till Bernardinus Senensis appeared in the head of it and then it spread very much these were called Fratres de observantiâ from their strict observance of S. Francis his Rule and many and great differences happened between them which it hath cost the Papal See some trouble to compose which were so high that Leo 10. in the Preface to the Bull of Union declares that almost all the Princes in Christendom had interceded with him to end the controversie between these two sorts of Beggers viz. those who had good Lands and revenues and others that had rich houses and furniture and other conveniences but had no endowments For this same Pope declared that these strict Observantines might enjoy the most magnificent Houses and costly furniture without any diminution to the perfection of their poverty because the right and property of them was not in themselves but in the Papal See but I cannot understand why the same reason should not hold for Lands too supposing the same Right and property to be in the Popes for it cannot enter into my head that a man is a jot the poorer because his estate lyes in goods and Iewels and not in Lands or why this may not be in Trustees hands as well as the other Indeed that was the solemn Cheat in all this affair that how rich soever really this Order of Mendicants was yet forsooth they had nothing at all to live upon but the Alms of the people for they had vowed the very height of poverty Why saith a plain Countrey man that is not well skilled in Metaphysicks the beggars in our Countrey do not live in such stately houses and have no such rich Ornaments nor feed so well nor are so well provided for as you are we that have Land of our own would be glad to have all things found us at so cheap a rate Do you think that riches lyes only in trouble and care and hard labour if that be it I confess you are poor enough but in no other sense that I see Alas poor man saith the good Frier we are as poor as Iob for all this Now that cannot I understand for my heart saith the other surely you call things only by other names than we do and make that poverty that we plain men call riches Well saith the Frier I will shew my charity to your understanding in helping of that if you will shew yours to us poor Friers therefore you must know that although we have the full use and possession for our benefit in the things you see yet Pope Nicholas 3. in the Bull Exiit and Pope Clement 5. in the Bull Exivi de Paradiso hath declared that we have no propriety and Dominion in them but that is reserved to the Papal See So that we enjoy all things but have right to nothing Say you so saith the Countrey man Then I believe you come within the compass of the Statutes against Vagabonds and sturdy Beggars for you live upon that which is none of your own and refuse to Work Tush saith the Frier that is an heretical Statute and we defie Q. Elizabeth and all her works as long as the Pope hath declared us to be poor we are so and will be so although we had ten times as much as we have For our holy Father the Pope can change not only the names but the natures of things nay I will tell you farther if we had as much wealth as the King of Spain in the Indies if we had only the possession and the supreme right or Dominion were declared to be in the Pope we were in perfect poverty for all this I cry you mercy Sir replyes the Countrey man I beseech you intercede with his Holiness to make me one of his Beads-men for I perceive poverty as he makes it is better than all my Lands that I have the Fee-simple of but I pray think of a better way to keep me out of the reach of the Statute for if I