The historie of the holy vvarre by Thomas Fuller ...

Chap. 5.

The scuffling betwixt the King and Patriarch about the city of Ierusalem; the issue thereof.

NOt long after, there was started a controversiè of great consequence betwixt the King and Patriarch: the Patriarch claiming the cities of Jerusalem and Joppa, with the appertei∣nances; the King refusing to surrender them.

The Patriarch pleaded, That these places anciently belonged to his predecessours: He set before the King the hainousnesse of sacriledge; how great a sin it was when Princes, who should be nursing-fathers and suckle the Church, shall suck from it: and shewed how the Common-wealth may grow fat, but never healthfull, by feeding on the Churches goods.

On the other side the King alledged, That the Christian Prin∣ces had now purchased Jerusalem with their bloud, and be∣stowed it on him: that the Patriarchs overgrown title was drowned in this last conquest; from which, as from a new foundation, all must build their claims who challenge any right to any part in that city. Secondly, he pleaded, it was unreason∣able that the King of Jerusalem should have nothing in Jerusa∣lem (as at this day the Romane Emperour is a very ciphre, with∣out power or profit in Rome) and should live rather as a sojourn∣er then a Prince in his royall city, confined to an airy title, whilest the Patriarch should have all the command.

To this the Patriarch answered, That the Christians new conquest could not cancell his ancient right, which was enjoy∣ed even under the Saracens; That this voyage was principally undertaken for advancing the Church, and not to restore her onely to her liberty, and withhold from her her lands, so that in this respect she should find better usage from her foes then from her children. If we mistake not, the chief pinch of the cause lieth on the Patriarchs proof, that the lands he demanded formerly belonged to his predecessours: and we find him to fail in the main issue of the matter. True it was, that for the last thirty years the Patriarchs, on condition they should repair and fortifie the walls of Jerusalem, were possessed of a fourth part of the city, even by grant from Bomensor the Emperour of the

Saracens, in the yeare of our Lord 1063. But that ever he had the whole city, either by this or by any previous grant, it ap∣peareth not in Tyrius; who saith moreover,* 1.1 We wonder for what reason the lord Patriarch should raise this controversie a∣gainst Duke Godfrey.

Let me adde, that this our Authour is above exception: for being both a politick states-man and pious prelate, no doubt his penne striketh the true and even stroke betwixt King and Patri∣arch. Besides, he might well see the truth of this matter, wri∣ting in a well-proportioned distance of time from it. Those who live too near the stories they write, oftentimes willingly mis∣take through partiality; and those who live too farre off, are mistaken by uncertainties, the footsteps of truth being almost worn out with time.

But to return to Godfrey, who though unwilling at first, yet afterwards not onely on Candlemasse-day restored to the Patri∣arch the fourth part of the city, but also on the Easter follow∣ing, gave him all Jerusalem, Joppa, and whatsoever he demand∣ed: conditionally that the King should hold it of the Patriarch till such time as he could conquer Babylon, or some other roy∣all city fit for him to keep his Court in. If in the mean time Godfrey died without issue, the Patriarch was to have it present∣ly delivered unto him.

We will be more charitable then those, that say that the Pa∣triarch herein did* 1.2 bewitch and bemad Godfrey to make this large donation to him, by torturing his conscience at the confes∣sion of his sinnes. Onely we may question the discretion of this Prince in giving a gift of so large a size: for Charities eyes must be open as well as her hands; though she giveth away her bran∣ches, not to part with the root.

And let the reader observe, that Godfrey at the time of this his bountifull grant lay on his death-bed, sick of that irrecover∣able disease which ended him. How easily may importunity stamp any impression on those whom desperate sicknesse hath softned! And if the sturdiest man nigh death may be affrighted into good works for fear of Purgatory, no wonder if devout Godfrey were pliable to any demand.* 1.3 Pierce Plowman maketh a witty wonder, why Friers should cover rather to confesse and bury, then to christen children; intimating it proceeded from covetousnesse, there being gain to be gotten by the one, none by the other. And this was the age wherein the Covents got their best living by the dying: which made them (contrary to all other people) most to worship the sunne setting.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 9. cap. 6
• * 1.2

  Centuriato∣res, centur. 12. col. 490. De schism.
• * 1.3

  In his Pass. 11.