An answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a person of honour touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet / by Edw. Stillingfleet.

CHAP. V. (Book 5)

Of the Poenal Laws against Papists. (Book 5)

§. 1. I Am now come to that which Mr. Cressy looks upon as a very important subject,* 1.1 and deserving serious consideration; which is, how far those who acknowledge subjection to a forreign Power, as all English Catholicks do, can give satisfaction to the State of their Fidelity to his Majesty? Which, he saith, the Person of Honour repeats in several pla∣ces, and is most accurately descanted upon in his nine Questions near the conclusion of his Book. I shall therefore give a short ac∣count of what the Person of Honour saith upon this subject; and then consider what Mr. Cressy offers by way of Reply to it.

1. He saith,* 1.2

that the Personal Autho∣rity of the Pope, was that, and that only which first made the Schism, and still con∣tinues it, and is the ground of all the ani∣mosity

of the English Catholicks against the Church of England, and produced their separation from it; and if they will renounce all that Personal Authority in the Pope, and any obedience to it within his Majesties Kingdoms, they will purge themselves of all such jealousie, or suspi∣cion of their Fidelity, as may prove dan∣gerous to the Kingdom, and against which the Laws are provided: because it is their dependance on a forreign Jurisdicti∣on, which makes them or their opinions taken notice of by the Politick Govern∣ment of the Kingdom.

2.* 1.3 That it is necessary for the perso∣nal security of Kings and Princes, and for the peace and quiet of Kingdoms, that it may be clearly made manifest, what the Authority and Power is, that a forreign Prince doth challenge in another Princes Dominions contrary to, and above the Laws of the Land, and what obedience it is that subjects may pay to such a for∣reign Prince, without the privity, and contrary to the command of his own So∣veraign; which cannot be done by a ge∣neral Answer, but by distinct assigning the bounds of the Popes Temporal and Spiritu∣al Power in England; and what the full intent of them is, that the King may

discern whether he hath enough of either to preserve himself and the Peace of the Kingdom.

3.* 1.4 That till such time as the Roman-Catholick Subjects of England give as good security to the King for their Fidelity and peaceable behaviour, as all his other sub∣ject do, they have no cause to wonder that they may be made subject to such Laws and restraints, as may disable them from being dangerous; when they profess to owe obedience to a forreign Prince, who doth as much profess not to be a friend to their Countrey, and will not declare what that obedience is.

4.* 1.5 That the Roman Catholick Subjects of England have a more immediate de∣pendance on the Pope, than is allowed in any Catholick Countryes: and that those who under pretence of Religion refuse to declare, that it is in no Earthly Power to absolve them from their Fidelity to the King, do refuse to give as full satisfaction and security for their Allegiance, as Ca∣tholick Subjects do give for their Fidelity to Catholick Kings:* 1.6 there being no French Roman Catholick who dares refuse to do it.

5.* 1.7 That there is so much the more reason to require this, since the late in∣stance

of the Irish Rebellion, wherein the Pope absolved the Kings Subjects from their Oaths, and took upon himself to be their General in the Person of his Nun∣tio,* 1.8 and assumed the exercise of the Regal Power, both at Land and Sea, and im∣prisoned those Catholicks, and threatned to take away their Lives who had pro∣moted the peace, and desired to return to the Kings subjection; and hath since given a severe check to those of the Irish No∣bility and Clergie, who had declared that the Pope had no Power to dispense with their Fidelity to his Majesty, or to ab∣solve them from any Oaths they should take to that purpose: and imployed his Nuntio to discountenance and suppress that Declaration, and to take care that it should proceed no further;* 1.9 and that Car∣dianl Barbarine at that same time put them in mind, that the Kingdom of En∣gland was still under Excommunication; and since that, the Pope hath made many Bishops in Ireland, which his Predeces∣sors had forborn to do from the death of Queen Elizabeth, to A. D. 1640. And therefore there is no reason to believe, that the Court of Rome doth recede from its former principles, as to these things.

§. 2. These several particulars carry so much weight along with them, as may easily raise the expectation of any one, to see what Mr. Cressy will reply to them. And in truth he enters the Field like a Champi∣on; for he saith, his Apologie is published permissu Superiorum;* 1.10 and what he writes on this special subject, he desires the Per∣son of Honour to consider, not as the incon∣siderable opinion of one particular person on∣ly. And he doth assure him, that there is not any one Point of Controversie upon which they more earnestly desire to be summoned to give an account before equal Iudges, than this. Thus he enters the lists, and walks his ground, and brandishes his sword, and makes legs to the Judges with more than ordinary assurance, and fails in no point of a Champion, but overcoming his Adversary. Which he is so far from, that after these Bra∣vado's and flourishes he dares not stand be∣fore him; but looks round about him to discern any way to escape. But although it be beneath the Greatness of his Adversa∣ry, to pursue him over all his Bogs, and to draw him out of his Fastnesses; yet I shall endeavour to bring him into the Lists again, that his Adversary may not go away blush∣ing at so mean a Triumph.

There are five things which Mr. Cressy offers at by way of Answer to the Discourse of the Person of Honour on this subject. 1.* 1.11 That there is no reason to suspect the Catholick subjects of England to be more wanting in Fidelity to their Prince than of other Nations, whose Catholick Ancestors were so far from acknowledging any Supre∣macy of the Pope in Temporals, and much less any Authority in him to depose Princes, that even in those times when Church-men had the greatest Power in this Kingdom, Statutes were made with the joynt Votes of the Clergic upon occasion of some Usurpati∣ons of the Roman Court,* 1.12 in which the Pe∣nalty was no less than a Praemunire against any one who without the Kings License should make any Appeals to Rome, or sub∣mit to a Legats jurisdiction, or upon the Popes Summons go out of the Kingdom, or receive any Mandats or Brieffs from Rome, or purchase Bulls for presentments to Chur∣ches: and which is most considerable, the ground of their rejecting Papal Usurpations is thus expressed, For the Crown of En∣gland is free, and hath been free from earthly subjection at all times, being imme∣diately subject to God in all things touching the Regalities of the same, and not subject to the Pope; to which he saith, the Bishops

assented, and the Lords and Commons decla∣red their Resolution to stand with the King in the cases aforesaid, and in all other cases attempted against him his Crown and Regali∣tie in all points, to live and to dye.

2. That whatsoever they suffer here in England by vertue of the Poenal Laws,* 1.13 it is purely for their Religion and the Catholick faith; and therefore he parallels our Poenal Laws, with those of the Medes and Persians against Daniel;* 1.14 and of Nero, Domitian and Dioclesian against the Apostles and their successors:* 1.15 and yet Mr. Cressy confesses, that the occasion of the Poenal Laws, was the treasonable actions of some of their own Religion;* 1.16 but he adds, that they were scarce one score of persons, and abhorred by all the rest, for which actions of theirs, he confesseth, that care is taken of exacting Oaths both of Fidelity and Supremacy from Roman Catholicks as dangerous Subjects; and dayes of Thanksgiving are kept for the discovery and prevention of such personal Treasons; whereas, saith he, the whole Kingdoms deliverance from almost an uni∣versal Rebellion designing the extinction of Monarchy and Prelacy both, and executing the murder of the lawful Soveraign is not esteemed a sufficient motive for such publick Thanksgivings, neither it seems is there

at all a necessity of requiring from any a Re∣traction of the Principles of Rebellion, or a promise that it shall not be renewed. By which we might think Mr. Cressy had been utterly a stranger in his own Countrey, and had never heard of the thirtieth of Ianuary or the twenty ninth of May, which are so∣lemnly observed in our Church, and the Offices joyned with that of the fifth of No∣vember, and are purposely intended for that very thing which he denyes to be taken no∣tice of by us, in such a manner. What must we say to such men? who openly and to our faces deny that, which the whole Nation knows to be true. These stories might have passed abroad, where they have been wont to lye for the Catholick Cause, but to have the impudence to say such things here, which every Boy can confute, is not the way to advance the Reputation of their Church among us.

And what doth Mr. Cressy think, the Renuntiation of the Covenant was intended for, if not to prevent the mischief of the former Rebellion? And is it possible for any man who knows the Laws of his Coun∣trey concerning these matters, to dare to say in the face of the Kingdom, That it seems there is no necessity at all of requiring from any a Retraction of the principles of Re∣bellion,

or a promise it shall never be re∣newed? If this be the way of defending the innocency of Roman Catholicks, I had rather be accounted guilty, than have my innocency thus defended.

3. He saith,* 1.17 We also confidently affirm, (so we have seen he hath done too much already) that by vertue of the Spiritual Iurisdiction inherent in the Pope, the Tem∣poral Rights and Power of the King (or even of the meanest of his Subjects) are not at all abridged, or prejudiced. Which assertion, he saith, hath been alwayes maintained in France, the Pope not contradicting it; from whence it follows, that it is agreeable to Catholick Religion. After this I expected he should speak home to the purpose, and say, this is all the Power challenged by the Pope as to England, or owned by any Roman Catholicks here; which, finding what he had affirmed about other matters, I thought he would have made no scruple of; but I see he durst not, either for conscience or meer shame. But how then doth he get over this difficulty? Why English Catholicks, saith he, should be suspected not to be as tender of the just Rights and precious lives also of their Soveraign, as the Catholick Subjects of any other Kingdom, and why they should be thought to be willing to ac∣knowledge

any Temporal Power director in∣direct, to be inherent in the Pope over the King or Kingdom, to which not any Catho∣lick Gentleman or Nobleman would submit, I cannot imagine. I am very much to seek for the sense of this, and know not what the submitting relates to; but I suppose something left out, or struck out by his Su∣periours, who did not take care to leave sense behind: But is this indeed all the secu∣rity Mr. Cressy offers, that he cannot imagine it should be otherwise here than in France? We find, when he pleases, he can imagine strange things: and is this only out of the reach of his imagination? What doth he think, of the Kingdoms being under Excom∣munication at Rome, as Cardinal Barbarine takes care to put the Irish Nobility in mind, for some good end doubtless. Is the Kingdom of France so? What doth he imagine of Bulls from Rome prohibiting the taking the Oaths required? Are there any such things in France? What doth he think of the Popes Nuntio appearing in the Head of an Army, and absolving the Kings sub∣jects from their Allegiance? I confess, it was not much better in France in the time of the Holy League; but what opinion had they of the Popes temporal Power then? Cannot Mr. Cressy imagine that there are

such people in England as Iesuits? and it is not many years since their Reasons were therefore shewed to be Unreasonable in pleading an exemption from the Sanguina∣ry Laws, because they did hold the Popes power of deposing Princes, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance. And do not the Iesuitical party still plead that their opinion is the common doctrine of their Church, confirmed by General Councils, and approved by multitudes of Divines of all sorts; and that the contrary is only asserted here, by a very inconsiderable party, where∣of some are excommunicated at Rome for their zeal in this matter? And do not we know, how much greater sway the Iesuiti∣cal party hath among the Nobility and Gentry, than the despised Secular Priests? I do not at all question, but the Nobility and Gentry of England would do as much to preserve the just Rights and precious lives of their Soveraigns, as of any Nati∣on in the World, and have as great a sense of their own Honour as well as Interest, and of the Duty they owe to their Countrey. But ought not the Laws to take so much the more care to keep their Consciences un∣tainted in these things? they being such Persons whose Loyalty cannot be corrupt∣ed, but under a pretence of Conscience;

and their Consciences being so much in danger, by being under the direction chief∣ly of those who are the sworn servants to the Papal Power.

4. He offers by way of satisfaction con∣cerning their Fidelity,* 1.18 that they will sub∣scribe the French Declaration lately made by the Sorbon, or the Censure of the Fa∣culty of Paris A. D. 1626.* 1.19 and that very few if any at all would refuse subscripti∣on to that Form prescribed by the State,* 1.20 in case that unlucky word heretical were left out. As though all those who had hither∣to refused to take that Oath, had done it only upon this nicety, that the word here∣tical were to be taken not in the sense of the Givers, but of the Takers of the Oath: where∣as Mr. Cressy himself saith,* 1.21 that common Reason teaches, that all Oaths, Professions and Promises are to be understood in the sense of those who frame and require them, and not of those upon whom they are im∣posed. But if this were all the ground of refusing this Oath among any of them, Mr. Cressy therein charges them with the want of common Reason: whereas I shall make it appear in the progress of this Dis∣course, that this was far from being the true and only reason of Roman Catholicks refusing the Oath of Allegiance.

5. That since Ordination abroad doth not in the least render English Priests defective in their duties to the Civil Magistrate;* 1.22 it will follow that whatsoever penalty is in∣flicted on them on such an account, is not inflicted according to the Rule of Iustice, and by consequence that whatsoever blood shall be shed, the guilt of it before God will be imputed to the whole Kingdom, since it is shed by vertue of the whole Kingdoms votes, and consent given long since upon motives long since ceased. And therefore he charges it deeply upon my conscience to endeavour to free the whole Kingdom from such a guilt. This is the substance of what Mr. Cressy saith upon this very important subject, as himself calls it; and by vertue whereof he hopes,* 1.23 the poenal Laws may be repealed, and those of their Religion may enjoy the Liberty of their Religion and all the Rights of Free-born Subjects.* 1.24 Which are things too important to be debated in such a manner by persons who by making reflections on the Iustice and Wisdom of a Nation do endeavour to expose the Laws and Government of it to the censure and re∣proach of the malicious and ignorant. But since our Laws are so publickly accused of in∣justice and cruelty, and the Kingdom charg∣ed with the guilt of innocent blood, I hope I

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

may have leave as an English man to vin∣dicate the Laws of our Countrey, and as a Protestant to wipe off the aspersion of Cru∣elty from our Religion: which I shall do without the least intention of mischief to any mens persons, or of sharpening the seve∣rities of Laws against them.

§. 3. And to proceed with the great∣est clearness in this matter, I shall consi∣der,

1. The charge of injustice and cruelty which he lays upon our poenal Laws.

2. The proposals he makes in order to the repeal of them, and giving a full liberty to the exercise of their Religion.

1. The charge of injustice and cruelty upon our poenal Laws. Whosoever adven∣tures to charge the publick Laws of a King∣dom in such a manner ought to be very well advised upon what grounds he proceeds; and to understand throughly the nature, and constitution of Government and Rules of Iustice, and the power of interpreting as well as making Laws, and the certain bounds within which Laws may make actions Trea∣sonable, and how far actions thought Reli∣gious by the Persons who do them, may be∣come treasonable when they are against Laws made for the publick safety; and what

actions of Religion make men Martyrs when they suffer for them and what not; for it is certain, they are not all of equal consequence and necessity; these and many other things a man ought to come well pro∣vided with, that dares in the face of the World to charge the Laws of his own Na∣tion with injustice and cruelty. But Mr. Cr. may be excused in this matter, for that would indeed be an unjust and cruel Law to require impossibilities from men: I wish so noble a subject had been undertaken by a Person fit for it, that could have managed it otherwise than in a bare declamatory manner. But since he is the Goliah that dares so openly defie our Laws and Govern∣ment, I shall make use of his own Wea∣pons to cut off the heads of this terrible ac∣cusation. For, 1. He grants, That the Laws made by their Catholick Ancestors, viz. the Statutes of Praemunire and Provi∣sors were just Laws. 2. That our King hath reason to expect as much security of the Fidelity of his Catholick Subjects, as any Catholick Prince hath from his. 3. That all Christian Kings have in some sense a kind of spiritual Authority, that they ought to be Nursing Fathers to Gods Church, that they ought to promote true Christian do∣ctrine both touching Faith and manners,

and to imploy their power when occasion is,* 1.25 to oblige even Ecclesiastical Persons to perform their duties, and all their Subjects to live in all Christian Piety and Vertue. These are his o••n words, which in short come to this, that they are bound to promote and pre••erve the true Religion.* 1.26 4. That it is absolutely unlawful for them to defend their Religion, being persecuted by Soveraign Ma∣gistrates, by any other way but suffer∣ing: which, he saith, they do sincerely pro∣fess according to their perswasion. 5. That the treasonable actions of persons of their own Religion were the occasion of making and continuing the poenal Laws: for upon their account, he saith, they are thought dangerous Subjects,* 1.27 and care is taken to exact Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy from them. 6. That where the Popes tem∣poral power is owned, especially as to de∣posing Princes, there can be no sufficient se∣curity given as to the Fidelity of such per∣sons. This I prove from his saying, that there is no reason to question their Fidelity, whose Ancestors were so far from any Su∣premacy of the Pope in Temporals, and much less any Authority in him to depose Princes, that they made the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors, (which by his favour is a very weak argument, unless men can never

be supposed to degenerate from the Vertues of their Ancestors) but besides, the satis∣faction he offers,* 1.28 is by renouncing the Popes temporal power, and declaring that his power of deposing Princes, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, is repugnant to the Word of God, although they dare not call it heretical; from whence it follows, that Mr. Cressy doth not think those can give sufficient security for their Fidelity, who dare not thus far renounce the Popes power.

7. That where there is no sufficient secu∣rity given for the Fidelity of Persons, there is great reason they should lye under the se∣verity of Laws. Which Mr. Cressy al∣wayes supposes; and only complains of their hardship upon the offers he makes of their Fidelity. And this must hold as to all sorts of persons who may be dangerous to Government, although they may pretend never so much exemption by their Function, or being imployed in Offices not immediate∣ly relating to Civil Government.

From these concessions it will be no difficult task to clear our Poenal Laws from injustice, and to vindicate the whole Kingdom from the guilt of innocent blood, if I can prove these following asserti∣ons.

1. That the same Reasons which justifie the antient Statutes of England and the Laws of Catholick Princes abroad, do vin∣dicate our Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and Cruelty.

2. That Laws originally made upon the account of acknowledged treasonable pra∣ctices, do continue just upon all those who do not give sufficient security against the principles leading to those practices.

1. That the same Reasons which justifie the antient Statutes of England, and the Laws of Catholick Princes abroad, do vindi∣cate our Poenal Laws from the charge of In∣justice and Cruelty. For if the penalties do bear no greater proportion to the nature of the offence; if the Power be as great and as just in our Law-makers; if the occasions were of as high a nature, and the pleas in behalf of the persons equal: then there can be no reason assigned why those Laws should be just and lawful, and not ours. And the making out of these things is my present business.

1. I begin with the antient Laws and Statutes of England. And I hope no one dares question, but that the power of make∣ing Laws is as good and just in England since the Reformation, as ever it was be∣fore: For if there be the least diminution

of Power by vertue of the cutting off the Popes Authority, then so much of the Civil Power as was lost by it, was derived from the Pope: and this is in plain terms to make the Pope our Temporal Soveraign, and the whole Kingdom to be only Feudatary to him: which is asserting his Temporal power with a vengeance; and contains in it a do∣ctrine that none but very Self-denying Princes can ever give the least countenance to; because it strikes at the very root of their Authority, and makes them only pre∣carious Princes, (and in a much more pro∣per sense than the Popes use that Title, The Servants of Servants.) Supposing then the Legislative and Civil Power to be equal since the Reformation and before; our work is to compare the other circumstances toge∣ther; and if it appear, that the Plea of Conscience and Religion did equally hold then, and notwithstanding that the penal∣ties were as great, upon the same or far less occasions, I hope our Laws will at least appear as just and reasonable as those were.

§. 4. To make this out, I must give an account of the State of those times, and the Reasons and Occasions which moved the Law-makers to enact those Poenal Statutes:

in which I shall shew these two things. 1. That they began upon a controversie of Religion; and that the Poenal Laws were made against those persons who pleaded Religion. 2. That the Reasons and Occa∣sions of the Poenal Laws since the Reforma∣tion were at least as great as those.

1. That the antient Poenal Laws were made upon a Controversie of Religion: And to give a clear account of the Rise and oc∣casion of them, I must begin from the Nor∣man Conquest; for then those Foundations were laid of all the following controversies which happened between the Civil and Ec∣clesiastical Power. On the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power was the plea of Consci∣ence and Religion, on the behalf of the Ci∣vil Power nothing but the just Rights of Princes, and the necessary preservation of their own and the publick safety. And this Controversie between the Two Powers was managed with so much zeal, and such pretences of Conscience on the behalf of the Ecclesiastical Power, that the Civil Power, notwithstanding the courage of some Prin∣ces, and the resolution of Parliaments, had much ado to stand its ground, or to be able to preserve it self from the encroachments and Usurpations of the other. So that to see Princes give any Countenance to the same

pretences would be almost as strange, as to see them turn Common-wealths-men. I know there were good Laws frequently made to strengthen the Civil Power; but the very frequency of them shewed how ineffectual they were; For what need many Laws to the same purpose, if the first had any force at all? and the multiplication of Laws for the same thing, is a certain sign of defect in the Government. To undeceive there∣fore all those who judge of the State of Affairs by the Book of Statutes, I shall de∣duce the History of this great Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in England, so far as to shew the necessity there was found of putting an issue to it, by casting out the Popes pretended Power and Iurisdiction in this Nation.

The two first who began this Dispute, were both men of great Spirits and reso∣lute in their undertakings; I mean william the Conqueror and Gregory the seventh, who was the first Pope that durst speak out; and he very freely declares his mind about the subjection of the Civil Power to the Ecclesi∣astical, and the exemption of all Ecclesiasti∣cal Persons and Things from the Civil Pow∣er. In his Epistle to Herimanus Bishop of Metz about the excommunication of Henry the fourth,* 1.29 and absolving his Subjects from

their Allegiance; he thus expresses himself; Shall not that power which was first found out by men who knew not God, be subject to that which God himself hath appointed for his own honor in the World, and the head of which is the Son of God? Who knows not that Kings and Dukes had their beginnings from men who gained their Authority over their equals by blind ambition and intolerable presumption, by rapines and murders, by perfidiousness and all manner of wickedness? Is not this a very pretty account of the Ori∣ginal of Civil Power by the Head of the Church? But this is not all; for he adds, While Princes make Gods Priests to be sub∣ject to them, to whom may we better com∣pare them than to him, who is the Head over all the Sons of Pride, who tempted the Son of God with promising him all the King∣doms of the World, if he would fall down and worship him? This is better and bet∣ter; it seems it is as bad as the sin of Lu∣cifer, for Princes not to be subject to the Pope; and it is like the Devils tempting Christ, to offer to make Priests subject to the Civil Power. Who doubts, saith he, that Christs Priests are to be accounted the Fathers and Masters of Kings aud Princes and all the faithful? Now, saith he, is it not a lamentable madness, if the Son should of∣fer

to make the Father subject to him (but one of his Successors did not think so, that set up Henry the fifth against his own Fa∣ther) or the Scholar his Master, or to think to bind him on earth, by whom he expects to be loosed in Heaven? These were the Demonstrations of that Age, and the main supports of the Cause▪* 1.30 and in his Epistle to William King of England, he tells him, that God had appointed two kinds of Govern∣ment for mankind, the Apostolical and Re∣gal (that is much, that the same Govern∣ment should come only from the sins of men, and yet be from the appointment of God: but we are to consider he writ this to a King whom he hoped to perswade, and therefore would not tell him the worst of his thoughts about the beginnings of Civil Power) but, saith he, these two powers, like the Sun and Moon, have that inequali∣ty by the Christian Religion, that the Royal Power next under God is to be under the care and management of the Apostolical. And since the Apostolical See is to give an account to God of the miscarriages of Prin∣ces, his wisdom ought to consider, whether he ought not without farther delay take an Oath of Fealty to him. For no less than that would content him: but William was not so meek a Prince to be easily brought

to this, as Robert of Sicily, Richard of Ca∣pua, Bertram of Provence, Rodulphus, and several others were, whose Oaths of Feal∣ty to him are extant in the Collection or Register of his Epistles.* 1.31 But William gives him a resolute answer,* 1.32 which is extant among the Epistles of Lanfranc; that for the Oath of Fealty, he had not done it, nei∣ther would he, because he never promised it, neither did he find that ever his pre∣decessors had done it to Gregories predeces∣sors. The Pope storms at this, and writes a chiding Letter to Lanfranc Arch-bishop of Canterbury; who like a better subject to the Pope than to the King, writes an humble excuse for himself to the Pope, and tells him, he had done his endeavour to perswade the King, but could not prevail with him:* 1.33 And Cardinal Baronius saith,* 1.34 the Pope took it very ill at his hands, considering the kindness he had received from the Pa∣pal See. For Alexander the second favour∣ed his cause against Harold, and sent him a consecrated Banner; and if we may believe Henricus de Silgrave,* 1.35 the Pope gave him his title to the Crown of England, on condition that he should hold it in Fee from the Papal See: but I find no such thing mentioned by Ingulphus, or Gulielmus Picta∣viensis, who understood the Conque∣rors

affairs as well as any, being about him at that time; neither would Gregory the se∣venth have omitted it: but however Ber∣tholdus Constantiensis,* 1.36 or rather Bernaldus an Author of that time, and the Popes Poe∣nitentiary, affirms confidently, that William King of England made this whole Nation tributary to the Pope; which there is no pretence for, but only that he, after some demurr, caused the antient Eleem••synarie Peter-pence, to be sent to Rome. So care∣ful had Princes need to be, of the continu∣ance of Gifts to Rome, which in time are looked on as a Tribute; and that Tribute an acknowledgement of Fealty; and that Fealty proves a Subjection in Temporals. But this was not the only dispute between these two Conquerors, for Gregory the se∣venth at the same time that he sent Hubert his Legat to England about the Oath of Feal••y, he sent Hugo to keep a Council in France against the investitures of Bishops by Lay-hands,* 1.37 and afterwards in a Council at Rome, solemnly condemned them; and threatned deposition to all that received them,* 1.38 and the vengeance of God upon those that gave them. The bottom of which lay not in the pretence of Simony, but because it was too great a token of their subjection to the Civil Power; and Gregory the seventh

was, as Bertholdus saith,* 1.39 a most zealous de∣fender of Ecclesiastical Liberty, i. e. the to∣tal exemption of Ecclesiastical persons from subjection to the Civil Power; and Eadme∣rus saith, that the Bishops made their ho∣mage to the King before they received in∣vestiture by the Staff and the Ring.* 1.40 But not∣withstanding all these Decrees and Threat∣nings, William the Conquerour, as that Au∣thor tells us, would never part with the Rights of the Crown in this matter: and he declares that he would not only keep the antient Saxon custom of investiture,* 1.41 (as Ingulphus and other Authors shew it to have been) but all the antient customs of his Predecessors in Normandy relating to Ec∣clesiastical affairs: So that all Ecclesiastical as well as Civil things,* 1.42 saith Eadmerus, were under his command. These customs were, 1. That none should be acknowledged Pope, but whom the King pleased. 2. That no Bulls should be received, but such as were approved by the King. 3. That no∣thing should be decreed in Provincial Councils, but by his Approbation. 4. That no Persons about the King should be excom∣municated without his knowledge: but be∣sides, Pope Gregory charged him with two more enormities,* 1.43 viz. 5. Hindering all ap∣peals to Rome of Bishops and Arch-bishops:

which was such a thing, he saith that a Heathen would not have done it. 6. Seizing upon the person of his Brother Odo being a Bishop and imprisoning him; which he said was plainly against Scripture, Qui vos tan∣git, tangit pupillam oculi mei; & Nolite tangere Christos meos;* 1.44 which no doubt were understood of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Patriarchal and Iewish Church. But I do not find that King William did at all recede from the Rights of his Crown, al∣though the Pope according to his skill quoted Scripture against them; and although the Bishop of Baieux was clapt up on the ac∣count of Treason, as our Historians agree, yet in Pope Gregories opinion he suffered for Religion and the preservation of Divine Laws: and such men as Mr. Cressy might have compared such Laws with those of Nero and Domitian; but I think they durst not have done it in the Conquerours time; who at the Council of Illebon in Normandy declared his resolution to maintain the cu∣stoms of his Predecessors,* 1.45 relating to Ec∣clesiastical affairs.

§. 5. After the death of Gregory the se∣venth, there was no Pope acknowledged in England for eleven years,* 1.46 because of the Schism between Urban and Clement; and

our King had declared for neither of them: And william Rufus told Anselm, who would fain have gone to Urban the second for his Pall, that he had not yet acknowledged him for Pope, and therefore he should not go. And, saith he, if you own him without my Authority,* 1.47 you break your faith to me, and displease me as much as if you did endea∣vour to take away my Crown: Anselm how∣ever stands upon it, that himself had owned him for Pope, and would do so whatever came of it; and would not depart from his obedience for an hour. A Parliament be∣ing called at Rockingham upon this occasion, the Nobility and Bishops all advised him to submit to the King.* 1.48 Anselm notwithstand∣ing cryes, Tues Petrus & super hanc Pe∣tram, &c. & Qui vos tangit, tangit pupil∣lam oculi, as Gregory the seventh had done before him, and to as much purpose; but no such things, saith he, are said of Kings or Princes, or Dukes or Earles; and there∣fore he resolved to adhere to the Pope: The King being acquainted with his an∣swer,* 1.49 sends some of the Nobles and Bishops to him, to let him know, that the whole Kingdom was against him, and that hereby he endeavoured to take away one of the Flowers of his Crown from him, by depriv∣ing him of one of the antient Rights of it:

and withal that he acted contrary to his Oath to the King.* 1.50 Anselm (if we may believe Eadmerus, who lived in his time, and was his constant companion) stood upon his priviledge, that an Archbishop of Canterbury could be judged by none but the Pope: and so by that means was wholly ex∣empt from the Royal Power: and he bore all the affronts he met with patiently out of his firm devotion to the Papal See. The Bishop of Durham whose advice the King asked in this matter, told him, that Anselm had the Word of God and Authority of S. Pe∣ter of his side. The King said, he would never endure one equal to himself in his Kingdom: and therefore took off his protection from him, and commands the Nobility and Bishops to disown him:* 1.51 and banishes his Counsellors, and gives him time for a final answer. The mean while the King tryes by several arts to gain him, viz. by sending to Urban secretly for the Pall, and acknowledging him to be Pope,* 1.52 and at last they brought it to this issue, that he should receive the Pall at the Kings hands, which he utterly refused to do, and would take it no otherwise but off from the Altar of Canterbury.* 1.53 After this, he desires leave to go to the Pope, the King denyes it, he persists in his intreaty,* 1.54 the King absolutely

denyes it, he resolves to go however, be∣cause, saith he, it is better to obey God than men. As though God had commanded him to disobey the King in this matter. When the Bishops had disswaded him from it, and told him they would keep their fidelity to the King: Go, saith he, then to your Lord, and I will hold to my God.* 1.55 Did he mean the same God which the Gloss upon the Ca∣non Law speaks of, our ••ord God the Pope? and it is hard to conceive any other could be meant in this case. The King sends some of the Bishops and Barons to him to put him in mind of his Oath to observe the Laws and Customs of the Realm; he told him they were to be understood with the reservation of being according to God,* 1.56 and that it was not so, to keep him from going to the Pope, and therefore he would not ob∣serve it; and so takes his leave of the King to be gone; and the King after his going seizes upon all his profits. I desire to know of such as Mr. Cressy, whether the King or Anselm were in the right in all this affair? And if the King had used greater severity to him, whether Anselm had suffered on the account of Religion Or Treason? But he complains to the Pope,* 1.57 that the Law of God, and Authority of the Pope and Canons were overwhelmed by the Customs of the Realm;

and therefore he resigns his Archbishoprick to him, and desires the Pope to put one into it; which was contrary to the antient Rights of the King:* 1.58 The Pope in a Council at Rome solemnly excommunicates all Lay-persons that gave Investitures of Churches, and all that received them, and all Ecclesiastical persons that paid Homage to Princes, saying it was very unfit that they who made their God, should put their hands into the obscene and cruel hands of Princes: as Eadmerus relates it, who was present in the Council.

§. 6. After the death of Rufus,* 1.59 Anselm returns for England, the new King Henry the first demands the accustomed Homage from him, he denyes it, and gives the late Council at Rome for his reason; adding fur∣ther, if the King would submit to the De∣crees of that Council, there would be peace between them, otherwise he would be gone again. The King was very unwilling to part with the Rights of his Predecessors in the Investiture and Homage of Bishops; for saith Eadmerus, it seemed to him as much as to lose half his Kingdom: and yet was afraid to let Anselm go, lest by his means the Pope should have set up his Brother Ro∣berts Title against him; the King being in this strait, endeavours to gain time,

and sends Ambassadors to the Pope, to try, if he could procure his consent, to let him enjoy his own Rights:* 1.60 Pope Paschal the second in his long Epistle to Henry, abso∣lutely condemns them, as inconsistent with God, with justice, or with salvation: and adds that to the wit of his predecessors, that it was a monstrous thing for a Son to beget a Father, or a man to make a God; (but Urban gave that, as a reason against it, be∣cause Priests were men that did make a God) now Priests, saith he, in Scripture are cal∣led Gods; and are not Princes or Secular Powers? The King not at all moved with this Bull, requires from Anselm either to pay him homage, and to consecrate those that had received investitures from him, or immediately to be gone out of the King∣dom: and withal declares, that he would preserve the Rights of his Predecessors, nor would endure any in his Kingdom that would not do him homage;* 1.61 the Nobility and the rest of the Bishops joyn with the King, and used all perswasions to keep him from sub∣mitting to the Pope. The King hoping to compose this matter, sends three Bishops to the Pope to let him know, saith Eadmerus, that if the King did not enjoy his Rights, he would banish Anselm and renounce the Pope.* 1.62 But Brompton hath the smart Letter the

King sent upon this occasion, wherein he tells him, he would not fail of that respect and obedience which his predecessors had shewn to the Popes, on condition that all the Ho∣nors, Uses and Customs which his Father had in his predecessors times might be freely enjoyed by him; and that by the help of God none of them should be lessened in his time; and if, saith he, which God forbid, I should be so base to let them go; yet my Nobility, nay, the whole people would by no means suffer it. The Pope told them,* 1.63 he would not yield to the King in this mat∣ter to save his Life; and writes word to the King, that by the judgement of the Ho∣ly Ghost he had forbidden all investitures by Princes: and encourages Anselm in his op∣position to the King, with some impertinent texts of Scripture. (For of all men, the Popes, notwithstanding their pretence to infallibility, have been very unhappy in ap∣plying Scripture in their Bulls; and it would be one of the strangest Commentaries that ever the World saw, to set down the places of Scripture produced by them with their interpretations of them: but that is not my present business.) The King called to∣gether the Great men of the Nation in Council at London:* 1.64 and sends some of them to Anselm, to know, whether he would ob∣serve

the customs of his predecessors or be gone? The Bishops pretending private in∣structions contrary to the Popes Bulls, An∣selm desires time to know the Popes mind, and still stands to the Popes Letters; upon which the King told him, he would bear these delays no longer;* 1.65 Quid mihi de meis cum Papa; what have I to do with the Pope about my own Subjects? What Rights my Predecessors had, are mine too: whosoever would take them away from me is my ene∣my, and every one that is my Friend knows it. Anselm tells him, that to save his life he would not contradict the Popes decrees unless he were absolved by him. The King would not so much as hear of the Popes Bulls, nor suffer others to do it, which grieved Anselm much; and away he goes again to receive comfort from the Pope. The King sends an Ambassadour to the Pope,* 1.66 who told him his Master would lose his Kingdom rather than the Investiture of Bishops; the Pope very graciously replyed, Before God I will lose my head rather than he shall quietly enjoy them. But at last, the Pope was content he should enjoy other customes excepting this of Investitures; the King was not at all satisfied with this,* 1.67 but sends word to Anselm he must not set foot on English ground unless he would

promise to observe the former customs of the Realm: which he still refused to do, and after several endeavours to compose this difference, the King was at last forced to yield up the ancient Right of Investi∣ture, and retain only homage, which the Pope and Anselm were at present contented with;* 1.68 but this Agreement held not long; for notwithstanding the Pope did lay so much weight on this business of Investitures,* 1.69 (as besides what is mentioned already,* 1.70 he said, that Christ dyed in vain if Lay-investitures were allowed) yet the King was certainly informed that this same Pope had yielded Investitures to t••e Emperour Henry 5. as Florentius Wigorniensis and Malmsbury re∣port,* 1.71 and therefore Anselm writes to the Pope,* 1.72 that the King would resume his too: and it is evident he did so, for Matth. Paris and Westminster say expresly, that the King invested the next Archbishop of Canterbury, with a staff and a ring after the ancient custom: which was after the Lateran Coun∣cil wherein the Pope again revoked the Em∣perours priviledge about investitures, which he saith, is contrary to the Holy Ghost and the Canonical Institution. But where was the Holy Ghost then when he granted this priviledge?* 1.73 After this, the Pope complains of the King for retaining the other anci∣ent

Rights, of hindering Appeals to Rome and not receiving Legats; but at last Pope Calixtus yielded to the King the enjoyment of the Customs which his Father had in England and Normandy. Was not this Pope very kind to the King who so patient∣ly yielded to those customs which his Prede∣cessors had condemned as contrary to Reli∣gion, and making Christs death to no pur∣pose? The same Callis••us 2. in the Council of Lateran, A. D. MCXXII. put an end to the Controversie of investitures in the Roman Empire:* 1.74 yielding to the Emperour the right of Investitures so it were perform∣ed without Simony, and by a Scepter and not by a staff and a Ring; because, for∣sooth, if it had been done by a ring, it made it a kind of marriage, and so made a spiritual Adultery between the Bishop and his Church; as the former Popes very learnedly proved in their Epistles against Investitures.

§. 7. This Controversie being at an end, the Popes bethought themselves of a more subtle way of effecting their design, which was by engaging the Bishops by oaths of Fi∣delity and obedience to themselves, as well as taking away their homages and Fealty to Princes, that so with less noise and more security, they might compass the design of

Ecclesiastical Liberty or rather slavery to the Pope. Gregory 7. Urban 2. and Pas∣chal 2. did all forbid Clargy-men to give any homage to Princes,* 1.75 as Petrus de Marca proves from the Authentick acts of their several Councils; instead of which they re∣quired an Oath of Fealty to themselves. For it was not a bare oath of Canonical obe∣dience, which the Popes required, but as much an oath of Fealty and Allegiance, as ever Princes require from their other Sub∣jects: which will be made appear by com∣paring the oaths together. The most ancient form of Allegiance I meet with, is that pre∣scribed in the Capitular of Charles the Great, which is contained in very few words.

Promitto ego partibus Domini mei Caroli Regis & filiorum ejus,* 1.76 quia fidelis sum & ero diebus vitae meae sine fraude vel malo ingenio, as it is in the old Edition of the Constitutions; but in the latter out of Sir∣mondus his Copy it is somewhat larger.* 1.77

Promitto ego quod ab isto die in antea fi∣delis sum Domino Carolo piissimo Imperatori pura mente abs{que} fraude & malo ingenio de meâ parte ad suam partem & ad hono∣rem regni sui, sicut per drictam debet esse homo Domino suo. The ancient Form used in this Nation ran thus,

Tu jurabis quod ab ista die in antea eris

fidelis & legalis Domino nostro Regi & suis haeredibus;* 1.78 & fidelitatem & legalitatem ei portabis de vitâ & de membro & de ter∣reno honore, & quod tu eorum malum aut damnum nec noveris nec audiveris quod non defendes pro posse tuo, ita te Deus ad∣juvet: Now let us compare these with the Oath made to the Pope; I shall take that form which is published out of the Vatican MS. by Odoricus Raynaldus, which was taken by Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ego Edmundus,* 1.79 &c. ab hac hora in antea fidelis & obediens ero S. Petro & S. R. E. &D. Papae Gregerio suis{que} successoribus ca∣nonicè intrantibus. Nonero in facto ne{que} in consilio, aut consensio ut vitam perdant, aut membrum, aut capiantur malâ captione. Consilium vero quod mihi credituri sunt per se, aut per nuntios suos sive per liter as ad corum damnum, mesciente, nemini pandam. Papatum Romanum & Regalia Sancti Petri aajutor eis ero ad retinendum & defenden∣dum salvo meo ordine contra omnem ho∣minem, &c. This is enough to shew, that if the other were properly Oaths of Allegi∣ance to Princes, this is so to the Pope, and thereby they are bound to the very same obedience to the Pope as their Soveraign, as anymen are to their own Princes. For here is no exception at all of the Rights of

Princes and the duty they owe to them; not the least notice being taken of them, as though they did owe them any allegiance: which we plainly see was never intended should be paid by those who first imposed this Oath. That Learned Gentleman Sir Roger Twisden supposes this oath to have been framed by Paschal 2.* 1.80 and it is certain, that Rodulphus being made Archbishop of Canterbury in his time, is the first we read among us, that took an oath of Fidelity to the Pope, with that of Canonical obedience: after whose time we frequently meet with it, but not before:* 1.81 but in truth, it is the very same oath,* 1.82 only applying it to Church∣men, which Richard of Capua took by way of Fealty to Gregory 7.* 1.83 as may appear to any one that compares them together:* 1.84 where there are the same expressions word for word:* 1.85 by which we may see the strictest allegiance to the Pope is understood by it,* 1.86 without the least reservation of any other Princes Rights. And considering the doctrine and design of the first imposers of it, it cannot be questioned, but their intention was hereby to exempt the takers of it from all Allegiance to any other than the Pope. But lest this design should be too easily suspected, at first it went only along with the Pall to Archbishops, then it came to Bi∣shops,

shops, and at last, as the Gloss upon the Ca∣non Law tells us,* 1.87 to all that receive any dig∣nity, consecration, or confirmation from the Pope; and now the oath in the Pontifical is much larger than it was, and by it the ta∣kers are bound to observe and defend the Papal reservations,* 1.88 Provisions and man∣dates, and to persecute to the utmost of their Power, all Hereticks, Schismaticks and Re∣bels to the Pope. Much kindness then is to be expected from all who are sworn to per∣secution, and much allegiance to Princes from those who own the Pope to be their Soveraign in as express terms as any Sub∣jects can do their Princes: and so Cassander takes notice, that several passages in this Oath relate to meer civil obedience,* 1.89 which we owe to Princes and not to the Pope: and for what relates to the Papacy, if by it be understood the Papal Tyranny, as no doubt it is, be utterly condemns it as an unlawful oath; and I extreamly wonder at those who make so many scruples about oaths of Allegiance to Princes, that they make none at all about this, which as far as I can see, leaves no room for Allegiance to them, any more than a person who hath already sworn Allegiance to one Prince, hath liberty to swear the same thing to another; which it is impossible he should keep to both.

The first contriver of this Oath to the Pope, was no other than Gregory 7. who could not be thought to understand less than the strictest Allegiance by it, since he required Fealty from Temporal Princes, and forbad all Clergy-men paying homage to them. In the Council held by him at Rome, A. D. 1079. the Archbishop of Aquileia took an Oath in the same form with that published by Raynaldus out of the Vatican MS. and therein he is sworn,* 1.90 to defend the Roman Papacy and the Royalties of S. Pe∣ter; which makes me wonder how the form extant in the Canon Law should have it Regulas Sanctorum Patrum instead of Re∣galia Sancti Petri, for we are not to imagin that Gregory 9. had any such thought to bring down the Royalties of S. Peter to the ancient Canons; and the oath which was taken had the Regalia sancti Petri alwayes in it from Gregory 7. time: unless they hoped to deceive the simple by this means, for we find that even Cassander himself thought there had been no other Form be∣sides that in the Canon Law, till the Bishop of Munster sent him the Form he was to take; wherein were the Regalia sancti Pe∣tri, as they are now in the Pontifical. But if the strictest tye of Allegiance to the Pope as their Soveraign were not intended by this

oath, why could not the Popes be contented with the former oath of Canonical Obedi∣ence, which from the time of Boniface was required by the Pope of all Metropolitans together with the Pall, although many re∣fused to submit their necks to that Yoke. Before A. D. 450.* 1.91 Petrus de Marca observes, nosuch thing as an Oath of Canonical Obedi∣ence from Bishops to the Metropolitan was used in the Church; and therefore Leo 1. reproves Anastasius of Thessalonica for re∣quiring it from Atticus a Bishop under him; but afterwards by degrees it came into Use, as appears by the words of the Bishops of Aquileia in Baronius to the Emperour Mau∣ricius,* 1.92 and the profession made by Adelber∣tus to Hinomarus his Metropolitan. Where∣as the Metropolitans themselves made only a bare profession of their faith, and a pro∣mise to their suffragan Bishops to observe the Canons of the Church. But when Gre∣gory sent Boniface, as his Missionary into Germany, he made him take an Oath over the Reliques of S. Peter in the Vatican, to be true and faithful to the interests of the Ro∣man See,* 1.93 but still it was within the compass of the Catholick Faith and the ancient Ca∣nons: and this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being a very faith∣ful servant to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 See, makes it his business to perswade the Bishops of Germany

and France, to profess subjection to the Bi∣shop of Rome; and all the Metropolitans to receive Palls from thence,* 1.94 and to give Ca∣nonical obedience to the Popes decrees: these things went very hardly down with the Bi∣shops; for two years after A. D. 744. Bo∣niface complains to Pope Zachary,* 1.95 that he was afraid they would not keep their words; but he assures the Pope it was none of his fault; but at last they were wheedled into it under this pretence that it was only a mark of honour to receive the Pall, and not a badge of subjection; and Hincmarus told Nicolaus 1.* 1.96 That he could receive no more power by it, than the Canons had given to Metropo∣litans already; but when they were brought to receive the Pall the promise of subjection went down with it: the Form of which is extant among the ancient For∣mulae published by Sirmondus,* 1.97 wherein they promise to the Pope only debitam subjecti∣onem & obedientiam, which is properly Ca∣nonical Obedience. Now if Gregory 7. had understood no more than that, why did he alter the Oath, and put in so many expressi∣ons which properly imply the same Fealty which Vassals owe to their Lords, or Sub∣jects to their Princes? I know not, how it came to pass that so jealous a Prince of his own Rights as Henry 1. came to suffer the

new Archbishop to take this oath to the Pope; but this is certain that it was extreamly dis∣gusted in other Countries. For Baronius tells us that the Kings and Nobility of Sicily and Poland were very much offended at it,* 1.98 as a thing there was no ground for in the ancient Councils; as though saith Paschal 2. in answer to them, the Councils could set bounds to the Popes Authority: which was bravely said and like a Prince that endea∣voured to make the greatest Bishops his Vas∣sals; but I cannot imagine what satisfaction this could give to Secular Princes, who might easily discern how much their own Power was lessened by these manifest en∣croachments upon it, by the exacting oaths of Allegiance from some of the most consi∣derable of their Subjects, to a Forraign Power.

§. 8. After the death of Henry 1. the Papal power got more ground in the trou∣blesome Reign of King Stephen, than ever it had done before; For his title being very bad, he saw it was the more necessary for him to strengthen it by the Popes Autho∣rity. To which end, after his Consecra∣tion by William Archbishop of Canterbury, who together with Stephen had before sworn Allegiance to Maud the Empress,

he sends to the Pope for a Confirmation of his Title, which the Pope very amply sends him; and the Bull is extant among our Historians;* 1.99 wherein among other things he takes notice, that on the day of his con∣secration (as the Pope calls it) he promi∣sed obedience and reverence to S. Peter; which no doubt went very far in his Title: and the Bishop of Winchester his Brother told him (as Malmsbury* 1.100 relates who lived in that time) that he came to the Crown not by any military power but by the Churches Favour, and therefore he ought to be kind to it; and so he was it seems at first, for he yielded to their own terms, as Gul.* 1.101 Newbur∣gensis saith, and the Bishops did swear only a conditional Allegiance to him, viz. as long as he preserved the Liberty of the Church. To give them therefore all the satisfaction they desired, he made that Oath extant in Malmsbury,* 1.102 wherein he put all Ecclesia••tical Persons and Things under their own juris∣diction; and when afterwards he violated this Liberty, his own Brother being then the Popes Legat, presumed to summon him to appear before his Ecclesiastical High Court of Iustice, and to give him an account of what he had done in daring to imprison the Bishops of Salisbury and Lincoln: For, said he, if the Bishops do any thing amiss, the

King hath nothing to do to judge them, but they must be left to the Canons; and with∣all he adds, that the King was bound to give them an account of what he had done: but the King sent them word that he appealed to Rome; and so the business fell. Thus we see how much he advanced the Popes power by yielding to a Legatine Power here, to hear causes, and suffering himself to be called to an account before it; by which example, Appeals grew very frequent and troublesome in his time, as our Histori∣ans sadly complain; and the Bishops and Monks went commonly over to Rome upon Appeals;* 1.103 nay Theobald Archbishop of Can∣terbury went to the Pope, then in Frarce, ex∣presly against the Kings command, and the Pope suspended the rest that did not come; and William Archbishop of York was deposed by the Pope, meerly because nominated by the King,* 1.104 and another put into his Room without the Kings consent, or approbation: the right of Investitures was condemned in a Council held at Westminster, and the in∣fringers of Ecclesiastical Liberty punished with Excommunication, not to be taken off but by the Pope himself; and after the recon∣ciliation between Stephen and Henry 2.* 1.105 the effect of it, saith Radulphus de Diceto, was, that the Churches Dominion was exalted by it.

§. 9. This was the state of things here, when Henry the second came to the posses∣sion of the Crown; all the Customs of his Ancestors which they accounted Rights of the Crown were lost during the Usurpation of Stephen, and strange insolencies and vil∣lanies were committed under the pretence of Ecclesiastical Liberty, or the unaccount∣abless of Ecclesiastical Persons for their actions to Civil Justice: which made the Judges complain to the King of the thefts, rapines, and murders frequently committed by Clergy-men, over whom they had then no jurisdiction;* 1.106 and as Gulielmus Newbur∣gensis saith, the Bishops were more concern∣ed to defend their priviledges, than to pu∣nish offendors, and thought they did God and the Church service in protecting them from the hands of Iustice. By which means things were come to that height between the Civil & Ecclesiastical Power, that one or the other must yeild; the Ecclesiastical Power being in the hands of Thomas Becket, a man after the Popes own heart, and in whom the ve∣ry soul of Gregory the seventh seemed to have come into the World again; and the Civil Power in the management of Henry the second, a Prince of a high Spirit and great courage, and that could not easily bear the

least diminution of his Power. And where there was so much matter prepared, and such heat on both sides, it was no great difficulty to fore-tell a storm, when the Clouds that hovered in the air should clap together, or fall upon each other. This was foreseen by the more discerning men of that time when they found the King bent upon making him Archbishop after the death of Theobald:* 1.107 For however Becket himself boasted of the freedom of his election and the consent of the Clergie and Kingdom in it, yet in the Epistle sent to him by the Bi∣shops and Clergie of the whole Province, they plainly tell him,* 1.108 the Kings Mother disswaded him from it, the whole Kingdom was against it, and the Clergie sighed and groaned as much as they durst; but the King would have it so.* 1.109 For the King be∣ing then in Normandy sent over his great Minister Richard de Lucy on purpose to let the Suffragan Bishops and the Monks of Can∣terbury understand his pleasure, that he would have Becket chosen Archbishop.* 1.110 Which the Bishop of London in his excel∣lent Epistle to Becket (which gives a more true account of the Intrigues of the whole quarrel than any thing yet extant, and which Baronius could not but see in the Codex Vaticanus, although he takes no no∣tice

at all of it) tells him, was a greater invasion of the Churches Liberties, than any of those things he made such ado about. You, saith he, now tell us that we ought to obey God rather than men: would to God we had done so then; but because we had not the courage to do it then, therefore we now suffer shame and confusion for it, and the tears run down our cheeks for the ca∣lamities that are come upon us. By which we may judge of the truth of the Quadri∣partite History, written by Thomas his own Disciples, as Baronius confesseth,* 1.111 for therein Herebertus and Iob. Sarisburiensis tell of Thomas his protesting against his being Archbishop to the King, and his being hard∣ly perswaded to it by the Popes Legat; whereas the Bishop of London proves to Becket himself, that during Theobalds Life he had his eye upon it, and made all the in∣terest he could to obtain it upon his death, that he gave several thousand Marks to the King to be Chancellour, hoping by that means to come the easier into the See of Canterbury, that being in Normandy at Theobalds death, he posted over, and the Kings Favourite brought his command for his election.* 1.112 And it is likewise confessed by Fitz Stephen in the MS. History of Beckets Life, that the whole Clergie knew

it was the Kings pleasure he should be made Archbishop; and that Gilbert, then only Bi∣shop of Hereford, (afterwards of London) disswaded all that he could from his electi∣on; and after said, that the King had done a strange thing, viz. he had made a Souldier Archbishop of Canterbury; for but a little before he had been in arms with the King at Tholouse. And this opposition of his, he calls not only God to witness, was not out of any ambitious desire to have been in his Room, (as Thomas and the Monks charge him) but Becket himself, for no man could attempt any such thing, but he must know it, his Favour being so great with the King then. But it seems, the wiser men among the Bishops, thought that by reason of his insolent,* 1.113 rash, and inflexi∣ble temper, (which even his Friends com∣plained of in him) he would bring all things into confusion. When he was summoned at Northampton to appear before the King, he would needs carry the Cross, with his own hands into the Court; upon which the Bishop of London told him, he behaved him∣self as if he had a mind to disturb the whole Kingdom;* 1.114 You carry the Cross,* 1.115 saith he, and what if the King should take his Sword? but, said he to one that stood by, He alwayes was a Fool, and ever will be one. These

things I only mention, to let men see what apprehensions the more prudent men of that time had of the likelihood of great distur∣bances coming to the Church by his ill ma∣nagement, although by the rashness of others added to his, he hath had the fortune to be accounted a Saint and a Martyr.

§. 10. But my business is not, to write a particular account of all the passages be∣tween the King and him, after the difference between them; which hath been so largely done by Baronius, and our own Historians; but I shall shew, that the Controversie be∣tween them was about Gregory the sevenths principles, and if he dyed a Martyr for any thing, it was in defence of these. Which I shall the rather do,* 1.116 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,* 1.117 viz. that his quarrel with the King was upon the account of the anti∣ent Municipal Laws of England which had a respect to the immunities of Clergie∣men.

I shall therefore prove, 1. That the mat∣ters in Dispute between the King and Becket, were the very same that Gregory the se∣venth 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 pas∣sages clearer than they have yet been, hav∣ing had the advantage of perusing several MSS. relating to this matter, and especial∣ly 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,* 1.118 which Ba∣ronius made use of.

1. For the matters in Dispute between them. The whole controversie might be reduced to two heads. 1. Whether Eccle∣siastical Persons were unaccountable to the Civil Power for any misdemeanours com∣mitted 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 ex∣tant in the Cotton MS.* 1.119 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 re∣manens

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 ex∣pressed. For it was one of the things the Kings Ambassadour complained of to his Mother the Empress,* 1.120 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 pu∣nished 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 Arch∣bishops Friend, insisted on these pecuniary mulcts for sins as one of the great occasi∣ons 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 under∣stood 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 ab∣sence. 6. That in matters of Appeal, they were to proceed from the Arch-deacon to

the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Arch-bi∣shop, 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,* 1.121 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 meer∣ly this, Whether Ecclesiastical persons having committed crimes against the pub∣lick

peace, were only to be punished with Ecclesiastical Censures, and never to be de∣livered 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 ap∣pears by the representation made of it to Alexander the third by the whole Clergie of the Province of Canterbury:* 1.122 who confess that the peace of the Kingdom was ve∣ry 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 op∣posed as derogatory to the Churches Liber∣ty, 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,* 1.123 that the Bi∣shops gave orders very loosely without ti∣tles; 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 be∣ginning of the quarrell was, that no persons in any Ecclesiastical Orders, upon any crime whatsoever, were to be delivered over to be punished by the Secular Power. And what could such a pretence arise from, but only from Gregory the sevenths principles of Go∣vernment? viz. that the Civil Power had nothing at all to do with Ecclesiastical Per∣sons, and that all the Subjection and Obe∣dience they owed was only to the Pope as their Soveraign; and that this was the Li∣berty which Christ purchased for his Church with his own blood,* 1.124 as Paschal the second answered the Emperours Ambassadors, and as Becket very frequently expresses it in his Epistles. A blessed Liberty! and worthy the purchase of the Blood of Christ; viz. a Liberty to sin without fear of punishment, or at least any punishment which such per∣sons would be afraid of; for the utmost Becket could be perswaded to in the case of the Canon of Bedford convicted of murder, was only to confine him to a Monastery for a time: which was a very easie expiation of Murder; So that the Benefit of Clergie was a mighty thing in those dayes. But it is impossible to give any tolerable account of Beckets actions, unless we suppose this to

have been his Ground and Principle, that God had exempted by his Law all Clergy∣men, by vertue of being such, from any subjection to Civil Power: For if they owe any subjection, they are accountable for their breaches of the Laws to that power to which they are subject; if they are not accountable for any crimes they must be sup∣posed to be wholly independent on the Civil Government.

§. 11. Neither is there any ground for such an exemption by the ancient Municipal Laws of England, either in the Saxon, or Norman times: and I cannot but wonder to see the Laws of Princes concerning Ec∣clesiastical Persons, brought to prove their total exemption from the power of Princes, which was that Ecclesiastical liberty which Becket did plead for. For according to his principles, neither Alured, nor Edward, nor Canutus, nor any other Prince had any thing to do to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons; but their judgement was to be wholly left to their own Superi∣ours. And supposing there had been such Laws among the Saxons, Becket would not have valued them at all, but rather have thought them a prejudice to his Cause, and an encouragement to Hen. 2. to have repealed

those and made others in their place. For why should not the Power of this King be as good as the Saxons to make and alter Ec∣clesiastical Laws as they saw convenient? but Becket understood his business better than so. He would not upon any terms be brought to the tryal, whether they were ancient Customes or no which the King con∣tended for? the King offered it very fre∣quently, and by any fair ways of tryal, and declared he would renounce them if they did not appear to be so, he appealed often to the judgement of the Church of England about it, and would stand and fall by it; and none of these things would be accepted of: by which it is evident that either there were no Laws could justifie Becket, or he thought the producing them would be hurtful to his cause; for not one of all the Customs he ex∣cepted against, was in his opinion so bad, as for Princes to take upon themselves to de∣termine Ecclesiastical causes, and to appoint the punishments of Ecclesiastical Persons. For then he knew the King need not to stand upon the proof of his other Customes, this one Right of the Crown would put an end to the whole dispute. For if Henry 2. had the same Power that Edgar had,* 1.125 when he said, that the tryal of the manners of Ecclesiastical Persons belonged to him, and

therefore gave Authority to Dunstan and the rest to expell criminal Clergy-men out of Churches and Monasteries, why might not he punisht Ecclesiastical persons? And then to what purpose had Becket con∣tended with the King, if he had allowed him as much power as the Saxon Kings did make use of? And what if the Saxon Laws did appoint the Bishops to examin Clergy∣men, and pass sentence upon them in cri∣minal causes? was not the punishment al∣ready established by the Kings Laws, and the Bishop only the Minister of the Kings Iustice upon Ecclesiastical Delinquents? And even in the Laws of Edward the Con∣fessour,* 1.126 in case of default in Ecclesiastical Courts, a liberty is allowed of going to other Courts; and in the Laws of the elder Ed∣ward, any one in Orders is appointed to make compensation according to the nature of his crime,* 1.127 and without sureties he was to go into prison; but in case of a capital offence, he was to be taken, that he might undergo penance from the Bishop for his fault. Where, by capital offence we are not to understand such as were punished with death, but the Poenitential Canons of Egbert tell us by capital crimes were understood Pride,* 1.128 Envy, Fornication, Adultery, Perjury, &c. But the Laws of Canutus appoint degra∣dation

for murder by a Clergy-man; and compensation and banishment withal,* 1.129 which were Civil punishments after degradation, the very thing which Becket denyed, and in case this compensation were not undertaken within thirteen days, then the Person was to be out-Law'd, which to be sure, was a civil punishment. By the Laws of King Alured,* 1.130 if a Priest killed a man he was to lose his priviledges, and the Bishop was to expel him out of the Temple being already degraded, unless due compensation were made; i. e. if he did not undergo the Ci∣vil punishment: For then the greatest crimes, (excepting murder of a Prince or Lord by his Subject or Vassal, or killing any in a Sacred place, or Treason) might be ex∣piated by pecuniary Mulcts, and Ecclesiastical Penance, according to the Poenitential Ca∣nons. For it appears by the old Poenitential Canons of Theodore and Egbert,* 1.131 that murder had so many years penance appointed for its expiation,* 1.132 which had been a vain thing, if it had been punished with death; now in this case it was but reasonable that the guilty Person should be delivered to the Bi∣shop to receive his Penance; whether he were a Clergy-man or Lay-man; And the Laws of Princes did inforce them to submit to Ecclesiastical Penance. So King Alured

commands in case of perjury,* 1.133 that the Per∣son be taken into the Kings custody for forty dayes, that he might undergo the Penance which the Bishop shall impose upon him; and if he escaped he was not only to be anathematized, but put out of all protection of the Law: and by the Laws of King Ed∣mund any Person guilty of Murder was not to come into the Kings presence till he had undergone the Penance enjoyned him by the Bishop:* 1.134 And from hence I suppose it was, that in the Saxon Times, the Bishop and the Sheriff sate together in the same Court, as appears by the Laws of Edgar and Canutus,* 1.135 not barely to instruct the people in the Laws of God and man;* 1.136 but as the Sheriff was to appoint the civil penalty, so the Bishop was to enjoyn penance according to the na∣ture of the Fault: and one of these did not exclude the other, but, he that did pay such a pecuniary mulct to the Sheriff, did un∣dergo so many years penance besides. Therefore the Laws which mention persons being delivered to the Bishop for Penance, do by no means imply that they were ex∣cused from any Civil penalty either before or after it: as might be proved from the Laws of the Empire, and the Capitulars, if it were needful. So that in the Saxon times, if a Clergy-man were guilty of wilful

murder, the poenitential Canons imposed ten years penance upon him, of which se∣ven were to be spent in banishment;* 1.137 but be∣sides this, the legal compensation was to be made, as is evident by the Laws of Edward and Canutus: from whence it appears, how very slender the pretence is of Beckets con∣tending for the ancient Saxon Laws, when he denyed the giving up a Clergy-man con∣victed of murder to the Secular Power after Ecclesiastical Censures. But where ••s there the least Foundation in the Saxon times, for such open defiance of the Civil Power, as to the punishment of offenders of what degree or order soever? and that was the case of Becket, the King only desired that Iustice might be executed indifferently on all Persons, and the ancient Customs re∣vived; but he would not yield as to either of these, not upon the pretence of former Laws, but the repugnancy he supposed to be in them to that Ecclesiastical Liberty, which he said, Christ had purchased with his Blood.

§. 12. After the Norman Conquest, the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts were first se∣parated, as appears by the Grant of Willi∣am the Conquerour to Remigius Bishop of Lincoln, and many others to the same pur∣pose;* 1.138 but I find no particular exemption

of a criminal Clergy-man from the Civil Power established. The main plea is from the confirmation of the Saxon Laws, but to how little purpose that is, is already shewed. By the Laws of Henry 1.* 1.139 if a Bishop committed murder, he was to be de∣posed, and undergo twelve years penance, seven of which were to be with bread and water: if a Priest or Monk, he was to lose his Order and to undergo ten years penance; if a Deacon, to lose his Orders, and to have seven years penance; if a Clerk only (i. e. in inferi∣our Orders) six years penance; and then it follows, if a Lay-man, five years penance; which was very prudently left out with an &c. by P. W. because it marrs all the rest; for if according to these Laws, Clergy-men had an exemption from Civil Iustice, so had the Laity too; and upon better terms, for their penance is but half that of a Priest or a Monk, and not half of a Bishop. But after Henry 1. the penance was turned in∣to a pecuniary mulct, as King Henry 2. complained,* 1.140 and men committed the great∣est crimes at a certain rate, by which means abundance of villanies, and murders, and rapines were daily committed; and in Henry 2. time, the Kings Iustices com∣plained of it to the King,* 1.141 who commands them to punish all offenders severely; and

if any Clergy-men were convicted, they were to be delivered to the Bishop to be degraded by him in the presence of the Kings Iustice, and so to be returned to the Court to be pu∣nished; but in the case of the Canon of Bedford, Becket utterly denies the deliver∣ing him up to the Kings Iustice after degra∣ding. * 1.142 Fitz Stephen gives more instances, which exasperated the King, one whereof was, of a person who had destoured the daugh∣ter and murdered the Father, whom Hen∣ry 2. would have punished according to La••, but the Archbishop would not suffer him to be delivered up to the Kings Iustice. (Yet methinks it might bear a dispute how far a person degraded is capable of Ecclesi∣astical immunities; but Becket, it seems, extended them to all that were or had been such; or it may be, the indelible character preserved still some title to a legal impunity in sinning.) The King apprehending the very bad consequences of such an exemption of all sorts of Clergy-men from Civil pu∣nishments, and not knowing what the late encroachments upon the Civil Power by the Ecclesiastical might come to (for so Fitz Stephen saith, some about the King told him,* 1.143 if these things were suffered, and the Arch∣bishop let alone, his Royal Authority would come to nothing, and the Clergy would make

whom they pleased King, as they had shew∣ed their power and will already, in the case of King Stephen) therefore the King re∣solves to resume all the Rights of his An∣cestors, and to have a solemn recognition made of them in Parliament. But first he treats with all the Bishops at Westminster to know whether they would observe the An∣cient Customs? they gave him a shuffling answer, that they would do it salvo ordine suo & jure Ecclesiae: which the King took for a denyal, and was extremely inraged at it. The Bishop of London confesses, that they all agreed in the denyal, and gave this as the reason,* 1.144 because their yielding to those Customs was repugnant to the Liberty of the Church, and the Fidelity they owed to the Pope: which was a plain confession of the true state of the Controversie, whether the King or the Pope were to be obeyed in those matters? Baronius tells us, that Becket sent over an express to the Pope (being th••n at Sens) to know what they were to do in the straits they were in, the Pope encourages them to stand up for Ecclesiastical Liberty to the utmost; notwithstanding this, the King resolves to have a recognition of these Customs at Clarendon,* 1.145 where the Authors of the Quadripaarite History say the whole Kingdom was present, and they confess, that

Becket with the rest of the Bishops did pro∣mise the King to observe them Bona Fide: which they parallel with S. Peters fall in denying Christ: But the Bishop of London in his Epistle to Becket gives a more par∣ticular account of it,* 1.146 which is worth our not••ce: Three dayes, he sayes, all the Bishops withstood the Kings desire, and no threats could move them, but they resolved rather than to yield to dye upon the spot for Christ and his Church, (as he speaks) at last Becket withdrew from them, and coming in again used these words to them; It is the Kings pleasure I should forswear my self at present, and I will do it and repent after∣wards; (were not these brave Heroick words for a Saint and a Martyr?) at the hearing of them, he saith, they were all asto∣nished, and their hearts failed them; and so they all promised in verbo veritatis to ob∣serve the ancient Customs. Thus, saith he, was the Controversie then ended between the Kingdom and Priesthood, and so Israel descended into Egypt. But notwithstand∣ing this solemn promise, in a few dayes Becket breaks his word, and attempts to go beyond Sea without the Kings leave: at which the King was extreamly troubled, and as the Bishop of London saith, had ra∣ther he had wounded his body than his re∣putation

by such an escape into forreign parts, where he was sure to be represented as a Tyrant and persecutor of the Church. Becket was driven back by a Tempest, the King takes no notice of it, uses him kindly, and bids him take care of his Church. Not long after, a Controversie happened about some Lands which Becket challenged as be∣longing to his Church, the King sends to him to do justice to the Person concerned in it: notwithstanding complaints are brought to the King for want of it, the King sends a summons to him to appear before him, that he might have the hearing of the Cause. Becket refuses to obey the summons, and sends the King word he would not obey him in this matter: at which saucy an∣swer, the King was justly provoked, as a great disparagement to his Royal Authority. Upon this he calls the Parliament at Northhampton, where the People met as one man; the King represents his case, with becoming modesty and eloquence: how∣ever, he consented that his fault should be expiated by a pecuniary mulct: after this the King exhibited a complaint against him for a great summ of money received by him, during his Chancellorship which he had ne∣ver given account for: (it was 44000 Marks, as the Bishop of London told the Car∣dinals

who were sent by the Pope after∣wards to end the Controversie) Becket pleaded that he was discharged by his pro∣motion,* 1.147 (as though, as the Bishop of London said, promotion were like Baptism that wiped away all Scores.) But this being a meer civil Cause, as the Bishop tells Becket, yet he denyed to give answer to the King and appealed to the Pope, as the judge of all men living,* 1.148 saith sarisburiensis; and soon after in a disguise he slips over the Sea, and hastens to the Pope; who received him with great kindness, and then he resigns his Arch-bishoprick into the Popes hands, as our Historians generally agree, because he received investiture from the King, and takes it again from the Pope. This is the just and true account of the state of the Controversie, as it is delivered by one of the same time, that knew all the intrigues, and which he writes to Becket himself, who ne∣ver answered it that I can find, nor any of his party; and by one, who was a Person of great reputation with the Pope himself,* 1.149 for his Learning, Piety, and the severity of his Life. And is it now possible to suppose that Gregory 7. if he had been in Beckets place, could have managed his cause with more contempt of Civil Government than he did? when he refused to obey the Kings

summons, declined his Iudicature in a Ci∣vil Cause, and broke his Laws against his own solemn promise, and perjured himself for the Popes honour. If this be only de∣fending ancient priviledges of the Church, I may expect to see some other moderate men of the Roman Church plead for Gre∣gory 7. as only a stout defender of the an∣cient Canons, and an enemy to the Popes temporal Power. But men are to be pit∣tyed when they meet with an untoward ob∣jection (such as that from Beckets Saint∣ship and Martyrdom is to prove the doctrine of Ecclesiastical Liberty and the Popes tem∣poral Power to be the sense of their Church) if they cannot find that they endeavour to make a way to escape; and I hope the Per∣sons I now deal with have more ingenui∣ty than to think this new pretence any sa∣tisfactory plea for Beckets Cause. And as the Bishop of London tells Becket, it is not the suffering, but the cause which makes a Martyr: to suffer hardship with a good mind is honour to a man; but to suffer in a bad cause and obstinately is a reproach; and in this dispute, he saith, the whole weight of it lay upon the Kings power, and some Customs of his Ancestors, and the King would not quit the Rights of his Crown which were confirmed by Antiquity, and the long

usage of the Kingdom: This is the cause why you draw your sword against the Sa∣cred Person of the King, in which it is of great consequence to consider that the King doth not pretend to make new Laws, but as the whole Kingdom bears him witness, such as were practised by his Ancestors. And although it appears, that he wished well to the main of Beckets Cause; yet he blames him exceedingly for rashness, indi∣scretion and insolency in the management of it; and bids him remember, that Christ never entred Zacchaeus his house till he came down from the Sycamore Tree; and that the way of humility did far better become him, and was likely to prevail more with the King, than than which he took.

§. 13. But Becket being out of the Kings reach, and backed by the King of France, and favoured by the Court of Rome, made nothing of charging the King with Tyran∣ny; as he and his party do very frequently in the Volume of Epistles;* 1.150 and because the Empress his Mother pleaded for some of the Customs as antient Rights of the Crown, she is said to be of the ra••e of Tyrants too.* 1.151 The King finding himself thus beset with a swarm of Horne•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 of his own Power to 〈…〉〈…〉 farther

attempts upon his Crown and Royal Autho∣rity, which was exposed to such publick ignominy in forreign parts: and therefore sends this precept to all the Bishops to sus∣pend the profits of all such Clergie-men as adhered to him.

Nosti quam male Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus operatus ••* 1.152 est adversus me & Regnum meum, & quam male recesserit, & ideo mando tibi quod Clerici sui qui circa ipsum fuerint post fugam suam, & alii Clerici qui detraxerunt honori meo, & honori Regni, non percipiant aliquid de redditibus illis quos habuerant in Episcopatu tuo nisi per me, nec hab••ant aliquod auxilium nec con∣silium a Te, Teste Richardo de Luci apud Marlebergam.

After this,* 1.153 the King commands the She∣riffs to imprison every one that appealed to the Court of Rome, and to keep them in hold till his pleasure were known: and he causes all the Ports to be watched, to pre∣vent any Letters of Interdict from the Pope; and if any Regular brought them, he was to have his feet cut off; if in Orders, he was to lose his eyes and something else: and if he were a Lay-man, he was to be hanged. Accordingly the Popes Nuntio was taken with Letters of the Popes coming over for England,* 1.154 and imprisoned by the Kings Or∣der.

But the difference still growing high∣er, and the King being threatned with ex∣communication, and the Kingdom with an interdict; the King commands an Oath to be taken against receiving Bulls from the Pope, or obeying him, or the Archbishop, and the penalty no less than that of Trea∣son: which is so remarkable a thing, I shall give it in the words of the MS.

A. D. MCLXIX. Rex Henricus jurare facit omnem Angliam a laico duodenni vel quindecim annorum,* 1.155 contra Dom. Papam A∣lexandrum & B. Thomam Archiepiscopum, quod eorum non recipient literas, neque obedient mandatis. Et si quis inve••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 Archbi∣shop 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 Nor∣mandy 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,* 1.156 or any Mandate from the Archbishop of Canterbury, containing an In∣terdict 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 re∣turn; 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, or∣der, 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 Nor∣wich be in the Kings Mercy, and be sum∣moned by Sheriffs and Bailiffs to appear be∣fore the Kings Iustices to answer for their breach of the Statutes of Clarendon in in∣terdicting the Land, and excommunicating the person of Earl Hugh, by vertue of the Popes Mandat, and publishing this excom∣munication 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 se∣venth 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 exempti∣on of Men in any kind of Ecclesiastical Or∣ders from civil punishments, which was the known and avowed principle of Gregory the seventh and his successors; and it seems by Fitz Stephen,* 1.157 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 de∣stroyed, 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;* 1.158 but it seems the Cock that brought him to Repentance, was his Cross∣bearer: who told him,* 1.159 that the Civil Au∣thority 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 toge∣ther against the Lords Christ; that this tem∣pest had shaken the pillars of the Church, and while the Shepherd withdrew, the sheep were under the power of the Wolf. A ve∣ry 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 Of∣fices of his Function, till he should be ab∣solved by the Pope; which was soon grant∣ed him. The Pope writes to the King very

sharply,* 1.160 for offering to usurp the things of Iesus Christ, and to oppress the poor of Christ by his Laws and Customs, and threat∣ens him to be judged in the same manner at the day of judgement; and tells him of Saul, and Ozias, and Rehoboam, and paral∣lels 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 sen∣tence; 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 Fa∣ther, 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 Ci∣vil cause about accounts between the King and him, it does plainly shew, that he did not think the King had any Authority over

him, but that the Pope had a temporal Pow∣er over Princes to hear and determine Cau∣ses between them and their Subjects. And in his Letter to the Pope upon this appeal, he saith,* 1.161 that he was called as a Laick to answer before the King, and that he insisted upon this plea, that he was not to be judged there, nor by them;* 1.162 For what would that have been, but to have betrayed your Rights? and to have submitted spiritual things to temporal; and if he should have yielded to the King, it would have made him not a King but a Tyrant. And whereas the Bishops pleaded obedience to the King, he saith, they were bound corporally to the King, but spiritually to himself. What in opposition to the King about his own Rights? which were so plain in this case at North∣ampton, that the Bishop of Chichester charged him both with Perjury and Treason, because these things related to the Kings temporal Honour and Dignity; and therefore the Bi∣shops were not bound to obey their Archbishop. The Pope applauds Becket for what he had done, and nulls the sentence against him, which was still taking more upon him the exercise of a Temporal Power over the King. But Fitz Stephen, who saith he was present at Northampton with Becket, saith,* 1.163 that when the Bishop of Chichester charged him

with his Oath at Clarendon, he replyed, that what was against the Faith of the Church, and the Law of God, could not law∣fully be kept; now these customs were ne∣ver supposed to be against the Faith of the Church till Gregory the seventh had ve∣ry subtilly found out the Henrician here∣sie, i. e. the heresie of Princes defending their own Rights against the Papal Usurpations: and he particularly insisted on this, that the Pope had condemned those Customs, and he adds, that we ought to receive what the Roman Church receives (for he knew no difference between the C••urt and Church of Rome) and to reject what that rejects: and concludes all with this, that his Oath at Clarendon was an unlawful Oath, and could not bind him. But what pretence were there for this, if he had only contend∣ed for the antient Municipal Laws? what unlawfulness could there be in swearing to observe the Kings Laws, although different from former Laws? So that the only way to excuse him from manifest perjury, is to suppose, that he looked on the Customs of Clarendon as repugnant to the Popes De∣crees, and therefore not to be kept by him: and the Pope tells him, that God had re∣served him to this time of tryal for the con∣firmation of Catholick and Christian Truth;* 1.164

in which it must be implyed, that which Becket defended against the King, was a part of the Catholick Faith, in the Popes judgement.* 1.165 In his Epistle to Robert Earl of Leicester he pleads for the Liberty of the Church, which Christ hath purchased with his blood; who then, saith he, dares bring her into slavery? who art thou that judgest another mans servant, to his own Master he ought to stand or fall? And all that he ad∣viseth to for making up the breach, is their repentance and satisfaction for the injuries done to Christ and his Church▪ And whereas the Bishop of London had told him, that the King was willing to submit to the judge∣ment of his Kingdom about his antient Rights;* 1.166 Becket replyes, Who is there in Earth or Heaven that dares judge of what God hath determined? humane things may be judged, but divine must be left as they are. In his Epistle to all the Clergie of England,* 1.167 he saith, that at Northampton Christ was judged again in his person be∣fore the Tribunal of Pilat (for him he un∣derstands by the name of President). In his Epistle to the King, he pleads, that the Liberty of the Church, (which he contended for) was purchased by Christs own blood;* 1.168 and adds farther, to the very hearts desire of Gregory the seventh, that it was certain

that Kings did receive their power from the Church, and not the Church from them, but only from Christ: from whence he in∣fers, that the King could not draw Clergie-men to secular Tribunals, or establish the Customs in dispute between them.* 1.169 I do not say as Hoveden doth, that these words were spoken in a Conference at Chinun, for they are a part of the Epistle sent to the King, not long after his banishment; and written in justification of his opposition to the Rights which the King challenged. Therefore I desire to know what the••e words can signi∣fie to his purpose, unless they do imply such a derivation of Civil Power from the Church, that the Church may take cogni∣zance of male-administration, or of the Civil Authorities taking to it self any of the priviledges belonging to the Church? For if all this related only to the Ceremo∣nies of Coronation, it were to no more pur∣pose than for an Archbishop of Canterbury to plead now, that the Kings power is de∣rived from the Church, because the ceremo∣ny of inauguration is performed by him. Who would not smile at such a conse∣quence? But we know that the Popes tempo∣ral Power over Princes was never more as∣serted than in that Age, that Alexander the third at that time challenged and exer∣cised

it over the Emperour and other Prin∣ces, and that no man was more stiff in the Popes Cause, nor more eager for the exercise of his Power over our King than Becket was, and his actions discovered this to be his opinion, why then should men study to find evasions for these words which neither agree with the course of his actions, nor with the doctrine of that Age? Doth not Becket himself magnifie the Popes power to the greatest height? In his Epistle to the Bish••p of London, he saith,* 1.170 that none but an Insidel or Heretick, or Schismatick dares dispute obedience to the Popes commands; that no one under the Sun can pluck out of his hands. And in one of his Epistles to the Pope, he makes very profane addresses to him, ap∣plying what the Scripture saith only of God and Christ, to him. Exurge Domine,* 1.171 & noli tardare super nos: ill••mina faciem tuam super nos, & fac nobiscum secundum misericordiam tuam. Salva nos quia peri∣mus: and immediately adds, let not our adversaries triumph over us; yea, the ad∣versaries of Christ and his Church; quia nomen tuum invocavimus super nos. And lest any should think these were addresses to God, although contained in a Letter to the Pope; it follows, Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed in nomine Domini nostri Iesu

Christi fac tibi grande nomen, repara glo∣riam tuam. For at this time the Kings Ambassadors promised themselves great things in the Court of Rome, and boasted of the Favour they had, which put Becket into such a Consternation, that in the very Agony of his Soul he poured out these prayers to the Pope. And we may judge of Beckets opinion in this matter, by that of his great Friend Cardinal Gratianus, for when the King saw himself deluded by the Pope, he expressed his resentment in some threatning words, upon which the Cardi∣nal said,* 1.172 Sir do not threaten, we fear no threatnings; for we are of that Court, which hath been wont to command Empe∣rours and Kings. And because Becket sus∣pected the Cardinal of Pavia a former Legat, to be too favourable to the King, he begins his Letters to him, with wish∣ing him Health,* 1.173 and Courage against the insolence of Princes: and saith, that the Church gained her strength by opposition to Princes. We have no reason therefore to question Beckets meaning in the former expression, to be according to the sense of Greg. 7. it being not only most agreeable to the natural sense of the words, but to the course of his actions, and nature of his quar∣rel, and his expressions at other times.

In another of his Epistles to the King he complains,* 1.174 that in his Kingdom, the daughter of Sion was held captive, and the Spouse of the great King was oppressed, and beseeches him to set her free, and to suffer her to reign together with her Spouse: otherwise he saith,* 1.175 the most Mighty would come with a strong hand to deliver her: (as one of his Friends writ to him, that the Church could not have peace but with a strong hand and stretched out arm.) Again,* 1.176 he tells the King, that his Royal Power ought not to intermeddle with the Churches Liberties, for Priests ought only to judge Priests, and that the Secular Power had nothing to do to punish them, if they did not offend against faith. It seems then in case of heresie only the Secular Arm is to be called in for help: and is not this very agreeable to Becket's principle that Kings receive their power from the Church? for their assistance is only to be u••ed for their own interests, but by no means in case of Treason, or Murder, or any other Crimes; but if Princes have an inherent Right or Power in themselves, methinks they might be allowed to take care of their own and publick safety against all offenders. It is the office, saith he, of a good and Religious Prince, to repair old and decayed Churches, and to build new ones, (it seems the King was only to be

Surveyor General,) and to h••nour the Priests and to defend them with all Reve∣rence. But that they had nothing to do with the judgement of them, he endeavours to prove after his fashion; and he makes use of the very same arguments the Popes had done before in his Grandfathers time; and almost in the same words; about the relations of Fathers and Children, Masters and Scholars, and the power of binding and loosing. Nay, he doth not let go, Qui vos odit me odit; qui vos tangit, tangit pupillam 〈…〉〈…〉: which were Gregory 7's beloved places, and served him upon all occasions. And then after his exact method, he thun∣ders out the examples of Saul, Ozias, Ahaz and Uzza; and again saith, that Secu∣lar Powers have nothing to do in the affairs of the Church; but that if they be faithful, God would have them be subject to the Priests of his Church: and yet further, Christian Kings ought to submit their acts to the Governours of the Church, and not set them above them: for it is written, none but the Church ought to judge of Priests; and no human Laws ought to pass sentence upon such; and that Princes ought to submit to the Bishops and not to sit as Iudges over them. Which he thinks he cannot repeat too often; And after all uses the very same argument to Henry 2.

which Gregory 7. had done to William the Conquerour, That Princes ought to be subject to the Priests, because they are to give an account of them to God: and therefore he ought to understand, that Princes are to be governed by them; and not they brought to the Wills of Princes: for, saith he, some of the Popes have excommunicated Kings, and some Emperours. I do not think that ever the Hildebrandine doctrine (as some call it) was delivered in plainer terms, and pleaded for by more arguments (such as they were) than by Becket and his party, as appears by the Whole Volume of Epistles relating to his quarrel, out of which I have selected these passages. It would be end∣less to reckon up all the places, wherein they declare it was the Cause of God and his Church which they defended;* 1.177 that how∣ever ancient the Customs were, they ought not to be observed, because contrary to Gods Law; that they were not only unlawful but heretical pravities,* 1.178 that those who defended them were Henricians and not Christians; that they were Balaamites, Aegyptians, Samaritans, nay Satanites, and what not? and that themselves were the poor of Christ,* 1.179 and the persecuted ones, and such as waited for the Kingdom of God.* 1.180 And if these things will not satisfie men, that the Con∣troversie

between Henry the second and Becket was not about ancient Municipal Laws, but about the Gregorian principles of Ecclesiastical and Civil Government, I know not what can ever do it.

§. 15. But it is still pleaded on his be∣half, (or rather on their own who allow him to be a Saint and a Martyr, and yet deny the Gregorian principles) that those principles were not the immediate motive of his death; but only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures, (but upon a certain condition) to some Bishops after the King was reconciled to him. It is no doubt a great piece of subtilty to find out another cause of his death than he thought of himself; for he declared, that he dyed for God, and Iustice, and the▪ Liberty of the Church; i. e. in prosecution of the same cause, which he had undertaken from the beginning. For Becket knew well enough there never was a perfect reconci∣liation between the King and him; and that only the necessity of his affairs, and the fears of being served as the Emperour was by the Pope, i. e. deprived of his Kingdom by excommunication, (which Becket pressed with the greatest vehemency) and the jealousie he had of the rest of the

Bishops, several of whom kept great corre∣spondency now with Becket, and the fa∣vour of the People to his cause, forced the King to those shews of reconciliation; for that they were no more on either side, is manifest by this, that the main Controversie was not taken notice of about the ancient customs; each party hoping for better circum∣stances: afterwards all that the King con∣sented to, was laying aside any personal dis∣pleasure against Becket, for what was passed, and allowing him freely to return to his Church in expectation of a better behaviour towards him for the future. All which ap∣pears from Beckets own Letters to the Pope, upon and after this reconciliation; for, he saith expresly, the Customs were not once men∣tioned between them,* 1.181 and that the appre∣hensions of the Popes interdict and Frede∣ricks condition was that which moved him to this reconciliation. The King indeed failed in no point of complement to the Archbishop, as he very punctually tells the Pope, how he saluted him at first bare-head∣ed and ran into his embraces, how he bare his rebukes patiently, and held his Stirrup at his getting upon his Horse, (if he had but trampled on the Kings Neck too, he had been equal to the Pope himself, and it might have raised some jealou••ie between

them). But for all this reconciliation, Becket, supposing himself the Conquerour, resolved not to abate one jot of his rigour against those who had sworn to the anci∣ent Customs; and therefore procures power from the Pope to excommunicate the Bi∣shops that had done it, and to return to their excommunication those already absolved, and to absolve none without taking an oath, to stand to the Popes command. This the Kings Officers upon his return into England told him was against the Customs of the Realm; but they promised, they should take an oath to obey the Law, salvo honore Regni: Becket at first said, it was not in his Power to rescind the Popes sentence; which he knew to be false; for the Pope had given him power to do it; and he im∣mediately adds, that he could absolve the Bishops of London and Salisbury if they took the common oath which was in the Cotton M S. se juri parituros, but it is interlined se vestro mandato parituros, as the Vatican Copy in Baronius hath it. But the Archbishop of York told the other Bi∣shops, that the taking such an oath, with∣out the Kings consent, was against the Kings Honour, and the Customs of the Realm. And it is observeable, that the same time, he was so zealous for the Bishops taking this oath

to the Pope, he peremptorily refused suffer∣ing those of his retinue though required to do it by the Kings Officers, to take an oath of Allegiance to the King, to stand by him against all persons, nec vos excipientes nec alium, saith he to the Pope, neither ex∣cepting you, nor any other; as the Cotton M S. hath it very plainly,* 1.182 but Baronius hath Printed it Nos, whether agreeably to the Vatican M S. I know not, but I am sure not to Beckets sense; for he gives this reason of his refusing it, lest by that exam∣ple the Clergy of the Kingdom should be drawn to such an oath; which would be much to the prejudice of the Apostolical See; for by this means the Popes Autho∣rity would be discarded or very much abated in England. Judge now, Reader, whether Becket did not remain firm to the Grego∣rian principles to the last? and whether the immediate motive of his death did not arise from them? for upon the oath re∣quired of the Bishops, they with the Arch∣bishop of York went over to the King in Normandy, upon the hearing of which complaint the King spake those hasty words, from whence those four Persons took the occasion to go over to Canterbury, and there after expostulations about this mat∣ter, they did most inhumanely Butcher

him as he was going to Vespers in the Church: upon which Ioh. Sarisburiensis, who was his Secretary and present at his murder,* 1.183 saith, that he dyed an Assertor of the Churches Liberty, and for defending the Law of God, against the abuses of ancient Tyrants. But what need we mention his judgement, when the Pope in his Bull of Ca∣nonization, and the Roman Church in his Office do say that he dyed for the Cause of Christ?* 1.184 And what can be more plain from hence, than that to this day, all those who acknowledge him to be a Saint and a Mar∣t••r, cannot with any consistency to them∣selves reject those principles for which he suffered; any more than they can reasona∣bly be supposed to reject the Republican principles, who cry up the Regicides for Saints and Martyrs? But this is a subject lately undertaken by another hand, and therefore I forbear any farther prosecution of it.

§. 16. After Beckets death the Royal Power lost ground considerably; for to avoid the interdict and excommunication threatned the Kingdom,* 1.185 the King by his Ambassadours, and the Bishops by their messengers, did swear in the Court of Rome, that they would stand to the Popes judge∣ment;

for among the terms of the Kings reconciliation by the Popes Legats, this was one of the chief:* 1.186 that he should utterly disclaim the wicked Statutes of Clarendon, and all the evil customs, which in his dayes were brought into the Church: and if there were any evil before, they should be mo∣derated according to the Popes command, and by the advice of Religious Persons. Thus after so many years contest were the Rights of the Crown and the Customs of his prede∣cessours given up by this great Prince; so true was that saying of Becket, that their Church had thriven by opposition to Princes.* 1.187 And if Petrus Blesensis may be believed, this King stooped so low▪ upon the Rebellion of his Son, as to acknowledge his Kingdom to be Feudatary to the Pope. The Authority of which Epistle is made use of not only by Baronius,* 1.188 but by Bellarmin and others, to prove,* 1.189 that the King of England is Feudatary to the Pope,* 1.190 or that he holds his Crown of him upon paying certain ac∣knowledgments;* 1.191 which it is hardly possible to conceive a Prince that understood and valued his own Rights so well as Henry the second did, should ever be brought so low to confess, without the least ground for it. For when it was challenged by Gregory the seventh, it was utterly denyed by William

the Conquerour, and never that we find so much as challenged afterwards of any lawful Prince, by way of Fee before his time, but on∣ly in regard of the Popes temporal Power over all Princes. Although a late French Monk who published Lanfranc's Epistles,* 1.192 won∣ders it should be denyed because of the Tri∣bute anciently paid to Rome, viz. of the Peter-pence, which were not so called be∣cause paid to S. Peters pretended Succes∣sours, but because payable on S. Peters day, as appears by the Law of Canutus to that Purpose; and were only Eleemosynary for the sustenance of poor Scholars at Rome, as the late publisher of Petrus Blesensis con∣fesses:* 1.193 who withal adds that Henry the se∣cond denyed their payment, but was per∣swaded to it again by Petrus Blesensis; and him he acknowledges to have been the Writer of the foregoing Epistle. And we must consider that he was alwayes a secret Friend of Becket and his Cause in the whole quarrel, and being imployed by the King in his straits to write to the Pope to excom∣municate his Son, he knowing very well the prevalent arguments in the Court of Rome might strain a complement in the be∣half of his Master to the Pope, for which he had little cause to thank him; although it may be, Petrus Blesensis expressed his

own mind, whether it were the Kings or no.

And we have no ground that I can find, to imagin this to have been the Kings mind in the least; for upon his submission a Clause was inse••ted,* 1.194 that he was no longer to own the Pope, than the Pope treated him as a Christian and Catholick King; and as the Popes predecessours had done ••is. And after the writing of that Letter and the re∣conciliation with his Son, Radulphus de Di∣ceto, Dean of S. Pauls about that time, hath an Authentick Epistle of Henry the second to the Pope,* 1.195 wherein he acknowledges no more than the common observance which was usual with all Princes in that Age, whereas Feudatary Princes write after ano∣ther Form. So that I cannot but think it to be a meer complement of Petrus Ble∣sensis without the Kings knowledge, or else a Clause inserted since his time, by those who knew where to put in convenient pas∣sages for the advantage of the Roman See.

It is said by some, that Henry the second A. D. 1176. did revive the Statutes of Clarendon which the Pope and Becket op∣posed so much, in the Parliament called at Northampton.* 1.196 It is true that Gervase of Canterbury doth say, that the King did re∣new

the Assise of Clarendon, for whose exe∣crable Statutes Becket suffered; but he doth not say, that he renewed those Sta∣tutes; but others which are particularly enumerated by Hoveden,* 1.197 upon the distri∣buting t••e Kingdom into six Circuits, and appointing the itinerant Judges, who were made to swear that they would keep them∣selves, and make others to observe the fol∣lowing Assises, (as the Statutes were then called:) but they all concerned matters of Law and Civil Iustice, without any men∣tion of the other famous Statutes about Ecclesiastical matters. Whereas at the same time it is said that King Henry the second granted to the Popes Legat, though against the advice of his great and Wise men,* 1.198 that Clergy-men should not be sum∣mon'd before Secular Tribunals,* 1.199 but only in case of the Kings Forest, and of Lay-fees; which is directly contrary to the Statute of Clarendon: but some men love to heap things together, without well considering how they agree with each other; and so make the King in the same page to null and establish the same Statutes.

But it is observable, that after all this contest about the exemption of Clergy-men, and the Kings readiness to yield it, they were made weary of it at last them∣selves;

for as Richard (Beckets successour in the See of Canterbury) saith, in his Let∣ter to the three Bishops, that were then three of the Kings Iustices,* 1.200 the killing of a Clergy-man was more remisly punished, than the stealing of a Sheep: and there∣fore the Archbishop perswades them, to call in the Secular Arm against Ecclesiasti∣cal Malefactors. And now in his opinion the Canons and Councils are all for it, and Beckets arguments are slighted; and no re∣gard had to the Cause he suffered for, when he found what mischief this impunity brought upon themselves. But for this giving up their Liberties, the Monks re∣venge themselves on the memory of this Archbishop; as one that yielded up those blessed priviledges which Becket had pur∣chased with his blood.

Notwithstanding the sufferings the King had undergone by his opposing the Ecclesia∣stical encroachments, we may see what ap∣prehension after all he had of the declen∣sion of his own power, and the miserable condition the Church was in by those pri∣viledges they had obtained, by that nota∣ble discourse which Gervase of Canterbury relates the King had with the Bishops in the time of Baldwin Archbishop of Canter∣bury;* 1.201 wherein with tears he tells them, that

he was a miserable man, and no King; or if a King, he ha•• only the name and not the power of a King: that the Kingdom of England was once a rich and glorious Kingdom, but now a very small share of it was left to his Government. And then gives a sad account of the strange degene∣racy both of the Monks and Clergy; and what, saith he, in the day of judgement shall we say to these things? Besides, Those of Rome see our Weakness and domineer over us, they sell their Letters to us, they do not seek justice but contentions, they multi∣ply appeals, and draw suits to Rome, and when they look only after Money, they confound Truth and overthrow peace. What shall we say to these things? how shall we answer them at Gods dreadful Iudgement? Go and advise together about some effectual course to prevent these enormities. Was this spoken like a Feudatary of the Popes? and not rather like a wi••e and pious Prince, who not only saw the miseries that came upon the Kingdom and Church by these en∣croachments of Ecclesiastical Power, but was yet willing to do his best to redress them, if the great Clergy would have concurred with him in it: who were a little moved for the present with the Kings Tears and pathetical speech, but the impression did

soon wear off from their minds; and things grew worse and worse, by the daily in∣crease of the Papal Tyranny. And when this great Prince was very near his end, some of the Monks of Canterbury were sent over to him, who had been extreamly ••rou∣blesome to himself and the Kingdom, as well as to the Archbishop by their continual Appeals to the Court of Rome; and they told the King, the Convent of Canterbury saluted him as their Lord; I have been, said the King,* 1.202 and am and will be Your Lord, Ye wicked Traytors; Upon which one of the Monks very loyally cursed him, and he dyed, saith Gervase, within seven dayes.

§. 17. Having thus far shewed that the Controversie between the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power, was accounted a Cause of Religion by the managers of the Ecclesiasti∣cal Power, and that so far, that the great De∣fender of it is to this day accounted a Saint and a Martyr, for suffering in it, I now come to shew that the ancient panal Laws were made against that very Cause which Becket suffered for. After the death of Henry the second, Beckets Cause triumphed much more than it had done before; for in the time of Richard the first, the great

affairs of the Nation were managed by the Popes Legats during the Kings absence, and after his return scarce any opposition was made to the Popes Bulls, which came over very frequently; (unless it were against one about the Canons of Lambeth, wherein the King and Archbishop were forced to submit) no hindrance made to Appeals; and even in Normandy the Ecclesiastical Power got the better after long contests,* 1.203 In the latter end of Richard the first the Pope began to take upon him the disposal of the best Ec∣clesiastical preferments in England, either by translation, or Provision, or Collation; which,* 1.204 Fitz Stephen saith that Henry 2. told those about him, (after the four Courti••rs were gone for England to murder Becket) was the design Becket intended to carry on, viz. to take away all Right of Patronage from the King and all Lay-Persons, and so bring the gift of all Church-preferments to the Pope, or others under him. Upon the agreement of King Iohn with the Popes Legat he renoun∣ced all right of Patronage, and gave it to the Pope; but it is no wonder in him, who so meekly resigned his Crown to the Popes Legat, and did swear homage to the Pope, declaring that he held the Kingdom in Fee from him upon the annual payment of a thousand Marks. And I desire it may be

observed that the Oath of Fealty extant in Matthew Paris.* 1.205 and the Records of the Tower, and the Vatican Register, which King Iohn made to the Pope,* 1.206 hath no other expressions in it, than are contained in the Oath which all the Popish Bishops now take at their consecration,* 1.207 only with the variation of necessary circumstances. And although Sr. Tho. Moor once denyed any such thing as King Iohns Resignation of his Crown, yet the matter is now past all di∣spute by the concurrence of the Records of the Tower, and the Vatican Register, and the Authentick Bull of the Pope,* 1.208 and the Epistles of Innocent the third, published out of MS. by Bosquet now a Bishop in France; wherein, the devout Pope attri∣butes thus resignation of his Crown to no less than the inspiration of the Holy Ghost: and saith, the Kingdom of England was then become a Royal Priesthood: and in another Bull he accepts of the Resignation,* 1.209 and declares that whereas before these Pro∣vinces were subject to the Roman Church in Spirituals, they were now become subject in Temporals too: and from hence he re∣quires an Oath of Fealty from himself, and all his Successors, and charges all persons under severe penalties not to dare to infringe this Charter.* 1.210 And although the Parlia∣ment,

40 Edw. 3. did deny the payment of the Popes Tribute upon the invalidity of King John's Charter, not being done by the consent of the Barons (as the Pope said it was) yet we are to consider what Gregory the seventh said to the Princes of Spain, that a Kingdom once belonging to the See of Rome can never be alienated from it,* 1.211 but although the Use be discontinued, yet the Right still continues: so that although the thing be never so much null and vain in it self, yet it still serves for pretence to usurp the same temporal Power over our Princes, when opportunity serves them.* 1.212 And it is certain that Henry the third did swear homage and Fealty to the Pope at his Coronation, and promised to pay the tribute; which was performed several times in his Reign, till the King and People protested against it in the Council of Lyons,* 1.213 as a grie∣vance of the Kingdom, which was extorted by the Roman Court unjustly in a time of War, and to which the Nobles had never consented, and never would.* 1.214 But whate∣ver opinion the Nobles were of, the Pope had the Bishops sure to him, for upon his Message to them they all set their hands to King John's Charter of Resignation; which highly provoked the King, and made him swear that he would stand for the Liberty

of the Kingdom, and never pay the Tri∣bute more while he breathed. In the same Council the English complained, that infi∣nite numbers of Italians were beneficed among them, that more money went out of England every year into Italy than the Kings Revenues came to, that the Popes Legats grew more intolerable, and by re∣servations, and Provisions, and one trick or other, the Patrons were defrauded of their Right, and the Clergy impoverished by un∣reasonable pensions; and whoever would not presently submit, his Soul was immediately put into the Devils Custody by Excommuni∣cation. Notwithstanding all these com∣plaints, the Pope goes on in the same way with them, and resolved to try how much the Asses back would bear without kick∣ing: the English Ambassadours go away highly incensed from the Council, and re∣solved to defend their own rights: but they yet wanted a Prince of Spirit enough to head them.* 1.215 Before this time the insolence of the Roman Clergy was grown so into∣lerable to the Nation, that the Nobility and Commonalty joyned together in a re∣solution to free themselves from this Yoke, and threated the Bishops to burn their goods if they went about to defend them; they sent abroad their Letters to several places,

with a Seal with two swords, between which were written Ecce duo gladii hic, in abuse of the Roman Court; and it seems they destroyed the goods of several Roman Clergy-men; but Matt. Paris saith, they were all excommunicated by the Bishop of London and ten Bishops more: although Matt. Mestminster saith,* 1.216 the Bishop of London was cited to Rome, for favour∣ing them, and having his Purse well empti∣ed was sent home again. It seems the Pope was so nettled at the Remonstrance of the English Nobility at the Council of Ly∣ons, that he entred into a secret consulta∣tion with the King of France either to de∣pose the King of England,* 1.217 or to bring him wholly to his will, so that neither he nor his people should so much as dare to mut∣ter against the oppressions of the Roman Court: and the Pope offered the utmost assistance of his Power for it, but the King of France declined the employment. How∣ever the Pope goes on with his work and grants a Bull for raising ten thousand Marks out of vacant Benefices in the Province of Canterbury, which so incensed the King,* 1.218 that he made at Proclamation, that whoso∣ever brought Bulls of Provision from Rome should be taken and imprisoned; but this did little good▪ saith Matth. Paris, because

of the uncertain humour of the King. The same year a Parliament was called about the intolerable grievances of the Roman Court,* 1.219 in which many of the Bi∣shops favoured the Popes party: but at the Parliaments meeting at Winchester, the Am∣bassadors were returned from the Pope, who gave a lamentable account of their Ambassy, viz. that instead of any redress, the Pope told them the King of England kicks and playes the Frederick (whom he had deposed from the Empire in the Council, of Lyons) he hath his Council, and I have mine, which I will fol∣low; and withal they say,* 1.220 they were scorned and despised as a company of Schisma∣ticks for daring to complain. Upon this the King issues out another Procla∣mation, that no money should be sent out of England to the Pope. At which the Pope was so enraged, that he sent a severe Message to the Bishops of England under pain of excommunication and suspension, to see his Money punctually paid to his Nun∣tio by such a day in London; and the King by the perswasion of the Bishop of Worcester and some others, fairly yields, and gives up the Cause to the Pope. After this the Pope sends for a third part of the profits of all Benefices from Residents,* 1.221 and half from Non-residents, with an Italian Gentle∣man

called Non obstante, that had almost undone the Nation: the Clergie meet at London about it, and make a grievous Re∣monstrance of their sad condition; decla∣ring, that the whole Kingdom could not sa∣tisfie the Popes demands;* 1.222 but it seems, the Bishops brought the inferiour Clergie to it against the consent of the King and Parlia∣ment. The next year the Parliament made another Remonstrance of the grievances of the Clergie and People of England, which they sent to the Pope and Cardinals;* 1.223 where∣in they declare, that it was impossible for them to bear the burdens laid upon them; that the Kings necessities could not be sup∣plyed, nor the Kingdom preserved if such payments were made; that the goods of all the Clergie of England would not make up the summ demanded: but all the effect of this was only a promise, that for the fu∣ture the Kings leave should be desired; which, saith Matthew Paris, came to as much as nothing. By which we may judge of the miserable condition of this Nation under the intolerable Usurpations of the Court of Rome.

§. 18. After so long tryal of the Court of Rome, by Embassies, Remonstrances, and all fair wayes, and no success at all by them,

at last they resolved upon making severe Laws (the last Reason of Parliaments) and to see what effect this would have upon the Clergie for the recovering the antient Rights of the Crown. For, we are to consider, that the Controversie still was carryed on under the same pretence of the Ecclesiastical and Civil Power; and it is a foo••ish thing to judge of the sense of the Ruling Clergie at that time by the Acts of Parliament and Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire. For by this time, the Pope had them in such firm dependence upon him, and they were fed by such continual hopes from the Court of Rome, that they were very hardly brought to consent to any restraints of the Papal Power; and in the Parliament 13 Rich. 2. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York for them and the whole Clergie of their Provin∣ces made their solemn Protestation in open Parliament that they in no wise meant, or would assent to any Statute or Law made in restraint of the Popes Authority, but utter∣ly withstood the same; the which their Pro∣testations at their requests were enrolled; as that Learned Antiquary Sr. Robert Cotton hath shewed out of the Records of the Tower.* 1.224 By which we see the whole Body of the Clergie, were for the most exorbitant Pow∣er of the Pope, and would not consent to

any Statutes made against it: So that what Reformation was made in these matters was Parliamentary even in that time, and I do not question, but the Friends to the Papal interest made the very same objections then against those Poenal Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire, that others since have done against the Laws made since the Reforma∣tion. And all that were sincere for the Court of Rome did as much believe it to be meer Usurpation in the Parliament, to make any Laws in these matters; For was the King Head of the Church? might he not as well administer Sa••raments, as make Laws in deregation of the Popes Authori∣ty and Iurisdiction? What was this, but to make a Parliamentary Religion, to own the Popes Sovereign Power no far∣ther than they thought fit? If any thing were amiss, they ought humbly to repre∣sent it to his Holiness, and to wait his time for the Reforming abuses; and not upon their own Heads, and without so much as the consent of their Clergie to make Laws about the restraint of that Power which Christ hath set up in his Church. How can this be done without judging what the Pope hath done to be amiss? and who dares say, that his Holi∣ness can so much err, as to aim at nothing

but his own profits, without any regard to the good of the Church? What! are they not all members, and will they dare take upon them to judge their Head? What! Sons rise up against their Father, and Secular men take upon them to con∣demn the things which Christs Vicar upon earth allows? What! and after all the Sufferings and Martyrdom of S. Thomas of Canterbury, that ever we should live to see a Parliament of England make Laws against that good Old Cause, for which he dyed? This is but to increase the number of Confessors and Martyrs, as all those will be, who suffer by these Laws. For do they not plainly suffer for Conscience and Religion, although the Parliament may call it Treason? What an honour it is rather to suffer than to betray the Churches Liberty for which Christ dyed? or to disobey the Head of the Church who commands those things which the Parliament forbids? And must we not obey God rather than men?

After this manner we may reasonably suppose the Roman Clergie and their adhe∣rents at that time to have argued: but it is well Mr. Cressy at least allows these Sta∣sutes of Provisors and Praemunire, and boasts of the Loyalty of those Ancestors

that made them: but I fear he hath not well considered the occasions and circum∣stances of them, and what opposition the Papal Clergie made against them, or else I should think he could not afterwards have declaimed so much against the injustice and cruelty of our Poenal Laws. But even those antient Statutes were passed with so much difficulty, and executed with so little care, that they by no means proved a suffi∣cient salve for the sore they were intended for, as will appear by this true account of them.

§. 19. In the time of Edward the first, who was a Prince both wise and resolute; the grievances of the Kingdom, (by his connivance at the Papal encroachments for a long time,) grew to that height, that some effectual course was necessary to reco∣ver the antient Rights of the Crown, which had now been so long buried, that they were almost forgotten; but an occasion happened which for the time throughly awaked him to a consideration of them. Bonif. 8. out of a desire still to advance Ecclesiastical Liberty, had made a Constitution, strictly forbid∣ding any Clergie-man paying any Taxes whatsoever to Princes, without the Popes consent; and both the payers and receivers

were to fall under excommunication ipso facto not to be taken off without immediate Authority from the Court of Rome, unless it were at the point of death. Not long after this, the King demands a supply in Parliament, the Clergie unanimously refuse on account of the Popes Bull, the King bids them advise better, and return a satisfacto∣ry Answer; at the time appointed Winchel∣sea then Archbishop of Canterbury, in the name of the whole Clergie declares, That they owed more obedience to the Pope than to the King,* 1.225 he being their Spiritual, and the King only a Temporal Soveraign; but to give satisfaction to both, they desire leave to send to the Pope. At which saucy an∣swer the King was so much provoked, that he put the whole Clergie out of his Prote∣ction, and seized upon their Lands; for which an Act of Parliament was made to that purpose saith Thorn.* 1.226 And although many of the Clergie submitted and bought their peace at dear rates, yet Winchelsea stood it out, ready, saith Knighton, to dye for the Church of Christ: which if he had done, there might have been a S. Robert as good a Martyr, as S. Thomas of Canter∣bury: For our Historians say, this Consti∣tution of the Pope was procured by Winchel∣sea's means;* 1.227 and he caused it to be pulish∣ed

in all Cathedral Churches. After this, the King sends a prohibition to the Bishops, against doing any thing to the prejudice of himself or his Ministers:* 1.228 and another, against all excommunications of those who should execute this Law; and herein he de∣clares,* 1.229 that the doing such a thing would be a notorious injury, to his Crown and Dignity a great scandal to the people, the destructi∣on of the Church, and it may be the sub∣version of the whole Kingdom;* 1.230 and there∣fore he charges them by vertue of their Al∣legiance, that they should forbear doing it. At the same time he issued out Writs for apprehending and imprisoning all such per∣sons as should presume to excommunicate any of his Subjects on the accont of this Bull of Pope Boniface:* 1.231 and our Learned Lawyers mention out of their Books,* 1.232 a Person condemned for Treason in this Kings time for bringing a Bull of excommunicati∣on against one of the Kings subjects; but although they do not mention the time, it seems most probable to have been upon this occasion.* 1.233 Parsons laughs at Sr. Edw. Cook for saying, this was Treason by the antient Comm••n Law, before any Statutes were made; but it doth sufficiently appear by the foregoing Discourse, that this was looked on as one of the antient Rights of the

Crown, that no forreign Authority should exercise any jurisdiction here without the Kings consent. Besides, this King revived another of the antient Customs, forbidding all Persons of the Clergie or La••ty to go out of the Kingdom without his leave,* 1.234 and so stopt the freedom of Appeals to the Pope; and by the Statute of Carlisle, 35 Edw. ••. All Religious Houses were forbidden sending any Moneyes over to those of their Order beyond Sea, although required to do it by those Superiours whom they thought them∣selves bound in conscience to obey: And it appears by the Statute of Provisors 25 Edw. 3. that the first Statute of this kind was made in this Kings time, at the Parliament at Carlisle; notwithstanding that the Pope challenged the liberty of Pro∣visions as a part of the plenitude of his Pow∣er.* 1.235 But although this Statute were then made, yet it had the fortune of many good Laws, not to be executed: and therefore in Edward the thirds time the Commons earnestly pressed for the revival of it 17 Edw. 3.* 1.236 upon which they sent for the Statute of Carlisle; and then, sayes the Re∣cord, the Act of Provision was made by the common consent, forbidding the bringing of Bulls or such trinkets from the Court of Rome; and in the next Parliament it was

enacted,* 1.237 that whosoever should by process in the Court of Rome seek to reverse judge∣ment given in the Kings Courts, that he should be taken and brought to answer, and upon conviction to be banished the Realm, or be under perpetual imprisonment, or if not found, to be out-lawed. But notwith∣standing these Laws, the Commons 21 Edw. 3. complain still, that Provisions went on in despight of the King:* 1.238 and judgements were reversed by Process in the Court of Rome; and therefore they pray that judgement may be executed upon delin∣quents; and this matter brought into a perpetual Statute, as had been often de∣sired: the King grants their desire, and the Commons bring in a Bill to that purpose, extant in the Records: but the Statute of Provisors did not pass till 25 Edw. 3. which is the common Statute in the printed Books: yet soon after, we find that the Commons pray for the execution of it; and the Kings answer was, that he would have it new read and amended:* 1.239 then 27 Edw. 3. passed that other Statute of Praemunire, against Appeals in Civil Causes to the Court of Rome; which we have seen Becket made a considerable part of the Churches Liberty which Christ had purchased, and practised it himself at Northampton, appealing from

King and his Parliament to the Pope in a meer Civil Cause of Accompts between the King and him. Yet after all these Statutes 38 Edw. 3. a Re-enforcement of them was thought necessary in another Statute made that year against Citations to Rome,* 1.240 and Provisions; wherein are grievous com∣plaints, that the good antient Laws were still impeached, blemished and confounded, the Crown of our Lord the King abated, and his person very hardly and falsly de∣famed, the treasure and riches of the King∣dom carryed away, the inhabitants and sub∣jects of the Realm impoverished and trou∣bled, the Benefices of the Church wasted and destroyed, Divine Services, Hospitalities, Alms deeds, and other Works of Charity withdrawn and set apart, the Great men, Commons and Subjects of the Realm in body and goods damnified: And yet Sr. R. C. saith, that in the Record are more biting words▪ a Mysterie, he saith, not to be known of all men. In 40 Edw. 3. It was declared in Parliament by common consent, that if the Pope should attempt any thing, against the King by process, or other matters in deed,* 1.241 that the King with all his Subjects should with all their force and power resist the same. Yet still so deep rooting had the Popes power gotten in this Nation, that

47 Edw. 3. The Commons beg remedy still against the Popes provisions,* 1.242 and complain that the Treasure of the Realm was carryed away, which they cannot bear; and 50 Edw. 3. A long Bill was brought in against the Popes Usurpations, as being the Cause of all the Plagues,* 1.243 injuries, famine and poverty of the Realm; and there they complain, notwithstanding all former Laws, that the Popes Collector kept his Court in London as it were one of the Kings Courts,* 1.244 transporting yearly to the Pope twenty thou∣sand Marks, and commonly more: and that Cardinals and other Aliens by reason of their preferments here have sent over year∣ly twenty thousand Marks; and that the Pope to ransom the Kings enemies did at his pleasure levy a Subsidy of the Clergie of England; and that to advance his gain he did commonly make translations of Bishop∣ricks and other Dignities within the Realm; and therefore again the Commons pray the Statutes against Provisors may be renew∣ed:* 1.245 which they repeated 51 Edw. 3. but all the answer they cou••d get was, that the Pope and promised redress, the which if he do not, the Laws therein shall stand: but upon another Petition,* 1.246 promise was made, that the Statutes should be observed. In 1 R. 2.* 1.247 the Commons are at it again upon

the same complaints: and it is declared to be one Cause of calling the Parliament 3 R. 2. and an Act then passed,* 1.248 wherein as Sr. R. C. observes, the Print makes no men∣tion of the Popes abuses, which the Record expresly sets down,* 1.249 and that the Pope had broken promise with Edward the third, and granted preferments in England to the Kings enemies. 7 R. 2. another Statute was made against Provisions,* 1.250 wherein the Print differs from the Record, as the same Person desires it may be noted. 11 R. 2. the Commons pray that those that bring in the Popes Bulls of Volumus and Imponimus may be reputed for Traytors.* 1.251 13 R. 2. the Statute of Provisors was again confirmed,* 1.252 notwithstanding the Protestations of the Bi∣shops in Parliament against any Statute made in restraint of the Popes Authority: and a Praemunire added against those that bring any sentence of excommunication against those that execute it. 15 R. 2. the Arch∣bishop of York being Chancellor told the Parliament one of the Causes of calling them,* 1.253 was the restoring to the Pope what belonged to him about Provisions; but in the same Parliament Sr. William Brian was sent to the Tower, for bringing a Bull from Rome against some that had robbed him, which Bull being read, was judged prejudicial to

the King, his Council, and in derogation to his Laws. 16 R. 2. the Commons grant to the King,* 1.254 that by the advice of his Lords and Commons, he should have power to mo∣derate the Statute of Provisions to the honour of God, saving the Rights of the Crown: so as the same be declared the next Parliament, to the end the Commons may then agree or no. In this Parliament hap∣pened an extraordinary thing,* 1.255 For William Courtny Archbishop of Canterbury made his Protestation in open Parliament, saying, That the Pope ought not to Excommunicate any Bishop, or intermeddle for, or touching any presentation to any Ecclesiastical dig∣nity recovered in any of the Kings Courts; He further protested, that the Pope ought to make no translations to any Bishoprick within the Realm against the Kings will: for that the same was the destruction of the Realm and Crown of England which hath alwayes been so free, as the same hath had none earthly Soveraign, but only subject to God in all things touching Regalities, and to none other; the which his protestation he prayed might be entred. Then passed the fa∣mous Statute of Praemunire upon occasion of the Popes Bulls of excommunication com∣ing into England against certain Bishops, who it seems at last, were brought to obey the

Laws; and that which the Archbishop of Canterbury protested was a part of the Sta∣tute, wherein the Commons not only de∣clared their resolution to live and dye with the King in defence of the Liberties of the Crown against the Papal Usurpations; but moreover they pray and in justice require that he would examin all the Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal severally, and all the States of the Parliament, how they think of the cases aforesaid, which be so openly against the Kings Crown, and in derogation of his Regality, and how they will stand in the same cases with our Lord the King in up∣holding the Rights of the said Crown and Regality. By which it appears that the Commons had a great suspicion of the Spi∣ritual Lords; And it seems they had reason, for the Temporal Lords declared frankly their concurrence with the Commons, and that the Cases mentioned were clearly in derogation of the Crown, as it is well known and hath been a long time known. Mr. Cressy would make us believe that all the Bishops present,* 1.256 and the Procurators of the absent unanimously assented; but the very words of the Statute say the contrary; for there it is added, that the Lords Spiri∣tual did make their Protestation first, that it is not their mind to deny or affirm that

the Bishop of Rome may not excommunicate Bishops, nor that he may make translation of Prelates after the Law of Holy Church: (but it seems by the Records the Arch∣bishop of Canterbury alone spoke plain to the sense of the Parliament, and entred his Protestation different from the rest.) Nei∣ther do the•• declare their assent to the free∣dom of the Crown of England from all earth∣ly subjection; and that it is immediately subject to God in all things touching the Re∣galities of the same, and not subject to the Pope; (which they touch not upon) but only with several clauses of Reservation about processes, excommunications and tran∣slations, they declare in such and such cases, they are against the King and his Crown: and in these cases they would be with the King in maintaining of his Crown, and in all other cases touching his Crown and Re∣gality, as they be bound by their liegeance; which are words very ambiguous, and im∣ply a secret reservation of salvo Ordine suo, & jure Ecclesiae, or with a salvo to the Oath they had taken to the Pope. But however the Act passed, and a prae∣munire by it lyes against all that procure or bring Bulls, or any other things whatsoever which touch the King against him his Crown and Regality or his Realm, By this Statute,

the Parliament 1 H. 4. declared,* 1.257 that the Crown of England was freed from the Pope and all other foreign Power; and it was one of the articl••s against Rich. 2. at his depo∣sition, that notwithstanding the Statutes, he procured the P••pes excommunication on such as brake the last Parliament in derogation of the Crown, Statutes, and Laws of the Realm. And yet we find new Statutes of Provisors made 2 H. 4. c. 3, 4. 6 H. 4. c. 57. 7 H. 4. c. 6, 8. 9 H. 4. c. 8. In the 1 H. 5. it was again enacted that all Statutes made against Provisors from Rome should be observed.

§. 20. By which we see that although the Parliament shewed a very good will towards the restraint of the Popes Usurpa∣tions, yet it all signified very little, as long as his Authority and Supremacy were ac∣knowledged here; for what did Laws sig∣nifie, when the Pope could null them by a Bull from Rome? And it was in those days verily believed by those who did ac∣knowledge the Popes Supremacy, and fol∣lowed the Church-men in their opinions, that an Act of Parliament had no power at all upon conscience, if it were repugnant to the Laws of the Church, i. e. as they then thought, to the Popes decretals. And we

need not wonder at that, after the Popes Decretals were digested into a Body of Ca∣non Law, and that looked upon by all the hearty Friends to the Church of Rome, as the Rule of Conscience in what it determi∣ned. Which we need not at all to wonder at, since Petrus de Marca himself declares,* 1.258 That the Constitutions of Princes are in themselves null when they are repugnant to the Canons and received Decrees of Popes; and that Bishops have alwayes ab∣stained from the execution of them as much as they durst; by which we see that Acts of Parliament were no certain indications of the judgement of the Church or the ge∣nerality of the People in that time; but notwithstanding all the Statutes, the good trade of Provisors went on still, and the Court of Rome never wanted Chapmen for their forbidden Wares. For many of our Bishops dying in the time of the Council of C••nstance▪ Martin 5. assoon as he was well settled in his place, put in several Bishops by way of Provision at his own pleasure; and nulled elections made by Chapters; so that in two years time he put in thirteen Bishops in the Province of Canterbury in spight of all the Statutes of Provisors;* 1.259 and made his Nephew Prosper Colonna Arch-Deacon of Canterbury at fourteen years of

Age; who afterwards had as many Bene∣fices granted him in England as came to five hundred Marks. Besides, he granted Appropriations, Dispensations, &c. as he pleased, without regard to the English Na∣tion. These things the English Ambassa∣dours complained of in the Council of Con∣stance, and at last the Pope came to an A∣greement with them, which were called the Concordates between Martin 5▪ and the Church of England; in which no manner of regard was had to the Statutes of Pro∣visors although so often repeated, only some agreements were made between the Pope and the English Bishops, about Unions of Churches, the capacity of English Bishops for any Offices of the Roman Court, and such like. But other Ambassadours who came a little after these, pressed the matter some∣what harder upon the Pope, against Provisi∣ons and Aliens and the Kings Supplies out of the moneys raised for the Court of Rome; the Pope giving them no favourable an∣swer, they replyed, unless he did presently satisfie their demands, the King would make use of his own Right, because it was not ne∣cessity but respect that made them seek to him, and pray that they might enter this Protestation before the Cardinals by the Kings Command. At this same time the

States of France renewed their Statutes against the Popes Usurpations; and added, that they would not acknowledge him Pope till he consented to them; and the Rector of the University of Paris was proceeded against as a Traytor for appealing from the Kings Edicts to the Pope. Notwithstanding all this, the same Pope sends his Nuncio into England to raise moneys; who was called Ioh. Opizanus, but he was cast into Prison for his pains, for which the Pope expostu∣lated very sharply with the Duke of Bed∣ford about it, H. 5. being then dead. Archbishop Chi••hel•• was in that time no friend to the Popes continual encroach∣ments,* 1.260 upon which as appears by the Re∣cords, he was cited to Rome, and the Com∣mons make it their request to the King, that he would write to the Pope on his be∣half: but we are told by a considerable Lawyer, that the Archbishop of Canter∣bury and the rest of the Bishops offered the King a large supply, if he would consent that all the Laws against Provisors might be repealed: but it was rejected by Hum∣phry Duke of Gloucester,* 1.261 who had lately cast the Popes Bull into the fire. This is certain that Card. Beaufort, then Bishop of Winchester, incurred the penalties of the Statutes of Provisors 10 H. 6. for which

he was questioned in Parliament; but at last, had his Pardon granted by the King, with the consent of all the Estates: By which we see, that not one of all the Papal en∣croachments was ever cut off by the seve∣rity of the Poenal Laws, as long as the Popes Supremacy was allowed; for never any thing was more vigorously attempted, more frequently enacted, more severely threatned than this business of Provisors, yet in despight of all the Laws it continued still, as long as the Pope was allowed to have a Power above Laws, and that he could null, abrogate, or dispense with them as he pleased. And thus far I have given an impartial account of the ancient poenal Laws of England: The like to which have been made in France, Spain, Italy, Flanders and other parts of Europe, as might be easily proved if it were necessary; but I forbear that,

§. 21. And come to compare the ancient poenal Laws of our own Nation with the modern, as to the Reasons and Oc∣casions of them, that by them we may judge whether those who allow the ancient Laws to be just, can have any ground to charge the present with injustice and Cruelty, which can be only on one of these two

grounds. 1. Either that the Occasions of the present Laws were not so great. Or, 2. That the old Laws did not relate to the exercise of their Religion, as the latter do. I shall consider both of them.

1. For the occasions of the present poenal Laws, Mr. Cressy confesseth them to have been Treasons; not consequentially only, when an act may be declared to be Treason which in it self is not so; but such Treasons as all Mankind acknowledge to be such, viz. depriving Soveraign Princes of their Crown and Dignity, endeavouring by open Rebellions, and secret conspiracies to take away their Lives; if these be not Treasons the••e are none such in the world. And that these were the Occasions of the present poenal Laws, I shall not produce the Testi∣mony of the Lord Burleigh in his Book pub∣lished on occasion of the poenal Laws, called, The Execution of Iustice in England, not for Religion but for Treason; imprint∣ed at London, A. D. 1583▪ but I shall make use of the Testimony of Persons less lyable to the exception of our Adversaries, viz. The Secular Priests, who printed their Im∣portant Considerations, A. D. 1601. where∣in their whole design is to shew, that the poenal Laws, considering the many Treasons which were the occasions of them, were very

just and merciful. For they acknowledge, 1. That the State of Catholicks was free from persecution the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth; and that Parsons and Creswel confessed as much. 2. That themselves were the true Causes of the change that was made towards them; by Pius 5. moving a Rebellion here by Ridolphi, exciting the King of Spain abroad to joyn his Forces, and denouncing a Bull of Excommunication against the Queen, and absolving her Sub∣jects from their subjection, on purpose to foment their Rebellion for depriving her of her Kingdom: which they prove by parti∣cular circumstances. 3. That they could hardly believe these things themselves, till they saw them expressed and owned in the Life of Pius Quintus, printed and allowed. 4. That notwithstanding these things, and the Rebellion breaking forth 1569. the Pri∣soners were only under greater restraint, but none were put to death on that occasi∣on, but only such who were in actual Re∣bellion: wherein they confess the Queen did no more, than any Prince in Christendom would have done. 5. That upon these oc∣casions a Parliament was called 1571. and a Law made against the bringing any Bulls from Rome, Agnus Dei's, Crosses, or Par∣dons; and against all persons that should

procure them to be brought hither; which Law although they think it to have been too rigorous, yet they cannot but confess that the State could not without the imputation of great carelesness of its own safety have omitted the making some Laws against those of their Religion. And although they were in their opinion too severe, yet they acknow∣ledge, 1. That the occasions were extra∣ordinary, most outragious, as they expressed it. 2. That the execution of them was not so Tragical, as was represeuted. 6. They believe that neither this Law nor any other would have been executed upon them, had there not been daily new provocations: such as, 1. Sanders his confession in his Book De visibili Monarchia, that the Pope had sent two Priests, Morton and Web be∣fore the Northern Rebellion into the North to excite the Lords and Gentlemen to take up Arms: declaring to them that the Pope had excommunicated the Queen, and her Subjects were released from obedience to her; and that Sanders doth justifie the said Rebellion, and imputes the miscarriage of it, to the over-late publishing the said Bull; affirming that if it had been sooner publish∣ed, the Catholicks would undoubtedly so have risen, as that they must have pre∣vailed against the Queen, and had certainly

executed the said sentence at that time, for her deposition from the Crown. 2. San∣ders his magnifying the Heads of that Re∣bellion, after they had been arraigned, con∣demned and executed by the ancient Laws of our Countrey for high Treason: which course since that time was followed by Par∣sons and others. 3. The full discovery of the plot of the Pope and King of Spain with the Rebels at home, for the depriving the Queen of her Kingdom. 4. Stukely's at∣tempt in Ireland, assisted by Sanders and others; which was afterwards encouraged by the Pope himself; when Sanders pub∣lickly appeared as a Ring-leader of the Popes Forces to perswade the Catholicks to joyn with the Rebels already in Arms. 5. Gre∣gory 13. renewing the Bull of Pius 5. against Queen Elizabeth. 6. Upon this the Iesuits coming into England, who were the chief instruments of all the mischiefs against the Queen; and of the miseries which they or any other Catholicks have upon these oc∣casions sustained. 7. Parsons his endeavour to set the Queens Crown on another Head, as appeared by his Letter to a certain Earl. 8. In all the Plots, none were found to be more forward than the Priests; and the Laity, they say, if the Priests had opposed themselves to their designs, would have

been over-ruled by them. 9. All which considered, they confess, that no King or Prince in the World, disgusting the See of Rome, having either force or metal in him, would have endured the Priests, but rather have utterly rooted them out of their Territories, as Traytors and Rebels, both to him and his Countrey; and therefore they rejoyce unfeignedly, that God had blessed this Kingdom with so gracious and merciful a Soveraign, who hath not dealt in this sort with them: and that all Catholicks deserve no longer to live, than they hereafter shall honour her from their ••earts, obey her in all things, so far as possibly they may, and pray for her prosperous Reign, and long life; and to their powers defend her against all enemies whatsoever.

7. They say, notwithstanding all the former provocations from the time of the said Rebellion and Parliament there were few above twelve that in ten years had been executed for their consciences (as we hold, say they, although our Adversaries say for Treason) and of those twelve some perhaps can hardly be drawn within our account, having been tainted with matters of Rebellion: and for the rest, although themselves knew them to be free from seditions, her Majesty and the

State could not know it, and they had great Cause as Politick persons to suspect the worst. 8. They confess, that a Parli∣ament being called A. 1576. no Laws were made at that time against them: the antient Prisoners that had been more nar∣rowly restrained A. 1570. were notwith∣standing the Rebellion in Ireland again re∣stored to their former liberty to continue with their Friends, as they had done before: and such who were not suspected to have been dealers or abetters in the said Trea∣sonable actions were used with that huma∣nity, which could well be expected. 9. The State having notice of the second excom∣munication, and having found the bad ef∣fects of the former was concerned in Policy to prevent the like by the second. And the jealousie was much increased by Sherwin's answer upon examination eight months before the apprehension of Campion. For being asked, whether the Queen was his lawful Soveraign, notwithstanding any sen∣tence of the Popes? he refused to give any Answer. Then followed a greater restraint of Catholicks than at any time before; and in Jan. 1581. a Proclamation was made for calling home her Majesties Subjects beyond the Seas; especially those trained up in the Seminaries, pretending that they learned

little there but disloyalty. The same month a Parliament ensued, wherein a Law was made agreeable to the Proclamation, but with a more severe punishment annexed, viz. the penalty of death, for any Iesuit or Seminary Priest to repair into England, &c. 10. They confess, that if all the Seminary Priests then in England, or which should come after, had been of the mind of Mor∣ton and Sanders, or Parsons, the said no Law, no doubt, had carryed with it a far greater shew of Iustice: but that was, say they, the error of the State, (and yet themselves say, the State could not know the difference between them) and yet they add that it was not altogether (for ought they knew) improbable, those times being so full of many dangerous designments and Ie∣suitical practices. 11. This same year Campi∣on and other Priests were apprehended; whose answers upon their examinations agreeing in effect with Sherwins did greatly incense the State. For this being one of the Que∣stions propounded, If the Pope pronounce her Majesty deprived, and her Subjects discharg∣ed of their obedience; and after either the Pope, or some by his Authority invade the Realm, which part would you take, or ought a good subject to take? To this, they say, some answered, that when the case

should happen, they would then take counsel what were best for them to do: others, that when the case happened they would an∣swer; another, that he was not resolved▪ what to do; and another, that if such an invasion were made for any matter of his faith, he thinketh he were bound to take part with the Pope. Now, say they, what King in the World would not in the same circumstances, justly repute such persons Traytors, and deal with them accordingly? 12. After this, a new plot was laid between his Holiness, the King of Spain, and Duke of Guise, for a sudden and desperate design∣ment against her Majesty; at which time they c••nfess the Iesuitical humour had so possessed the hearts of sundry Catholicks, as they rue and are ashamed at the remem∣brance of it. And here they give a par∣ticular account of the Treasons of Throck∣morton, Arden, Somervile, Parry, Nor∣thumberland, Babington, Stanley, defended by Cardinal Allen, who laid down this for a Maxim, That in all Wars which may hap∣pen for Religion, every Catholick is bound in conscience to imploy his Person and Forces by the Popes direction, viz. how far, and where, either at home or abroad, he may and must break with his Temporal Sove∣raign. These things, they say, are neces∣sary

to be known, to clear her Majesty from the imputations of more than barba∣rous cruelty towards them cast upon her by the Iesuits, when themselves were the Cau∣ses of all the Calamities any of them had indured since her Majesties Reign: and they think, all circumstances considered, few Princes living of her judgement, and so provoked, would have dealt more mildly with such their subjects, than she hath done with them. 13. They confess the Spanish Invasion 1588. to be an everlasting Mo∣nument of Iesuitical Treason and Cruelty. For it is apparent in a Treatise penned by the advice of Father Parsons altogether (as they do verily think) that the King of Spain was moved and drawn into that intended mischief, by the long and daily solicitations of the Iesuits and other English Catholicks, beyond the Seas, affected and altogether given to Iesuitism; and that Parsons as they ima∣gine, (though the Book went under a greater name) endeavoured with all his Rhetorick to perswade the Catholicks in England to joyn with the Spaniards: but Cara••nal A••en takes it upon himself, and saith the P•••••• had made him Cardinal, in∣tending to send him his Legat for the sweeter managing this (forsooth) godly and great affair: and there he affirms that there

were divers Priests in the Kings Army, rea∣dy to serve ever mans necessity: and pro∣mises them the assistance of all the Saints and Angels, and of our Blessed Saviour him∣self in the Soveraign Sacrament (after a very invisible manner) and they do not at all deny, that the Pope did joyn and contri∣bute towards this intended Invasion. 14. That in these ten years from 1580. to 1590. the Prisoners at Wisbich lived to∣gether without any trouble, Colledge-like, without any wan••; that of all sorts towards the number of fifty suffered death; as they think, most of them for conscience, but as their Adversaries do still affirm for Trea∣son: that such Priests as upon examination were found any thing moderate, were not so hardly dealt with; insomuch as fifty five that might by the Laws have been put to death, in one year 1585. and in a dange∣rous time, were only banished; and that al∣though some hard courses were taken against them, yet it was not by many degrees so extream, as the Iesuits and that Crew have falsly reported and written of it. 15. That there being just apprehensions of a new In∣vasion, a Proclamation was set out 1591. against Sem••nary Priests, as being suspected to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sent hither to p••••pare a way for it; and Parsons did not only acknowledge such

a design, but said the King of Spain had just cause to attempt again that enterprise: but in the mean time they tryed a shorter course by the several Treasons of Heskett, Collen, both set on by Jesuits, Lopez, York, Williams; and Squire, animated by Walpole the Iesuit. 16. That Parsons at last set up the title of the Infanta of Spain, and endeavoured to get subscriptions to it, and promises to perswade the Catholicks of En∣gland to submit to it; and that the Semi∣nary Priests were to promote her Title, against the Queen and her Lawful Succes∣sors. From all which they confess, that the Iesuitical designs abroad, and the Rebel∣lions and Traiterous attempts of some Ca∣tholicks at home have been the Causes of such calamities and troubles, as have hap∣pened unto them; great, (they confess) in themselves: but far less (they think) than any Prince living in her Majesties case, and so provoked would have inflicted upon us. And what more need to be said, for the Vindication of the Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and cruelty, than is here so ingenuously confessed by the Secu∣lar Priests, men of the same Religion with those who complain of them, men that suffer∣ed themselves in some measure, men that throughly understood the true Reasons and

casions of the several Laws that were then made; and yet a••ter all this, can Mr. Cressy have the impudence to parallel these Laws with those of Nero, Domitian and Dioclesi∣an, and to say, that they who suffered by them, suffered only on the account of Reli∣gion? If the primitive Christians had been guilty of so many horrible Treasons and Conspiracies, if they had attempted to de∣prive Emperours of their Crowns, and ab∣solved Subjects from their Allegiance to them, if they had joyned with their open and declared enemies, and imployed persons time after time to assassinate them; what would the whole World have said of their sufferings? Would men of any common sense have said, that they were Martyrs for Religion? no; but that they dyed justly and deservedly for their Treasons. And for all that I can see, all such as suffered in those dayes, for their attempts on their Soveraign and Countrey, are no more to be said to have suffered for Religion, than the late Regicides; who pleaded the Cause of God and Religion as well as they; and if the one be Martyrs, let the other be thought so too: but if notwithstanding all their fair pretences of Religion and Conscience, the Regi∣cides shall not be thought to suffer for their Religion, why then should those in Q. Eli∣zabeth's

or King Iames's time, who suffered on the account of actual Treasons, as those did who were engaged in the Gunpowder Treason, as well as those who suffered in the Queens time? And if the supposition of Conscience or Religion makes all men Martyrs, the Regicides will put in their plea for Martyrd••m; if it be not, then there is no reason to say they suffered for Religion, whom the Law condemned on the account of Treason. If it be then allowed, that the Laws must determin Treason, then it will follow that those suffer for Trea∣son who act directly against those Laws which determine it to be Treason.

§. 22. But suppose the Law should make it Treason for men to serve God according to their Consciences, as for Roman Priests to officiate or say Mass; can such men be said to suffer for Treason if they be taken in the Fact, and not rather for their Religion? To this I answer, that a great regard is to be had to the occasion of making such a Law for the right interpretation of it. For if plain and evident Treasonable actions were the first occasion of making it, as it is con∣fessed in Q. Elizabeths time, then all those Persons lyable to the suspicion of the State, may be seized upon in what way soever they

discover themselves; and in this case, the per∣forming Offices of their Function is not the motive of the Law or Reason of the penal∣ty, but meerly the Means of Discovery of the Persons. For by reason of Disguises and Aequivocations, and mental Reserva∣tions being set on foot by the Iesuits to pre∣vent discovery, the Law had no certain way of finding them out, but by the Offices of their Function, in which the Magistrates are sure they will not dissemble so far as that a man who is no Priest will not take upon him to say Mass: and therefore the Law looks upon the Office of Religion, as only a certain Criterion of the Persons, and not as the Reason of the punishment; not as the thing that makes them guilty, but as the way of finding the guilty. As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Re∣bellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom▪ which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of (as for instance, I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced:) I de∣sire to know, whether if the Law made it poenal for men, not to put off their hats, only out of consideration of the Treasona∣ble doctrines and practices they were guilty of, should that man who were taken because

he did not put off his Hat be said to suf∣••er on that account, and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law? In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole in∣tent and design of the Law is expressed to be, to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her: and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her, by giving assistance to them, and endeavouring what in him lay to de∣prive the Queen of her Crown, therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedi∣ence to the Pope is adjudged Treason, as well as to any other Prince, State, or Po∣tentate. And where there is an equality of Reason, why should there not be an equality in the punishment? If any other Prince should have engaged Per∣sons in the same actions which the Pope did, there is no question they had been Treasonable actions; the Question this, whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it, ceases to be Trea∣son when the Pope allows or requires it? If it doth so, then the Pope must be ac∣knowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes, and they are all but his Vassals, which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Trea∣son,

then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them, and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do.

But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason, if the Law-makers think fit to make it so? By no means; for in this case, there was an ap∣parent tendency to disobedience and Trea∣son in promising obedience to the Pope; but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion, considered as such: but when Priests have been known to be the com∣mon instruments of Treasons, as they were then, by the confession of the Secular Priests; then those actions which are per∣formed by such persons, and are proper on∣ly to themselves, are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it, but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law de∣signs to punish. So that if we do allow, that the Law of the Land can declare Trea∣son in any sort of Persons, and punish Persons for being guilty, and appoint a cer∣tain means of discovering the guilty; then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity; alwayes supposing, that some

notorious Treasonable actions, and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasi∣ons or antecedent Motives of those Laws, which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses, viz. the Secular Priests. And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it, viz. Whereas divers persons, called or professed Iesuits, Seminary Priests, and other Priests which have been, and from time to time, are made in the parts beyond the Seas, by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church, have of late comen and been sent, and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose, (as it hath appeared) as well by their own examinations and confessions, as di∣vers other manifest means and proofs, not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty, but also to stir up and move Sedition, Re∣bellion, and open Hostility, within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions, to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person, and to the utter ruine, desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm, if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented.

For reformation whereof be it ordained, &c. Can any thing be plainer from hence, than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable at∣tempts, though masked only under a pre∣tence of Religion? If the design had been against their Religion, the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion, which it doth not. But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act, that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Su∣premacy; then it seems all the Reli∣gion they suffer for must be contai••ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy. And is this at last the suffer∣ing for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of, viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iuris∣diction here? But who were the men that first rejected that Autho••ity and Jurisdiction here? Former Princes long before the Re∣formation did it as far as they thought fit; and made no scruple of restraining it, as far as they judged convenient; and upon the same Reasons they went so far, H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther. For the reason they went upon was, the repug∣nancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown; and was there any other

ground of the casting out the Popes Supre∣macy, when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpo••e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent, while the Head and Body were sound? But who were the zea∣lous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction? Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it? and if they were not in good earnest, they were notorious Hypocrites, as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience, with Bonners Preface; wherein very smart things are said, and with good Rea∣son against making the Supremacy chal∣lenged by the Pope any part of Catholic•• Religion. Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time, (Fisher excepted) joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy? And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone? It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass, and hangs on a very slender thread. If there be no more in Christian Religion, than what is rejected by the Oath of Su∣premacy, it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing; for it filled the World with per∣petual broils and confusions, and produ∣ced dreadful effects where ever it was en∣tertained; and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off.

But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England, &c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen, speaks out in this matter, and saith plainly, that it is a part of Catholick Doctrine, that hereti∣cal Princes being excommunicated by the Pope,* 1.262 are to be deprived of their King∣doms, and their Subjects immediately upon excommunication are absolved from their Allegiance; which he saith, is not only the doctrine of Aquinas, and Tolet, and of the Canon Law, but of the Council of Late∣ran, and as he endeavours to prove, of Scripture too: and that War for Religion is not only just but honourable; and for the deposing of Princes, he brings se∣veral instances from Gregory the seventh downwards: particularly King John and Henry the second; and saith, that the pro∣mise of obedience to Princes is only a con∣ditional contract, and if they fail of their faith to God, they are free as to the faith they promised them. This I confess, is speaking to the purpose, and the only way in appearance to make them suffer for Religi∣on; for no doubt, these were the princi∣ples, which led them to those treasonable practices for which they suffered. But the main question remains still, whether Trea∣son be not Treason, because a man thinks

himself bound in Conscience to commit it? and whether Magistrates have not reason to make severe Laws, when such dangerous and destructive principles to Government are embraced as a part of Religion? If there be any such thing as Civil Govern∣ment appointed by God, it must be supposed to have a just and natural Right and Power to preserve it self: but how can it maintain it self without a just power to punish those that disturb and overthrow it? if it have such a Power, it must have Authority to judge of those actions which are pernicious and dangerous to it self; and if there be such a natural inherent Right, Power and Authority, antecedently to any positive Laws of Religion; either we must suppose that Religion left Civil Government as it was, and then it hath the Power of judging all sorts of actions, so far as they have an in∣fluence on the Civil Government, so that no pretence of Religion can excuse Treaso∣nable actions; or we must assert that the Christian Religion hath taken away the natural Rights of Government which is very repugnant to the doctrine of Christianity, and all the examples of the Primitive Church. The substance therefore, of what I say about suffering for Religion, or for Trea∣son is this; that whatever principles or

actions tend to the destruction of the Civil Government, are in themselves Treasonable antecedent to Laws; that Laws may justly determine the nature and degrees of pu∣nishment, that those who are guilty of such actions, let them be done out of what principle soever, are justly lyable to punish∣ment on the account of Treason; and in the judgement of the Law and Reason do suffer on that account, what ever private opinions they may have who do these things, concerning the obligations of Con∣science to do them: and where there is just suspicion of a number of persons not easily discerned, the Laws may make use of cer∣tain Marks to discover them, although it happens that those marks prove actions of Religion; which actions are not thereby made the Cause of their suffer∣ing, but those principles or actions which were the first occasions and Motives of making those Laws. From which it is, I suppose, evident, that if the antient Poe∣nal Laws were just and reasonable, our modern Laws are so too, because the Oc∣casions of making them were of as high a Nature, and the guilt as proportionable to the penalty; and that men did no more suf∣fer for Religion by these, than by the Anti∣ent Poenal Laws.

§. 23. 2. But supposing these Laws were acknowledged to be just and reasona∣ble▪ as to the Actors of those Treasons, the Question is, Whether they continue just, as to other persons who cannot be proved actually guilty of those Treasons? And here I confess, as to the principles of natu∣ral Reason, the case doth vary according to circumstances: For,

1. In a jealous and suspicious time, when many Treasons have been acted, and more are feared by virtue of bad principles, the Government may justly proceed upon the tryal of the principles to the conviction of Persons who own them, without plain evi∣dence of the particular guilt of the outward actions of Treason. For the very designing of Treason is lyable to the severity of the Law, if it come to be discovered; and where the safety of the publick is really in great danger, the greatest caution is ne∣cessa••y ••or the prevention of evil; and some actions are lawful for publick safety which are not in particular cases. Especi∣ally when sufficient warning is given before∣hand by the Law, and men cannot come within the danger of it without palpable disobedience, as in the case of Seminary Priests coming into the Nation, when for∣bidden

to do it under severe penalties; In which case the very contempt of the Law and Government, makes them justly obno∣xious to the force of it. He that owns the principles that lead him to Treason, wants only an opportunity to act them; and therefore in cases of great danger, the not renouncing the principles may justly ex∣pose men to the sentence of the Law. And if it be lawful to make any principles or declared opinions or words treasonable, it cannot be unjust to make men suffer for them.

2. In quiet times when the apprehension of present danger is not great, it hath been the Wisdom of our Government to suffer the course of Law to proceed, but not to a rigorous execution. For the Law being in its force, keeps persons of dangerous principles more in awe, who will be very cautious of broaching and maintaining those principles which they hold; and conse∣quently cannot have so bad effects, as when they have full liberty to vent them; but in case Persons have been seized upon by the legal wayes of discovery, who yet have not been actually seditious, it hath been the excellent moderation of our Govern∣ment, not to proceed to any great seve∣rities.

3. There can be no sufficient reason given for the total repeal of Laws at first made upon good grounds, where there is not suf∣ficient security given that all those, for whom they were intended, have renounced those principles which were the first occa∣sions of making them. These things I yield to be reasonable.

1. That where there is a real difference in principles, the Government should make a difference; because the reason of the Law, is the danger of those principles; which if some hear••••••y renounce, there seems to be no ground, that they should suffer equally with those who will not; but since the Law is already in being, and it is easier to preserve old Laws, than to make new ones, whether the difference should be by Law, or by Priviledge, be∣comes the Wisdom of our Law-makers to determine.

2. That such who enjoy such a Privi∣ledge, should give the greatest satisfaction as to their sincerity in renouncing these principles; for if there be still ground to suspect their sincerity in renouncing, by reason of ambiguous phrases, aequivocations in words, or reservations in their minds, they give instead of real satisfaction, great∣er cause of jealousie, because of the abuse

they put thereby upon the Government. For if men do aequivocate in renouncing aequivocation (which it is very possible for men that hold that Doctrine to do) they thereby forfeit their credit to so high a degree, that they cannot be safely trusted in any Oaths or Protestations. This there∣fore ought to be made sure, that men use the greatest sincerity in what they do, or else there is no ground to grant any favour upon their offers of satisfaction.

3. Where there is sufficient ground to believe, that the much greater number will not give sufficient satisfaction as to the re∣nouncing the dangerous principles to Civil Government, there is no reason for a total repeal of the Poenal Laws already establish∣ed. For if the Reason of the Laws was just at first, and the same Reason continues, it becomes not the Wisdom of a Nation to take off the curb it hath upon a dange∣rous and growing party: and however cau∣tious and reserved many may seem, while the Laws are in force, no man knows how much those principles may more openly shew themselves; and what practices may fol∣low upon them, when impunity tempts them. I do not plead for sanguinary Laws towards innocent and peaceably minded

men (whatever their opinions be; and how hardly soever my Adversaries think and speak of me, I would shew my Reli∣gion to be better than theirs by having more Charity and Kindness towards them, than I ••ear they would shew me were I in their circumstances) but I find that even some of themselves think fit not to have those Laws taken off from men of the Ie∣suitical Principles; as appears by a Dis∣course written to that purpose,* 1.263 since his Majesties Return, by one of their own Re∣ligion. Wherein he shews,

1. That the Iesuitical party by their un∣just and wicked practices provoked the Magistrates to enact those Laws; and that their seditious principles are too deep∣ly guilty of the Blood of Priests and Ca∣tholicks shed in the Kingdom ever since they came into it: and that it is their principle to manage Religion, not by per∣swasion but by command and force; and then reckons up the several Treasons in Queen Elizabeth's time, the Iesuitical de∣sign of excluding the Scottish succession and title of our Soveraign; the Gunpowder Treason; which if it were not their in∣vention, he confesses they were highly ac∣cessary to it, by prayers before hand, and

publick testifications after the fact was dis∣covered; nay many years after they did, and peradventure to this very day still do pertinaciously adhere to it. 2. That their practices of usurping Iurisdiction, making Colledges and Provinces in and for En∣land; possessing themselves of great summs of money for such ends, are against the ancient Laws of the Land even in Ca∣tholick times; it being the Law of England that no Ecclesiastical Community may settle here, unless admitted by the Civil Power; and those that entertain them are subject to the penalties ordained by the Ancient Laws. 3. That it is no evidence of their Loyalty that any of them have been of the Kings side, it being a Maxim or Practice of their Society in quarrels of Princes and Great men to have some of their Fathers on one part and others for the contrary; which is a manifest sign they are faithful to neither. 4. That there is no ground to trust them, because of their doctrine of Probability; and their General can make what doctrine he pleases probable, for the opinion of three Divines is suffi∣cient to make a Doctrine probable, and whatever is so, must be done by them when commanded by their Superiours; so

that the tenderness of their Consciences is only about doing, or doing what their Su∣periours orders them: besides, their do∣ctrines about deposing Princes, Equivocati∣ons, mental Reservations, and divers other juggles. 5. That they have never yet re∣nounced the doctrine of the Popes deposing Princes; that their Generals order against teaching this doctrine was a meer trick, and never pretended to reach En∣gland, that Santarellus his Book was Printed ten years after it, teaching the power of deposing in all latitude; and why should the peace of Kingdoms have no better secu∣rity than their Generals Order? Who knows how soon that may alter, when good circumstances happen? and then it will be a mortal sin not to teach this doctrine: that the Iesuits have never spoken one un∣kind word against this Power of deposing Princes; that when the Pope shall think fit to attempt deposing a King of England, no doubt their Generals Order will be re∣leased. 6. That by their particular vow of obedience to the Pope, they are bound to do whatever he commands them; as for example, if the Pope should excommunicate or depose the Prince, and command them to move Catholicks to take up Arms, they are

bound by their Vow to do it. 7. That they make themselves Soveraigns over the Kings Subjects, by usurping a power of life and death over those of their Order for pretend∣ed crimes committed in England, which is High Treason; for their Subjects have other Soveraigns besides the King. 8. That there can be no sufficient security given by them, who hold the Popes personal infalli∣bility; for whatever protestations, or re∣nunciations they may make at present, they will be obliged to the contrary whensoever the Pope declares his judgement so: and therefore no hearty Allegiance can be ex∣pected from those who hold it, but such as must waver with every blast from Rome. 9. That they not only renounce the do∣ctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reser∣vation, without which all other protestati∣ons afford very little security; but men ought to be assured, that they do not practise them, when they do renounce them; and he desires them to find out some way for this, which it seems came not into his head. 10. That without re∣nouncing those doctrines which are dange∣rous to the Civil Government there is no reason to expect favour from it: for tem∣poral subjection to Princes is the main

ground of the peace and good Government of the Common-wealth; and what is against that is against the Law of God and Nature.

§. 24. I now come in the last place to consider the proposals made by Mr. Cressy for satisfaction to the Government and the repeal of the poenal Laws: which are of two kinds, 1. Subscribing the censures of the Faculty of Paris 1663. and 1626. 2. Taking the Oath of Allegiance, if the word heretical were turned into Repug∣nant to the word of God.

But, 1. It were worth knowing what Authority Mr. Cressy had to make these proposals in behalf of all the Roman-Catho∣licks of England: he saith indeed, that his Book is published permiss•• Superiorum, and what he writes, is not the inconside∣rable opinion of one particular person only: And what then? It may be two or three more may be of his mind, it may be his Superiours are, it may be several Gen∣tlemen not governed by the Iesuitical party a••e: but is the State of Affairs so mightily changed among them since 1662? Will not the same Reasons •• old good still, that the Iesuitical party

is not to be trusted in these matters▪ have they made any renunciation since, of any of those doctrines which were thought so dangerous then? or are they quite gone from us, and to use Mr. Cressy's own com∣parison, like Rats have forsaken a sinking Ship? It would be great Joy to the whole Nation to hear we were so well rid of them? but which way went they? in what storm were they carried? Was it in the late great Hurrican? or were they con∣veyed invisibly through some passage un∣der ground? But they are subtle men, they say, and full of tricks, and therefore may seem to be gone and not be gone, even as they please. Mr. Cressy it seems hath a a Power beyond Proclamations, for he can send away the whole Fry in a tr••ce; but a turn of his hand, and not a Iesuit, or a man of his principles appears more in En∣gland. But for all this, neither the Bene∣dictins, nor Secular Priests, can get rid of them so easily; they swarm and govern too much for their interests; they have too many Colleges in England to forsake them so easily, and too rich a Bank to run away and leave it behind them: it may be, some of the poorer Orders would fain be finger∣ing of it, and therefore represent the poor

harmless Iesuits, as the only dangerous per∣sons to the Civil Government, whereas they think themselves as honest as their neigh∣bours, and say, they hold no doctrines but what other Divines hold as well as they, and if they understood themselves they would find to be the doctrine of the Ca∣tholick Church for six hundred years; only a few temporizing Secular Priests, and some others out of spight to them, and hopes to get a better harvest to themselves when they are gone, would lay all the blame upon the Iesuits: whereas the doctrine they own was the general doctrine of their Church and received here in England, (the Council of Lateran which decrees the Popes power over Princes having been received here by the Council at Oxford A. 1222.) and what a••do is made now with the Ie∣suits, as though they had been the first broachers and only maintainers of the do∣ctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes, which hath been decreed in Coun∣cils, accepted by Churches, and only opposed by some, out of the passions of fear or hopes from temporal Princes? What do ye tell us▪ say they, of the Sorbon, a Club of State Divines, that act as if they believed the King of France's infallibility, though they

will not own the Popes? What matter is it what some few men say that are over∣awed by Secular Princes? Shew us the Divines at Rome, where men may speak freely, that hold otherwise: Was the Popes Nuncio that appeared so bravely for the Catholick Cause in the Head of an Army in Ireland a Iesuit? or were 〈…〉〈…〉 adhe∣rents that cast off the Kings Authority there Iesuits? Are all the Anti-Remonstrants in Ireland Iesuits? And what think we, are not all those who opposed the Irish Ro∣monstrance, very ready to give full satis∣faction in these matters? Nay, in the good humour Mr. Cressy found all English Ro∣man Catholicks, it was pitty, he had not gone farther; and who knows, but in so lucky a day, the Pope and Cardinal Bar∣barine might have subscribed the Censures of the Faculty of Paris? But well fare the honest Apologist for the Iesuits who an∣swered the Reasons unreasonable,* 1.264 and de∣clares that he is no Iesuit, yet he saith plainly, it would be a temerarious oath to for swear in general terms a deposing Power in the Pope, but to detest it as an heresie would be absolutely Schismatical: but he gives very foolish Reasons, why the effect of that power need not be feared in England;

because, forsooth, Constantine left out England in his Donation to the Pope; did he so indeed? it was a great kindness to the place of his Nativity. But withall he adds, though there be much talk of King Johns Resignation of his Crown to the Pope, yet the Deed of Conveyance lies so dormant in the Vatican, that it could never be awaked or produced on any provocation. And is this the security the Pope will ne∣ver exercise his deposing Power in En∣gland? But do not you think the Pope makes too much of it, to shew it to all comers? and yet this Apologist need not have gone to the Vatican, to have seen that very Bull of the Pope, wherein King John's Resignation is contained; for it was ••ately to be seen in England. But sup∣pose King John's Original were burnt at Lions, as our Historians think; hath the Pope never challenged any Power over Princes, but where they were feudatary to h••m? Alas for his Ignorance! the Pope ••or a need hath a threefold claim to this P••wer, and he can make use of which he thinks best; the feudatary, the direct tem∣poral, and the indirect temporal. The Feu••ata••y is by voluntary resignation, the direct te••poral by the Canon Law, and

the indirect by the Sins of Princes; for those, if they happen to be of a right kind, as Heresie, Apostasie, Mis-govern∣ment, &c. give the Pope a notable title to their Crowns, for then they fall to him by way of Escheat as the principal Lord: but suppose the Pope should to save quar∣rels, quit the Feudatary Claim, what se∣curity is there against the two other, that may do as much mischief as the first?

For all that I can see then, Mr. Cressy had not sufficient Letter of Atturney to declare in behalf of all the Roman Catholicks, that they would subscribe the Censures of the Sorbon; for the Popes deposing Power is yet good doctrine among many of them. But why did Mr. Cressy take no notice of any difference among them about these points? Must we Protestants be still thought such pittiful Animals, as not to know that which hath been publickly canvased among them about the full Age of a man, viz. near seventy years! Alas for us! we ne∣ver heard of Blackwell, and Barclay, and Widdrington of one side; nor of Bellar∣min, and Singleton, and Fitzherbert of the other: We have only a little Gram∣mar Learning, and can make a shift to

understand the Greek Testament, and read Calvins Institutions, or Danaeus upon Pe∣ter Lombard; but for these deep points, it is well we have ever seen those that have heard others say they have seen the Books that handle them. But why should Mr. Cressy so slily pass over the business of the Nuntio in Ireland? was that nothing to the purpose? Did not the Person of Honour mention it several times, that he could not avoid seeing it? But we must forget all those things; and Cardinal Bar∣barins Letters about the Irish Remon∣strance: and whatever is material, if it cannot be answered, is better let slip. Yet, is it possible for us to believe that all Roman Catholicks are so willing now to renounce the dangerous doctrines; when there hath been so late, so numerous, so vehement, (nay, I had almost said) so Catholick, an opposition to the Irish Remonstrance? Not, as Mr. Cressy would have it believed, out of indignation at a particular person, (who had much greater Authority for what he did on the behalf of the rest by his Procuratorium than Mr. Cressy doth appear to have) nor a quarrel at phrases, but at the very sub∣stance of the doctrine contained in it. Was

it only about some phrases, that the Popes Internuntio at Brussels de Vechiis condemn∣ed it? when he said, it contained in it propositions agreeing with those already re∣probated by Paul the fifth,* 1.265 and Innocent the tenth, and this he expressed as the mind of the Pope. Was it only about phrases, when he said the Remonstrance would do more hurt than all the former persecutions of hereticks?* 1.266 Was it only about phrases, when Cardinal Barbarin charged the Remonstrants with corrupting faith under a pretence of Allegiance to the King: and he adds too, that the propositi∣ons were condemned before by the Apostolical See; and that his Holiness was troubled to the very heart about it? Methinks, a few Phrases only, should not have given his Holiness so much disturbance. Was it only for some phrases,* 1.267 that the Dominicans op∣posed it, as contrary to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, who roundly asserts the Popes power of deposing Heretical Princes? and they pleaded, they were sworn to main∣tain his Doctrine. It seems then, they can give no security to the State without per∣jury; and I suppose there were some of these among Mr. Cressy's Roman Catholicks, who were so ready to renounce this do∣ctrine.

Was it only for a few phrases,* 1.268 that the Lovain Divines condemned it, as wholly unlawful and detestable; and containing things contrary to Catholick Re∣ligion? The true grounds of which, were the taking away the Popes power over Princes, and the great Diana of Ecclesia∣stical Liberty. If Mr. Cressy accounts these but phrases, the Court of Rome owes him but little thanks for it. But this is so ridiculous a pretence, that all the quar∣rells about the Irish Remonstrance were only about a few phrases, that either he looks on the parties as extreamly quarrel∣some, or it must be some greater matter which he confesses was the occasion of so many commotions, dissentions, and scanda∣lous invectives on both sides. Since then, there hath so long been, and we have rea∣son still to believe there is, such a diffe∣rence among them about these matters, how can Mr. Cressy undertake so boldly as he doth on the behalf of English Catholicks for the subscribing the Censures of the Fa∣culty of Paris? But of all sorts of men, I am apt to mistrust great Undertakers.

§. 25. 2. But supposing they should sub∣scribe the Sorbon Censures, we may yet que∣stion,

whether hereby they would give full satisfaction in these matters:* 1.269 Mr. Cressy is of opinion, that this would be a more full and satisfactory testimony of their Fidelity, than can be given by taking the Oath of Allegiance; which makes me very much wonder, why they should refuse the less sa∣tisfactory, and choose that which is more. But men had need to have fast hold, that are to handle such slippery points as these are; for when we think we have them safe, they slip through our Fingers and escape. Those who have not considered all their arts and evasions in these mat∣ters, would think they offer as fair things as any men in the world; but when it comes home to the point, there is some sly distinction or mental reservation, by which they get through all, and are as much at liberty as ever. That alone which in our Age and Kingdom can give satisfaction, 1. Must reach our own case, and not that of the King of France; i. e. 1. Of a King not of the same profession of Religion with those who make the pro∣fession of Fidelity; 2. Of a King or King∣dom already under censure of excommuni∣on, as Cardinal Barbarin declared: 3. Of a King, not barely considered as a King,

i. e. while he remains such, and the Pope doth not declare him not to be a King; but so as to declare it, not to be in the Popes power, to make him no King. For men may subscribe the Censures of Sorbon, understanding them of Kings of their own Religion, not excommunicated by the Pope, and while the Pope doth not declare them to be no Kings. 2. What gives satisfacti∣on in our case, must exclude all manner of aequivocation and mental reservation; For where that is not excluded, there can be no security at all given; it being im∣possible to bring aequivocations and reser∣vations within any bounds; nay, those who hold it lawful to use them, may de∣ny it, and do it in denying it; therefore the matter of aequivocation must be stated, how far, and upon what terms, and in what cases they allow it; and yet there may be aequivocation in all this. So that as aequivocation hath all the advantages of lying, it hath the disadvantage too, viz. that those who use it cannot safely be trusted, though they do not use it; be∣cause though it be possible they may not, no man can be well assured that they do not. But the Sorbon censures never men∣tion aequivocation at all, and therefore I do

not wonder to see such as Mr. Cressy rea∣dy to bring in those, instead of the Oath of Allegiance, because although himself and some others may disown the doctrine of aequivocation, yet if that be not expres∣ly excluded, they know the very Iesuits will swallow a Camel, let them but have the dressing of him. They know so ma∣ny tricks of Legerdemain, that I do not see why a very cunning Iesuit may not then think himself a fit match for the Devil himself; for let him make never so many promises in Words, he would have such a secret Reservation in his Mind, as should make his Words to signifie nothing. But it is not safe for them to play such tricks with so old a Sophister, that first found out the way of aequivocation. 3. What gives satisfaction in our case, must exclude absolutely all power of Di∣spensing in the Pope; for if that be re∣served they are safe enough; they know how to get out presently, for they have one ready that can knock off all their shackles, and set them as free as ever; nay, they have yet another fetch concern∣ing the Popes power, for he can null an Oath before-hand, and make it stand for nothing, as well as absolve them from it

afterwards. But how then can the Sor∣bon censures be so satisfactory in our case, when they never so much as mention the Popes power of dispensing, much less dis∣claim it so plainly as it ought to be done, to give satisfaction? So that we see, it is not without reason Mr. Cressy would so willingly have the Oath of Allegiance changed for the Sorbon Censures: and I do not at all wonder that fourteen Iesuits in France offered to subscribe the Sorbon censures 1626. which Mr. Cressy offers, as the most satisfactory Form, who never yet could well swallow the Oath of Allegi∣ance; for they very well knew whatever they did swear in France could be dispensed with at Rome.

§. 26. 3. But farther he declares their readiness to take the Oath of Allegiance it self, if the word Heretical were left out. Whose readiness doth he mean? All Roman Catholicks, Iesuits and all? And hath this indeed been the only bone of contention thus many years? Did Bellar∣min, Suarez, Lessius, Fitz-herbert and the rest of the opposers of this Oath, find no other fault with it, but only that a Do∣ctrine was declared heretical, which was

never condemned in any General Coun∣cil? Would they have been content to have called the Popes power of deposing Princes new, false, erroneous, and con∣trary to the Word of God, though not heretical? For shame, let not men go about thus to impose upon us, as though all the difference were about this nice∣ty in the signification of a word. It would be needless in so plain a case to shew upon what principles those went who opposed the Oath of Allegiance; but I shall only instance in Fitzherbert,* 1.270 being of our own Nation, and as considerable as any; he therefore insists upon it, that it is an unlawful Oath, because it flatly contradicteth the Lateran Council, as to the Popes power of deposing Princes: but that is not all, but his design is at large to prove, that it is repugnant to the Law of God in the Old and New Testa∣ment,* 1.271 to the practice of the Church, and express declaration of the Pope by three Apostolical Breves;* 1.272 and to those that ob∣ject, that the Popes first Breve was ob∣tained surreptitiously and for want of good information; he saith, it is not only ig∣norance but malice in any to say so, be∣cause the Pope published another Breve on

purpose to declare that the first was not surreptitious, but written upon his own certain knowledge, motion, and will, and after long and grave deliberation had concerning all things contained therein, and that therefore the Catholicks were bound to observe it wholly rejecting all in∣terpretations to the contrary; and by his third Breve he gave Authority to the Arch-Priest to deprive all Seminary Priests under his Iurisdiction that had taken the Oath, or had taught or did still teach it to be lawful to take it; Nay, he adds farther to take off that common evasion, that the Pope was not duly informed, that before the sentence passed against it at Rome, it was long debated in certain Congregations of Learned Cardinals, and other great Divines; wherein Cardinal Bellarmin had but one voyce, and Father Parsons (whom they suspect to have mis-informed the Pope) none at all. Now the Pope did not condemn it meerly on the account of the word Heretical, but because he said, the Oath contained in it many things, contrary to faith and the sal∣vation of souls. And therefore all those who have any regard to the Popes Sen∣tence in a matter of such importance have

other Reasons to decline taking the Oath, supposing the word Heretical were le••t out. But some men love to pretend that a small alteration in established Laws would satisfie them, to try if by those arts, they could bring the Wisdom of the Nation to yield to them in that, and when they have obtained it, then a thousand other obje∣ctions are raised that were not mentioned before: so I doubt not but it would be in this Case, if the word Heretical were left out, and when they had gained this point, then they would start another, and another till the whole Oath were brought to Nothing, and I A. B. left to stand alone. But it is a very strange thing to me, that they who can swallow all the other parts of the Oath should stick so much at the word Heretical; for if they would use some of the same mollifying di∣stinctions that they do about the other parts of it, methinks Heretical might go down as glib as the rest. Were I of their Religion, I should more scruple de∣testing, abjuring, and abhorring from my heart, than calling a thing Heretical; the other are downright and plain words capable of no Ambiguity; but Heretical, is a word, that may signifie this or ano∣ther

thing, as men please. That is He∣retical with one that is not with ano∣ther, and Heretical may be meant in the sense of the Givers, and not the Receiv∣ers; which is Mr. Cressy's way. But besides, what is it is said to be Hereti∣cal? That Princes which be Excommuni∣cated or deprived by the Pope, may be de∣posed or murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever; where or being a disjunctive particle, if to say that Princes deprived may be murdered be Heretical, though to say they may be deposed be not, yet that is enough to make a disjunctive proposition true. This is one of Widdringtons wayes; but he hath yet two more; viz. that,* 1.273 as heretical doth not imply equality but similitude, and that they do abhor and detest it as much, as if it were formal heresie; but the main of all is, that a thing is not therefore heretical be∣cause the Church defines it; but because it is repugnant to Catholick Faith, or which is all one to that which is revealed by God; which he proves to be the proper notion of heresie, from Alphonsus à Castro, Covarruvias and others: and if this were not the true notion of it, the Church would have power to make new articles of Faith;

and therefore upon the same ground that any person rejects any doctrine as repug∣nant to the word of God, he may reject it as heretical. I cannot therefore imagine, whatever Mr. Cressy says, that it would give such general satisfaction to have the word heretical turned into repugnant to the word of God; for I cannot think the Roman-Catholick Gentlemen to be men of so weak understandings, to be able to di∣gest all other parts of the Oath, and to refuse taking it only on the account of the word heretical. I must therefore beg par∣don, if I be not of too easie a faith in this matter; it is easie to guess where the Oath pinches, better than so.

§. 27. 4. But after all this, I am not sa∣tisfied, with the grounds of Mr. Cressy's hopes, that the taking off the objection as to their Loyalty may be sufficient reason for the Toleration of their Religion;* 1.274 which is the thing aimed at in this Discourse. For although the inconsistency of any Reli∣gion with the Civil Government be a suf∣ficient ground against the Toleration of such a Religion; yet its not being in∣consistent is not enough for its Tolerati∣on. For the matter of Toleration, in a

Nation where there is a Publick Religion established by Law, hath a respect two wayes, to the Civil Government, and to the Established Religion: and the Civil Government is bound to defend and pro∣tect the Established Religion; because it is agreed on all hands that it is bound to defend the True Religion, and that is de∣clared by the Laws to be the True, which is established by them. Now, if a party appears active and dangerous, whose Principles are destructive to the Religion established by Law, I appeal to any man of common sense, whether it be sufficient ground for the Toleration of it, that one objection is taken off, when the other re∣mains in its fuil force? That which is then to be considered in this case, is, whe∣ther such a party, which is dangerous without Toleration, will grow less dange∣rous by it? which I think needs no great consideration; and it will require as lit∣tle, to shew the danger that will come to the Established Religion by a Toleration of Popery: not only by the diligence, in∣dustry, and number of the Priests, who will be glad to make new Converts to gain new Residences, (they being at pre∣sent so much over-stocked;) besides their

desires to approve themselves to the Court of Rome for preferments by their activity; and telling brave stories beyond Seas of their exploits against hereticks, (as a late Miles Gloriosus among them hath done) how many Legions of Hereticks they have blown away by the Power of Principles and Demonstrations; but, by the obligation that lyes upon them that receive preferments from Rome, to perse∣cute Hereticks, Schismaticks, and Rebels to the Pope to their uttermost; which is expressed in the Oath they take to the Pope; as appears by the Pontifical; so that these men must either be perjured, or persecute when it lyes in their Power. And can any Nation in the World think it Wise or Safe to give Toleration to Wolfs among Sheep; to those that have solemnly sworn to persecute to their pow∣er all that own the Established Religion? and that look upon all such as in a damned condition that do not submit to their Church? Till they abate of their monstrous uncharitableness, till they re∣nounce their Oaths to the Pope, till they can give good security of their quiet be∣haviour in not seducing others, what pre∣tence can there be, for their being allow∣ed

a free exercise of their Religion, sup∣posing they should take the Oath of Al∣legiance? But as to their dignified Cler∣gy, I mean such of his Majesties Sub∣jects, whom the Pope hath taken upon him to make Bishops without his consent (which was not suffered by some Princes, even in times of Popery) it ought far∣ther to be considered, what security any following Oath can give as to those that have taken a former Oath of Allegiance to the Pope? as I have already proved it to be; as much as King Iohn's was, upon the Resignation of his Crown; nay yet farther, they are bound now by that Oath to defend all those Provisions and Re∣servations, and Apostolical Mandates, which were accounted the intolerable grievances of this Nation, long before the Refor∣mation.

But why may they not enjoy equal li∣berty with the Sectaries? I am not plead∣ing the Sectaries Cause, (neither would others plead it now but for a farther end) nor would I extenuate the guilt of their Se∣paration; but they are blind, that do not see the difference between the parties, if not as to number, yet as to interest, for∣reign dependence, and danger to the

Church of England: for surely, a man is not in so much danger of being stung to death by Gnats, as being poisoned by Vi∣pers: I mean in respect of the avowed principle of Persecuting all dissenters, in the Roman Church: which it were easie to manifest, not only from our domestick story,* 1.275 and the entertainment in Queen Ma∣ries dayes; and from the History of the Inquisition abroad; but from the Cabal at the Council of Trent between the Popes Legats, and the Embassadours of Catholick Princes about the utter extirpation of the Protestant Religion; and the defigns that were carried on in prosecution of this in most parts of Europe, especially in Ger∣many, Flanders,* 1.276 and France; but I shall not meddle with the secret Intrigues, but the open and avowed principles. In France,* 1.277 Claudius de Sainctes published a Book against Toleration, A. D. 1561. wherein he pleads with all his strength for the utter extirpation of Protestants;* 1.278 the like did Iacobus Pamelius in Flanders; and both of them answer all the common and popular arguments now brought for Toleration:* 1.279 the same did Scioppius in Ger∣many; and we all know what the dread∣ful consequences were in all those places.

But this is a subject too large to enter upon now: For my part, I am no Friend to Sanguinary Laws on the account of Reli∣gion; and if the Wisdom of our Law-ma∣kers should think fit to change that popu∣lar way of publick suffering (which the sufferers would have still believed to be for Religion) into a more effectual course of suppressing the growth of a party so dan∣gerous to our established Religion, I should more rejoice, it may be, therein, than those who are more concerned in it. Provided, that the pretence of making new Laws more accommodate to our pre∣sent State, be not carried on meerly with the design of leaving our Church with∣out any security by Law at all against so violent and dangerous a party: for it is a much easier matter to repeal old Laws, than to make new ones. And if the ob∣jection against the old Laws be, that they are not executed, it ought to be consider∣ed whether the same objection will not lye against others, unless they be such Laws as will execute themselves; and we have little Reason to believe that they who bid difiance to our present Laws, and make sport with Proclamati∣ons, will be perswaded by gentler means

to obey others. And is such an affront to Laws a sufficient Motive to Lenity? And we have good ground to think, that that they look upon all our Laws, what∣ever they be, as things of no force at all upon their Consciences, as being null in themselves, because they are contrary to the Popes Authority and the Constitutions of their Church. And I believe if our modern Papists were pressed home, the generality of those who are obnoxious to the Poenal Laws, would not acknowledge those Ancient Rights of the Crown, which were challenged by William the Conque∣rour, William Rufus, Henry the first, Hen∣ry the second, (before his submission to the Pope) and afterwards by Edward the first, and Edward the third; viz. No ex∣ercise of any forreign jurisdiction here without the Kings consent; no liberty of going out of the Kingdom, though upon the Popes Command, without the Kings leave; and while they allow this Power to the Pope to command his Majesties Subjects, they make him Soveraign over them, and make them more fearful of disclaim∣ing his Power; No Decrees of Popes or Bulls to be received without the Kings ap∣probation; No Bishops to be made by Pa∣pal

Provisions out of the plenitude of his Power, &c. Those who will not reject these, which were challenged by the Kings of England long before the Reformation, as their ancient and undoubted Rights, with what face can they plead for the Repeal of the Poenal Laws? when the an∣cient Law of England makes them guilty of violating the Rights of the Crown. If they say, the Case is not the same now up∣on the Change of Religion; I desire to know of them, whether any ancient Rights of the Crown are lost by casting off the Popes Authority? if they be not, they are good still, and what are they then that deny them? if they be lost, then our Kings have lost some of their Soveraign Rights which their Ancestors valued above half their Kingdoms; and how could they lose them by casting off the Pope, if they did not receive them ••rom him? If they re∣ceived them from him, then they make the Kings Power to be so far at least derived from the Pope; for if it were independent upon him, how could they lose any Power, by casting off the Popes Authority? If it be said, that these were priviledges granted by the Popes; I utterly deny it; for our Kings challenged them in spight of the

Popes, and exercised them in direct oppositi∣on to their Bulls and Decrees; even the De∣crees of Councils as well as Popes, as is fully manifested in the foregoing Discourse. How then can such men plead for the re∣peal of Poenal Laws whose principles do so directly contradict the ancient acknow∣ledged Rights of the Crown of England? For others that will not only own these an∣cient Rights, but give sufficient security without fraud and equivocation, of their sincerity in renouncing the Popes power of deposing Princes, and other Principles de∣structive to Government; since it was never the intention of our Laws to persecute such, they need not fear the enjoyment of all Reasonable Protection by them. But it doth not become me to discourse of such points which are far more proper for the Wisdom and Council of the whole Nation: And I know no true Protestant would envy the quiet and security of innocent and peaceable men, where there is sufficient as∣surance, that by favour received they will not grow more unquiet. But we cannot take too great care to prevent the restless designs of those, who aim at nothing more, than the undermining and blowing up our established Church and Religion: Which God preserve.

Thus much may serve for an Answer to these points of Mr. Cressy's Book, the rest I leave to a better hand.

And now My Lord, what reason have I to beg pardon for so tedious a Dis∣course! But I know your Lordships love to the Cause, as well as to the Person concerned, will make you rea∣dy to excuse and forgive,

My Lord,

Your Lordships most humble and obedient Servant, Edw. Stillingfleet.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Notes

• * 1.1

  Epist. Apol. sect. 98, 99. p. 119.
• * 1.2

  Ani••adv. p. 10.
• * 1.3

  P. 243.
• * 1.4

  P. 245.
• * 1.5

  P. 9, 101.
• * 1.6

  P. 246.
• * 1.7

  P. 71, 72.
• * 1.8

  P. 247.
• * 1.9

  P. 75.
• * 1.10

  E••i••t. A••ol. p. 101.
• * 1.11

  P. 112, ••13.
• * 1.12

  Stat. 25, & 27 Eaw. 3. Stat. 16 R. 2.
• * 1.13

  P. 125.
• * 1.14

  P. 122.
• * 1.15

  P. 44.
• * 1.16

  P. 104.
• * 1.17

  P. 100.
• * 1.18

  P. 108.
• * 1.19

  P. 116.
• * 1.20

  P. 111. P. 120.
• * 1.21

  P. 112.
• * 1.22

  P. 121.
• * 1.23

  P. 119.
• * 1.24

  P. 98.
• * 1.25

  Epistle A∣polog••t. p. 102.
• * 1.26

  P. 105.
• * 1.27

  P. 104.
• * 1.28

  P. 116, 117
• * 1.29

  Gr••g. 7••. Ep••stol. l. 8. Ep. 21.
• * 1.30

  G••••gor. 7. Epist. l. 7••▪ Ep. 25.
• * 1.31

  Epistol. ••. 1. c. 21.
• * 1.32

  L. 9. 3. 12. Lanfra••c. Ep. 7.
• * 1.33

  La••••ra••c. Ep. 8.
• * 1.34

  Annal. Ec∣cl••siast. A. 1079. n. 25.
• * 1.35

  Henr. de Si••gra••e Chro••ic. MS in Bib∣lioth. Cotton.
• * 1.36

  B••rthold. Constant. A••p••nd. ad Her••. C••••tr. A. 1084.
• * 1.37

  Baron•• A. D. 1080. n. 3.
• * 1.38

  Greg. 7. ep•• l. 7. ep. 14.
• * 1.39

  Berthold. ••onst. A. D. 1085.
• * 1.40

  Eadmer. prae••at. p. 2.
• * 1.41

  Seld••. not. ad Eadm. p. 142.
• * 1.42

  Eadmer. p. 6.
• * 1.43

  Greg. R••∣gistr. ••. 7. ep. 1.
• * 1.44

  L. 11. Ep. ••;
• * 1.45

  O••d••r. Vital. Ec∣cles. histor. l. 5. P. 554.
• * 1.46

  〈…〉〈…〉 A. 10••1.
• * 1.47

  Ead••••r. p. 26.
• * 1.48

  P. 27.
• * 1.49

  P. 28.
• * 1.50

  P. 24.
• * 1.51

  P. 30, 31.
• * 1.52

  P. 32, 33 ••
• * 1.53

  P. 34.
• * 1.54

  P. 38.
• * 1.55

  P. 39.
• * 1.56

  P. 40.
• * 1.57

  P. 43.
• * 1.58

  P. 53.
• * 1.59

  P. 56.
• * 1.60

  Ead. p. 60.
• * 1.61

  P. 61.
• * 1.62

  Brompton. C••ro••. p. 999.
• * 1.63

  P. 63.
• * 1.64

  P. 65.
• * 1.65

  P. 70.
• * 1.66

  P. 73.
• * 1.67

  P. 76.
• * 1.68

  P. 87, 91.
• * 1.69

  Mat Paris A. 1107. P. 63.
• * 1.70

  Petr. de Marcá de Co••co d. Sa••erd. & I••p. l. 8. c. 20. ••. 2. Floreat. Wigorn.
• * 1.71

  A. D. 1111. Malmsbur. de g••st. Reg. Angl. l. 5. Mat. Paris A. 1113. P 65.
• * 1.72

  Mat W••st∣minst. A. 1113.
• * 1.73

  Eadm. l. 5. p. 115, 118.
• * 1.74

  Malsmbur. de Hear. 1. p. 95.
• * 1.75

  Petr. de Marc•• de Co••ord. Sacerd. & Imper. l. 8. c. 21. ••. 4.
• * 1.76

  Co••stit. Ca∣roli Magni c. 2. p. 263.
• * 1.77

  Histor. Fraac. Scriptores ed. ab A••. Du Chesn. Tom. 2. p. 186.
• * 1.78

  Sp••lma••. Glossar. ••Fid••l••tas.
• * 1.79

  O••oric. Ray••ald. A••••al. E••∣clesiast. A. 1233. ••. 65.
• * 1.80

  Historical Vindicat. Chapt. 3. n. 50.
• * 1.81

  Eadmer. l. 5. p. 113.
• * 1.82

  Rad. de Diceto p. 534.
• * 1.83

  Gervas. Do•• r••born. p. 1307.
• * 1.84

  Mat. Paris p. 414.
• * 1.85

  vit. Abbat. p. 140.
• * 1.86

  Thorn. p. 1899.
• * 1.87

  Decr••tal. de jure jurand. l. 2. tit. 24. c. 4.
• * 1.88

  Pontifical. Ro••an. p. 86. to 97. A••tw. 1627.
• * 1.89

  Epistolae se∣lect. Cent. 1. ••p. 21. p. 94, 97.
• * 1.90

  Co••cil. Ge∣ne••al. To. 11. p. 2. p. 379.
• * 1.91

  De Conco••d. Sac••rd. & I•• per. l. 6. c. 3. n. 13.
• * 1.92

  Baron. ad A 590. n. 42. Form••l. an∣tiquae pro∣••ot. in ap∣pend. ad Tom. 2. Concil. Gall. form. 12.
• * 1.93

  S••rrar. Re∣rum Mo∣guntiae••, l. 3. c. 19. Boni••••c. Epistol. p. 163.
• * 1.94

  Bonifacit epist. 105. p. 144.
• * 1.95

  Bonifac. cp. 141. p. 211.
• * 1.96

  Hin••mar. ep. 26. p. 310. Tom. 2.
• * 1.97

  Formul. an∣tiq. 13. ap∣pend. ad To. 2. Co••∣cil. Gall. p. 656.
• * 1.98

  Baron. A. 1102. n. 5, 8••
• * 1.99

  Richa••d. Prior. H••∣guls•• ad. i••ter 10. Script. p. 313.
• * 1.100

  Mal••sb••••. hist. No••ell. l. 2. p. 103.
• * 1.101

  Gul. N••w∣burg. l. 1. c 4.
• * 1.102

  Malmsb. l. 1. p. 10••
• * 1.103

  Radulph. de Di••c••o. p. 509.
• * 1.104

  Chron. Ger∣vas. Doro∣bonn. p. 1363. Richard. Ha••ulst. 326. Hovede••. A. 1143.
• * 1.105

  Radulph. de Dic••to. Imag. hist. p. 528.
• * 1.106

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.107

  Cod Cotton. l. 1. Ep. 125.
• * 1.108

  Codex C••t∣tonian. Epi∣stol. l. 1. Ep. 123.
• * 1.109

  Hov••d••a. Annal part. post. p. 292. Baron. A. 1167. n. 32.
• * 1.110

  Gilbert London. Epistol. T••onae Cant••ar l. 1. Ep. 126. in Cod. Cotton. MS.
• * 1.111

  Baron. A. 1162. ••. 21.
• * 1.112

  Vit. S. Tho∣me Ca. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. MS. in 〈…〉〈…〉 Co••t•••• p. 10.
• * 1.113

  Iob. Saris∣bur. l. 1. ••••. 85. l. 2. ep. 28, 29.
• * 1.114

  Fitz Ste∣phon. vit. Thom. Cant. p. 26.
• * 1.115

  Codex Cot∣ton. p. 10.
• * 1.116

  La Vie de S. Thomas de Canter∣b••ry. A Pa∣ris 1674.
• * 1.117

  History of the Irish Remon∣strance, from p. 397 to 462.
• * 1.118

  Ba••on. A. 1 162. n. 21.
• * 1.119

  Cod. Cotton. l. 1. l. 12.
• * 1.120

  Cod. Cotton. L 1. ep. 49.
• * 1.121

  Baron. A. 1163. n. 19••
• * 1.122

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cotton. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 127.
• * 1.123

  Cod. Cotton. l. 1. cp. 49.
• * 1.124

  Suger. vit. Lu••or.
• * 1.125

  A••lied. de G••nealog. Reg. Angl, p. 360.
• * 1.126

  Leges Edw. Co••f••ss. c. 5.
• * 1.127

  Leg. Edw. Sen. c. 3.
• * 1.128

  Eg••••rt Poe∣nit. Exc••rpt. c. 5.
• * 1.129

  Leges Ca∣••nti. c. 38.
• * 1.130

  Leges Alu∣red. c. 2••.
• * 1.131

  Theod. Ca∣non. Poenit. c. 9.
• * 1.132

  Egberti Ca∣non. Poeni∣tent. c. 3.
• * 1.133

  Leges Alu∣red. c. 1.
• * 1.134

  Leges Ed∣mund. c. 3, 4.
• * 1.135

  Leges ••d∣gar. c. 5.
• * 1.136

  Legis Ca∣nut. c. 17.
• * 1.137

  Eg••ert. Ca∣non. Poe••it. c. 7.
• * 1.138

  〈…〉〈…〉. p. 167.
• * 1.139

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 73.
• * 1.140

  Fitz Steph. vit. S. Thom. P. 15.
• * 1.141

  Radul••••b, de Diceto Imag••histor. P. 536.
• * 1.142

  Fitz. Steph. vit. Tho••. p. 19.
• * 1.143

  Fitz. Steph. vit. S. Thom. p. 14.
• * 1.144

  Gilbert. Lo••don. Epist. l. 1. ••p. 126.
• * 1.145

  B••••on. A. 1163. n. 23, 26.
• * 1.146

  A. 1164. n. 3.
• * 1.147

  Cod. Cotton. l. 2. ep. 7. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cp. 38.
• * 1.148

  Ioh. Sacris∣••••••. in Cod. Cotton. l. 2. ••p. 64.
• * 1.149

  Codex. Cot∣ton. l. 1. ••p. 63. l. 2••. ••p. 111, 112.
• * 1.150

  Cod. Cotton. l. 2. ep. 41, 52, 54, 61, 63, 64.
• * 1.151

  L. 1. ep. 49.
• * 1.152

  Cod. Cotto••. p. 26. b.
• * 1.153

  I••.
• * 1.154

  Cod. Cotton. l. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 40.
• * 1.155

  Cod. Cotton. l. 4. ep. 54.
• * 1.156

  Cod. Cotton. l. 1. p. 27
• * 1.157

  Fitz Steph. vit. S Thom. MS. ••ott••n p. 16.
• * 1.158

  Bar••••. A. 1164. n. 5.
• * 1.159

  Cod. Cotton•• p. 8.
• * 1.160

  Baron. A. 1164. n. 12. Cod. Cotton. l. 1. ••p. 42.
• * 1.161

  Baron. A. 1164. n. 24.
• * 1.162

  Cod. Cotto••. l. 1. ••p. 26.
• * 1.163

  Vit. S. Th••. p. 31.
• * 1.164

  Cod Cotto••. l. 1. e••. 13.
• * 1.165

  L. 1. ep. 30.
• * 1.166

  L. 1. ••p. 124.
• * 1.167

  L. 1. ep. 125.
• * 1.168

  L. 1. ep. 60.
• * 1.169

  Hoved An∣••al. p. ••85.
• * 1.170

  L. 1. 〈…〉〈…〉. 117.
• * 1.171

  L. 2. ep. 51.
• * 1.172

  L. 3. ep. 6.
• * 1.173

  L. 2. ep. 11, 12, 13, 20.
• * 1.174

  L. 1. ep▪ 39.
• * 1.175

  L. 1. ep. 40.
• * 1.176

  L. 1. ep. 61.
• * 1.177

  C••d. Cotton. l. 1. ep. 49, 82, 93, 124, 125, 133, 140, 143, 144, 16••.
• * 1.178

  L. 2. ep. 9, 12, 32, 37, 42, 45, 52, 54, 55, 64, 72, 103, 104.
• * 1.179

  L. 4. ep. 57. 63.
• * 1.180

  L. 5. ep. 18. 22, 46, 68, 69, 77.
• * 1.181

  L. 5. Ep. 46▪ 53, 77.
• * 1.182

  Baron. A. 1170. n. 41.
• * 1.183

  I. 5. ep. ••2.
• * 1.184

  Ba••o•• A. 1173. n. 7.
• * 1.185

  L. 5. ep. 88.
• * 1.186

  Ep. 9••.
• * 1.187

  Petr. Bles. ep. 136.
• * 1.188

  Baron. A. 1173. n. 8.
• * 1.189

  Bellarm. Apolog. 8.
• * 1.190

  Torto c. 3.
• * 1.191

  B••can. contr. Anglic. q 9.
• * 1.192

  D' Acher. not. in E∣pistol. Lan∣fra••c. 7. p. 347.
• * 1.193

  Vit. P••tr. Bles.
• * 1.194

  L. 5. ep. 95. Hov••de••. p. 303.
• * 1.195

  Ra•• lph. de Di••eto Imag. hi∣stor. p 591.
• * 1.196

  Ge••vas. D••••obern. 1433.
• * 1.197

  Hoveden. p. 314.
• * 1.198

  Mat. Pa••is p. 133.
• * 1.199

  Radulph. de Diceto. p. 591.
• * 1.200

  Pet. Bl••s. ep. 73.
• * 1.201

  G••rvas. Do∣rob••rn. p. 1595.
• * 1.202

  G••••vas. p. 1545.
• * 1.203

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••e Di••••to Ima••▪ hist. p. 657.
• * 1.204

  Fi••z S••eph. vi•• S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.205

  Mat▪ Paris. p. 235, 236, 237.
• * 1.206

  Odor. Ray∣nqld A. 1213. n. 75, 81.
• * 1.207

  Mat. West∣minst. ad A. D. 1213. Sr. Tho. Moor's Supplica∣tion of Souls. p▪ 29••.
• * 1.208

  B••ll. I••••o∣cent, 3. in Bib••ioth. Cotton. I••••oc••nt. 3. R••g••st. 16. n. 79.
• * 1.209

  Odor. Ray∣nald. A. 1213. n. 88.
• * 1.210

  Regest. In∣nocent. 3. l. 16. ep. 131.
• * 1.211

  Gr••g. l. 1. ep▪ 7.
• * 1.212

  Mat. Paris. A. 1216. p. 289.
• * 1.213

  Mat. Paris A. 1245. p. 666.
• * 1.214

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 681.
• * 1.215

  Mat. Paris A. 1231. p. 371.
• * 1.216

  Mat. W••st∣imi••st 1232. p. 292.
• * 1.217

  Mat. Pa••is A. 1246. p. 691.
• * 1.218

  Id. p. 69••.
• * 1.219

  Id▪ p. 696.
• * 1.220

  Id. p. 709.
• * 1.221

  Id. p. 7••6.
• * 1.222

  Id. p. 719.
• * 1.223

  Id. p. 721.
• * 1.224

  Abri••ge∣ment of the Records of the Tower, 13 R. 2. p. 332.
• * 1.225

  Kinghton de event. Angl. l. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.226

  Ch••o••i••. W▪ Thor••. A 1••96. p. 1965.
• * 1.227

  〈…〉〈…〉 A. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 69
• * 1.228

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.229

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.230

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••5 E. 1. M. 8.
• * 1.231

  Pat. 25 E. 1. M. 12.
• * 1.232

  Davis Case of Praem. Cooks Re∣port. l. 5.
• * 1.233

  Answ. to Cooks Rep. 5. par.••▪ 26••▪
• * 1.234

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 25 Ed. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 M. 25.
• * 1.235

  Cl••ment. l. 2. c 1. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.236

  A••ridge∣me••t of Records. p. 41.
• * 1.237

  Abridge∣ment of Records, p. 64.
• * 1.238

  Ib.
• * 1.239

  P. 80.
• * 1.240

  P. 100.
• * 1.241

  P. 10••.
• * 1.242

  P. 119.
• * 1.243

  P. 128.
• * 1.244

  P. 129.
• * 1.245

  P. 147.
• * 1.246

  P. 15••.
• * 1.247

  P. 161.
• * 1.248

  P. 182.
• * 1.249

  P. 186.
• * 1.250

  P. 295.
• * 1.251

  P. 324.
• * 1.252

  P. 333.
• * 1.253

  P. 341.
• * 1.254

  P. 347.
• * 1.255

  P. 348.
• * 1.256

  Ep••st. Apol. p. 113.
• * 1.257

  Abridge∣ment of Records. p. 387.
• * 1.258

  Petr. de Mar•••• Pro∣l••g. p. 51. l 2. c. 11. n. 8.
• * 1.259

  Vita H. Chi••bele p. 54, 55, 56, &c. a•• A D••••k.
• * 1.260

  Abridge∣ment of Records. 6 H 6. n. 16.
• * 1.261

  Sr. I. Davis Case of Praem••nire.
• * 1.262

  C••neert. Cathol. part. 3. c. 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.263

  The Jesu∣its Reaso••s unreasona∣ble. 1662.
• * 1.264

  A Let••er concerning the Jesuits. p. 8. 1662.
• * 1.265

  History of the Irish Remonstr. p. 16.
• * 1.266

  P. 18.
• * 1.267

  P. 49.
• * 1.268

  P. 102.
• * 1.269

  Epist. Apol. ••. 118.
• * 1.270

  Fitz-herb: Reply, ch. 4.
• * 1.271

  Ch. 5, 6, 7, &c.
• * 1.272

  Ch. 17. p. 112.
• * 1.273

  Adjoyn••er to Fitz Herberts first and second part. p. 73. N. 106. p. 69.
• * 1.274

  Epist. Apol. p. 98.
• * 1.275

  Revelatio Consilio••••m quae initio Synodi Tri∣deatinae in∣ter Pontifi∣cem, Caesa∣rem caete∣rosa; Reges, Principes, &c. sunt inita. A. 1620.
• * 1.276

  Ad Edictae Principum de li••e ti•• sectarum.
• * 1.277

  Auct. Clau∣dio de Sainctes.
• * 1.278

  Iacob. Pa∣m••lii de Re∣ligionibus diversis no•• admit.
• * 1.279

  A••tw. 1589. Casp. Sciop∣pii Classi∣cum Belli Sa••ri Ti∣cini. 1619.