The History of the Holy War, Book 2 · Chapter 5 – Chapter 6
Chap. 5. The scuffling betwixt the King and Patriarch about the city of Ierusalem; the issue thereof.
NOt long after, there was started a controversie of great consequence betwixt the King and Patriarch: the Patriarch claiming the cities of Jerusalem and Joppa, with the appertenances; the King refusing to surrender them.
The Patriarch pleaded, That these places anciently belonged to his predecessours: He set before the King the hainousnesse of sacriledge; how great a sinne it was when Princes, who should be nursing-fathers and suckle the Church, shall suck from it: and shewed how the Common-wealth may grow fat, but never healthfull, by feeding on the Churches goods.
On the other side the King alledged, That the Christian Princes had now purchased Jerusalem with their bloud, and bestowed it on him: that the Patriarchs overgrown title was drowned in this late conquest; from which, as from a new foundation, all must build their claims who challenge any right to any part in the city. Secondly, he pleaded, it was unreasonable that the King of Jerusalem should have nothing in Jerusalem (as at this day the Romane Emperour is a very ciphre, without power or profit in Rome) and should live rather as a sojourner then a Prince in his royall citie, confined to an airy title, whilest the Patriarch should have all the command.
To this the Patriarch answered, That the Christians new conquest could not cancell his ancient right, which was enjoyed even under the Saracens; That this voyage was principally undertaken for advancing the Church, and not to restore her onelyonly to her liberty, and withhold from her her lands, so that in this respect she should find better usage from her foes then from her children. If we mistake not, the chief pinch of the cause lieth on the Patriarchs proof, that the lands he demanded formerly belonged to his predecessours: and we find him to fail in the main issue of the matter. True it was, that for the last thirty yeares the Patriarchs on condition they should repair and fortifie the walls of Jerusalem, were possessed of a fourth part of the city, even by grant from Bomensor the Emperour of the Saracens, in the yeare of our Lord 1063. But that ever he had the whole citie, either by this or by any previous grant, it appeareth not in Tyrius; who saith moreover, *Lib. 9. cap. 16.We wonder for what reason the lord Patriarch should raise this controversie against Duke Godfrey.
Let me adde, that this our Authour is above exception: for being both a politick states-man and pious prelate, no doubt his penne strikes the true and even stroke betwixt King and Patriarch. Besides, he might well see the truth of this matter, writing in a well-proportioned distance of time from it. Those who live too neare the stories they write, oftentimes willingly mistake through partiality; and those who live too farre off, are mistaken by uncertainties, the footsteps of truth being almost worn out with time.
But to return to Godfrey, who though unwilling at first, yet afterwards not onelyonly on Candlemasse-day restored to the Patriarch the fourth part of the citie, but also on the Easter following, gave him all Jerusalem, Joppa, and whatsoever he demanded: conditionally that the King should hold it of the Patriarch till such time as he could conquer Babylon, or some other royall citie fit for him to keep his court in. If in the mean time Godfrey died without issue, the Patriarch was to have it presently delivered unto him.
We will be more charitable then those that say that the Patriarch herein did *Centuriatores, centur. 12. col. 490. De schismat.bewitch and be mad Godfrey to make this large donation to him, by torturing his conscience at the confession of his sinnes. OnelyOnly we may question the discretion of this Prince in giving a gift of so large a size: for Charities eyes must be open as well as her hands; though she giveth away her branches, not to part with the root.
And let the reader observe, that Godfrey at the time of this his bountifull grant lay on his death-bed, sick of that irrecoverable disease which ended him. How easily may importunity stamp any impression on those whom desperate sicknesse hath softened! And if the sturdiest man nigh death may be affrighted into good works for fear of Purgatory, no wonder if devout Godfrey were pliable to any demand.*In his Pass. 11. Pierce Plowman maketh a witty wonder, why Friers should covet rather to confesse and bury, then to christen children; intimating it proceeded from covetousnesse, there being gain to be gotten by the one, none by the other. And this was the age wherein the Covents got their best living by the dying: which made them (contrary to all other people) most to worship the sunne setting.
Chap. 6. Godfreys death and buriall.
AUthours differ on the death of this noble King: some making him to die of that long-wasting sicknesse; others, of the *P. Amylius, lib. 5.plague: It may be the plague took him out of the hands of that lingring disease, and quickly cut off what that had been long in fretting. He died July 18. having reigned one yeare wanting five dayes. A Prince valiant, pious, bountifull to the Church: for besides what he gave to the Patriarch, he founded Canons in the temple of the Sepulchre, and a monasterie in the vale of Jehoshaphat.
We would say his death was very unseasonable (leaving the orphane State not onelyonly in its minority, but its infancy) but that that fruit which to mans apprehension is blown down green and untimely, is gathered full-ripe in Gods providence. He was buried in the temple of the Sepulchre, where his tombe is unviolated at this day; whether out of a religion the Turks bear to the place, or out of honour to his memory, or out of a valiant scorn to fight against dead bones; or perchance the Turks are minded as John King of England was, who being wished by a Courtier to untombe the bones of one who whilest he was living had been his great enemy, Oh no, said King John, would all mine enemies were as honourably buried.