Vindication of Ecclesiastical Volume 3, Volume 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 2 · Document 64
REX omnibus ad quos, &c. Qui ſincerae Affectionis fervore, & gratuitae binevolentiae Pat. 31. Edw. 1. mem. 41. intus. De penſione conceſſa Cardinali.ſtudio noſtris utili atibus procurandis invigilant & inſistunt, dignum duximus & naturali conſonum eſſe novimus aequitati, ut eis mutuae viciſſitudiais beneficia rependamus. Attendentes igitur venerabilis patris Domini Gentilis, titulo ſancti Martini in montibus Presbyteri Cardinalis, amici noſtri Chariſſimi circumſpectam induſtriam, et ſollicitudinem operoſam quas in noſtris negotiis in ſancta Romana Curia promovendis hactenus adhibuit, eumque adhibiturum ſperamus Deo propitio in futurum, penſionem annuam Nota.Quinquaginta Marcarum ſterlingorum ad ſcaccarium noſtrum percipiendam, ad duos Anni Terminos, videlicetin feſtis Paſchae et ſancti Michaelis per aequales portiones ſibi duximus tenore praeſent ium concedendam; In cujus; &c. Teſte Rege apud Odynham Vndecimo die Januarii.
In all theſe Penſions and Annuities, I ſhall deſire the Readers to obſerve; 1. That they are granted out of the Kings Eſchequer only; payable half yearly at the feaſts of Easter & Michaelmas; juſt as King Johns penſion of a thouſand Marks by the year to the Pope was; 2ly. That the warrants for payment of the one & other run in the ſame form. 3ly. That the ſole motive or ground of our Kings granting and paying theſe penſions, was only to get the eaſier diſpatch of their buſineſſes in the Court of Rome by the aſſistance of theſe their Penſioners, which otherwiſe (for Romes and the Popes credit) they could not obtain, were their ſutes never ſo reaſonable. And this was the ſole reaſon why any of our Kings paid this annuity, firſt granted by King John, at any time to any Pope, even to procure a ſpeedy auſpicious anſwer, or elſe aſſiſtance from him in their affairs with forreign Princes, or relating to their own Rebellious Prelates, Subjects, or complaints againſt the Popes and his Legates intollerable Uſurpations, Exactions on their Crowns, or Subjects; Not that they ever reputed King Johns Charters valid, or obligatory to him or them in the leaſt degree, they proteſting, reſolving the contrary, as the premiſes demonſtrate.
Now to evidence this Charter and Rent yet more fully to be null in Law beyond contradiction, I ſhall deſire the Popes learnedeſt Advocates pleading for their validity to take notice of theſe particulars:
1. That the whole 8. Council of Toledo in Spain under King Receſuinthus, and this* Surius Concil Tom. 2. p. 865, 866. King himſelf about Anno 660. decreed, That not only the antient Crown-lands of the kingdom, but whatever Lands and Revenues their Kings acquired, quae pro ſolo conſtat eos imperii percepiſſe faſtigio, ſhould not deſcend to their ſons, but to the Succeſſor of the Realm; and not be alienated from the crown, nor ſubjected to the Kings perſon, but Regal power; Regem terrenum jura faciunt, non perſona, quia non conſtat ſui mediocritate, ſed ſublimitatis honore. Quae ergo honori debentur, honori deſerviant, & quae Reges accumulant Regno relinquant, ut quia eos regni gloria decorat, ipſi quoque regni gloriam non extenuent, ſed exornent, by enlarging, not extenuating or alienating the Revenues thereof; which this Council enjoyned their ſucceeding Kings by Oath to obſerve.
2. That it is the general received Reſolution of the learnedeſt Doctors and Profeſſors of the Civil Law, That no Emperor or King elective or hereditary, can alienate or ſubject the Royalties of his Crown, kingdom to any other perſon whatſoever, (eſpecially to a forreign Prince or Potentate) without the general conſent of his Nobles, Barons, Subjects; they being in truth but Truſtees, not Proprietors of all their Crown-lands, Rents, Revenues, for the Defence, Government and Benefit of their kingdoms, not abſolute Inheritors of them; and the alienation thereof a direct breach both of their Oaths, Truſts; and their Supream Soveraign power, eſſential to, inſeparable from their Regalities: This they reſolve in the caſes of Conſtantine, Charles the Great, P…pins, and Othoes pretended Donations of Rome and Italy to the Pope and his Succeſſors, the ſame in ſubſtance with King Johns.
aIn Cod. De omni agro deſert. l. Quicunque deſertum. f. 185, 186. Pariſiis 1509.Lucas de Penna, a moſt eminent Profeſſor of the Civil Law, reſolves, Imperii Regalia ſunt inalienabilia; and although the Emperor ſhould ſwear, that he would not revoke ſuch Royalties as were alienated to the prejudice of his Crown and dignity, poſſet tamen ea, non obſtante Iuramento revocare; becauſe the Emperor at his Coronation ſwears, Iura regni ſui et honorem Coronae illibata ſervare. From whence he (and bDr. Crakenthorps Defence of Conſtantine cap. 8. p. 160. 167.others) inferre; That by vertue of this Oath, the Emperors are ſtrictly obliged in duty both to God and to the Empire, to take unto themſelves not only thoſe fair and large Territories which the Pope hath either by fraud or force invaded, decking himſelf with the plumes of their Eagle; but eſpecially they ought to reſume that Dominion and Soveraignty of Authority in thoſe very Lands which the Pope now challengeth as his own. For this Soveraignty being the moſt proper and eſſential Privilege belonging to any Imperial Crown; by vertue of this their ſacred Oath, they ought utterly to refuſe (as they may) that other coacted Oath whereby they are moſt injuriouſly tied to permit the Pope (that man of ſinne) quietly to enjoy their Imperial Poſſeſſions, Rights, Royalties, and tread both themſelves and their Crowns under feet. The Romiſh cIndex Expurgat. juxta Concil. Trident. Decretum Phil. 2. Regis Catholico juſſu concinnatus.Gelders of all paſſages in Books that make againſt their Roman Pontif, or Religion, have gelt this maſculine paſſage (of no leſſe then 178. lines in folio) out of Penna, which comes home to King Johns caſe.
dIn Prooemio de feud. n. 32, 33Baldus Peruſinus a learned Civilian, writing of the pretended Donation ofAnno 1571. Conſtantine to the Pope, delivers this as his own and other Doctors reſolutions therein. They determin, Hanc donationem quoad expropriationem territorii, Dignitatis et Iuriſdictionis, non valere, nec poſsibilem eſſe. The commodities, profits, and profitable Dominion may be granted, ſalva ſemper ab Imperio recognitione et fide. For to ſay, that the Emperor could by this donation mutilare Imperium, and cut off the Members thereof, eſt ſpecies fatuitatis; it being never his intention: nor yet King Johns, as the Saving in the Charter fully demonſtrateth:
aIn Rubr. ff. de Verborum obligat.Fr. Aretinus a Grand Doctor of the Civil Law, not only aſſents unto; but highly applauds the judgement of Baldus hereiri; Eleganter tradit Baldus, quod Imperator non potest dare quotam Imperii, neither a third, nor a fourth part, nor half of his Empire; whereby Baldus means, That the Empire being an intire and univerſal power, the Emperor by giving ought, ceaſeth not to be the Univerſal Lord of all belonging to the Empire.
bDe Pontificis Poteſtate Axioma.Franciſcus Vargas layes down theſe 2. Poſitions, 1. Suprema Principis Juriſdictio eſt prorſus inabdicabilis. 2. Impoſſibile eſt Imperatorem facere aliquem vel parem ſibi, vel ſuperiorem; citing Baldus, with divers other Lawyers concurring with him herein: His reaſou is, Quia Lex Regia contradicit; and that it is inconſiſtent with Regality: Therefore King John could not alienate his Regality, nor make the Pope his ſuperiour in his own Realms.
Didacus Co…arruvias writing of the Supream Soveraignty belonging to a King or Emperor, reſolves; cPract. Quaeſt. c. 4. nu. 1.Nullo modo alienari poteſt, though in giving Lands, Cities or Territories, the King uſe never ſo ample and abundant words in his charter, Becauſe this Soveraignty is eſſential to Regal Majeſty. He and Vargas citing Gulielmus Benedictus, Carolus Degraſſatus, and Felinus concurring with them herein.
Boetius Epon. profeſſedly, and at large diſcuſſeth this point, and thus reſolves it, dBoetius Epon Heroic. quaeſ. qu 3. nu. 43.The Donation of Conſtantine did no way concern the alienating or giving up of the Roman Empire; but only the alienating of all the places in Italy, and in the whole Weſt. Conſtantine did not Abdicate his Empire, or give it to the Pope ne per Occidentem quidem, no not in the Weſt, nor in Italy, nor in the very City of Rome; he honoured the Pope as much as he could, citra imperii vel abdicationem, vel alienationemullo e Ibid. quaeſt. 5. nu. 19.modo, without either abdicating, or any way alienating the Empire. He gave to the Pope a certain right of Juriſdiction, and Rule in the Weſtern Regions, Imperio Romano inferius atque minutius, but inferiour and leſſe then Imperial… Ibid. num. 27. Authority. He gave to the Pope Imperium honorarium duntaxat et ſecundarium, ſed minime ſupremum, an honourable and ſecundary Government, but not the Supream. That ſupream Authority in ſolidum penes Conſtantinum remanſit etiam in Occidente. And in his *Gloſſa in cap. Conſtantinus, poſt. 1. qu. 5. nu. 211.Commentary, which for the honour and credit of Conſtantines Donation he hath made upon it, he ſets this down with a Memorandum, Notabis hinc, That the Empire or Soveraignty in Italy and in the Weſt, was not transferred by Conſtantine to the Pope, and very often he repeats the like.
Albericus de Roſate, a famous Civilian, is moſt punctual in this particular. gDe Quadrienii praeſcript. Bene à Zenonii nu. 4. f. 111. col. 4.Let us ſee (ſaith he) whether Conſtantines Donation could be offarce to the prejudice of his Succeſſors? Accurſius holds it could not: ſo doth John de Pariſiis, Becauſe none being deputed to an Office, may doe ought againſt his own Office. But it is againſt the Office deputed to the Emperour, to impair his Empire, or to cut and take away any one part from it; For by the ſame reaſon that he may cut away one part, he may cut away alſo another, and ſo may his Succeſſors; and ſo the Empire ſhould at laſt be brought to nothing and utterly deſtroyed, which is againſt the Publique good, and the end why the Empire is ordained. Ex quo verè credo, Whereupon I do truly believe, that the aforeſaid Donation De Iure, cannot be of force to prejudice the Empire, or the Succeſſors. He adds, hDe Juriſdict, Jud: lex finali S. per iniquum n. 4. f. 146.That praeſcriptio dat utile Dominium Eccleſiae, (praeſtitis tamen Tributis & Cenſibus Imperatorum) Directum non tollit. Contra Principem non niſi quoad utile Dominium praeſcribitur; becauſe the Pope in uſing this Dominion, doth it as the Emperors Deputy or Miniſter, and in the Emperors name, and ſo the Soveraignty ſtill rests in the Emperor, againſt which there is no preſcription. As for preſcription by the Canon Law, that is leaſt available for the Pope: For by the Canon Law there is required to a valid preſcription, TITULUS, & BONA FIDES; Both which (in this caſe of Conſtantines Donation, and ſo in King Iohns too) he ſaith, ſeem to be wanting, for there is a Title pretended, where there is no Title at all, quia datus per eum quidare non potuit, and becauſe the alienation is made contrary to Law, as we have ſhewed: Bona fides alſo is here wanting, becauſe the Pope and his Succeſſors knew, Res eſſe alienas, hoc eſt Imperii. Thus Albericus moſt clearly reſolves; whoſe words and reaſons extend as fully to King Johns Charter, as to Conſtantines pretended. Donation to the Pope.
aMonarchiae. pars 1. c. 70, 71 p. 295, 296, 297, 298, 299.Antonius Roſellus, (noble both for his birth and learning in the Civil Law, and other Literature,) though he defends the Donations made to Popes by Conſtantine, Charles, Lewes and Otho; yet after long debate, he concludes thus: Firmiter teneo, That as to thoſe lands and territories which the Pope hath from antient times poſſeſſed by vertue of thoſe gifts, they are good for the poſſeſſion, profits, & utile Dominium, ſeeing therin the Imperial right is not taken away, SED DIRECTUM IMPERIUM EST PENES CAESAREM. Directum Imperium eſt in oſſibus Caeſaris, irremovibile, vel inalienabile; Habet ergo Papa executionem poteſtatis, in the Territories given him, but he hath not the Soveraign power over them, that belongs to the Emperor, who in all temporal goods and poſſeſsions is the Soveraign Prince; For as we daily ſee the Emperor gives Dukedoms, Earldoms, or Kingdoms, et tamen retinet in directo Dominio ipſam Inriſdictionem et Jus Imperii in ipſis bonis, aut commiſsis; even ſo in thoſe gifts given by the Emperors to the Church or Pope JUS IMPERII et Juriſdictionem retinuit, et retinet, quamvis utile Dominium ejus, et executionem poteſtatis Pontifici commiſit. He ſubjoyns. The Donation to the Pope is good, quoad proprietatem & dominium particulare, ſed non quoad Juriſdictionem totalem & Jus Imperii. Although the Pope be capable of Imperial right quoad ſubſidium, non tamen eſt capax principaliter, & ideo impoſſibile eſt per viam praeſcriptionis. Nay it is impoſſible, that in the ſame perſon ſhould ſubſiſt the Imperial Authority and the Priesthood; & ideo impoſſibile eſt per viam praeſcriptionis. He further reſolves, If there happen a controverſie betwixt the Pope and the Prince concerning any meer temporal matter, I think the Emperour himſelf ought to be Judge herein; ſeeing in Temporal matters he is above all, even the Pope himſelf; & ipſe eſt Judex ſuae cauſae, the Emperour is Judge in his own cauſe, as the Law teacheth. (Therefore King John, his Succeſſors and Parliaments are meet Judges in the caſe of England, by like reaſon, who have adjudged this Kings Charter voyd.) He proceeds one ſtep further.
Whereas the Popes to make ſure that Authority which they uſe in the Patrimony of St. Peter, cauſe the Emperour to ſwear, that he will not exerciſe that Imperial Authority which he hath in thoſe Lands, but permit the Popes to enjoy the ſame as they have uſed, (tying the Emperours by this Oath from the exerciſe of any Imperial Juriſdiction in thoſe Territories) this learned Lawyer teacheth; That Emperours indeed after they have once taken this Oath, cannot intermeddle in thoſe Lands, but ought by vertue of their Oath, leave the Juriſdiction therein to the Pope; But withall he adds, that ſeeing the Emperor retaineth ſtill the direct dominion in thoſe Lands, which dominion he cannot poſſibly paſſe away to the Pope, his Succeſſors need not to take that Oath, and not taking it (ſaith he) they may actually uſe their own Imperial Rights, and Juriſdiction in the ſame, and it were better they would do ſo.
bDe Jure Belli & Pacis l 2. cap 6. ſect. 2. to 12 &c.Hugo Grotius, (one of the learnedeſt, moſt judicious Lawyers, Scholars of this later age) poſitively concludes. Rex partem populi alienare non poteſt, niſi etiam pars de qua alienanda agitur conſentiat; accedente populi conſenſu libero, alienari poſſe etiam à rege, quid obſtet non video. cBelluga in pr. …pec. in rub. 8. p. 3, & 4. Roch. de Curte de conſuet: q. 5. col 6. Tom. 1. & alii alegat. a Vaſq. lib. 1. cap. 1.Quare ſubſcribere non poſſumus Juriſconſultis, qui de non alienandis Imperii partibus adjiciunt exceptiones duas, de publica utilitate, & de neceſſitate, niſi hoc ſenſu, ut ubi eſt eadem utilitas communis, & corporis & partis, facile etiam ex ſilentio etiam non longi temporis, conſenſus & populi & partis interveniſſe videatur, facilius verò ſi etiam neceſſitas appareat. At ubi manifeſta eſt in contrarium voluntas, aut corporis aut partis, nihil actum debet intelligi. Sub alienatione merito comprehenditur & infeudatio, ſub onere. Quare videmus a pluribus populis irritas habitas ut alienationes, ita infeudationes Regnorum quas populis inconſultis Reges fecerant. Populum autem conſenſiſſe intelligimus, ſive totus coiit, quod olim apud Germanos & Gallos fieri ſolebat, ſive per Legatos partium integrantium mandato ſufficiente inſtructos: Nam facimus quod & per alium facimus. (d) Sed nec pignori dari pars Imperii poterit, niſi conſenſu ſimili, * Smith de Rep…b. Angl. c. 9. B…ch. in Baliolo. Froſſard. l. 1. c. 214. & 246. Monſtrel Hiſt. c. 22. &c. Guicc. l. 16.non ea tantum de cauſa quod ex pignoris datione ſequi alienatio ſoleat, ſed quod et Rex teneatur populo ad exercendum per ſe ſummum Imperium, et populus partibus ſuis ad conſervandum hoc exercitium in ſua integritate, cujus rei gratia in ſocietatem civilem coitum eſt. dAlberic. in c. intellectos de jurejur. Bart. in l. prohibens plane D. quod vi. Corſet …n tract: de excell: Regis q. 4. Loazes alla Vaſq. c. 5. Natat conſ. 367. Boni…. Rug. conſ. 49. u. 43.Patrimonium quoque populi, cujus fructus deſtinati ſunt ad ſuſtentanda Reipublicae, aut Regiae dignitatis onera, a Regibus alienari nec in totum nec in partem poteſt: Nam in hoc jus majus fructuario non habent. Nec admitto diſtinctionem, ſi res modicum videat, quia quod meum non eſt, ejus nec exiguam partem alienare mihi jus eſt, ſed in rebus modicis quam in magnis conſenſus populi ex ſcientia, et ex ſilentio facilius praeſumitur. Exiſtimat ffol. 4. c. 16.Barclaius, Si Rex regnum alienet, aut alii ſubjiciat, amitti ab eo regnum. Ego hic ſubſiſto. Nam talis actus ſi regnum electione aut ſucceſſoria lege deferatur, Nullus eſt; quae autem nulla ſunt, nullum habent Juris effectum. Unde & de uſufructuario, cui Regem talem ſimilem diximus, verior mihi videtur Juriſconſultorum ſententia, e De Jure Belli & Pacis l. 1. c 4 ſect. 10. p. 89.ſi extraneo Jus ſuum cedat, nihil eum agere. Et quod dicitur ad Dominum proprietatis reverti uſumfructum, intelligen…um legitimo tempore. Si tamen Rex re ipſa etiam tradere regnum, aut ſubiicere moliatur, quin ei reſiſti in hoc poſsit, non dubito. In fine, he reſolves thus, gDe Jure Belli l. 2. c. 13. Sect. 12, 13, 14.That the contracts of Kings prejudicial to their kingdoms, binde neither their Succeſſors nor kingdoms, but are void. hTacitus hiſt. l. 3.Apud Sapientes caſſa habebantur, quae neque dari, neque accipi ſalva republica poterant. Si quo caſu contractus incipiat vergere non ad damnum modo aliquod, ſed ad perniciem publicam, ita ut ab initio contractus in extenſione ad illum caſum cenſendus fuiſſet injuſtus & illicitus, tunc non tantum revocari eum contractum poſſe, quam declarari eum non ultra obligare, quaſi factum ſub conditione ſine qua juſte fieri non potuit. Illud quoque a multis iCurt. jun. conſ. 138. n. 4. conſ. 157. n. 18. C…avetta de autem, 2. p. 1. partis primae n. 28. Bell. in ſpec. princ. rubr. 26. Ant. Gabr. lib. 1 tit. de jure quaeſ. non tollendo concl 6. n. 20. & concl. 7 vide citatos per Rein…ingium, libr. 11. claſs. 11. cap. 8. num. 26.traditum, beneficia Principum quae liberaliter ſunt conceſſa ſemper poſſe revocari, ſine distinctione tranſmittendum non eſt; i. e. niſi quod ſubditos attinet ad poenam, aut ob utilitatem publicam, Contractibus vero eorum qui ſine Jure Imperium invaſerunt, (the caſe of King John as to the Pope) non tenebuntur populi aut veri Reges, nam hi jus obligandi populum non habuerunt. And in his Adnotata he recites theſe examples of revocations of ſuch gifts made by the Roman and Graecian Emperors, and Kings of France, Arragon, and Poland. Laudat & applicat, Mariana, ad immenſam munificentiam Friderici Regis Neopolitani xxiv. 16 à Nerone donata etiam ab emptoribus repetiit Galba relicta decima. Tacitus Hiſtoriarum 1. & Plutarchus. Pertinax etiam à libertis ea exegit, quae ſub specie venditionis Commodo principi lucrifecerant. Macedo Imperator repetiit quae Michael Imperator elargitus fuerat. Zonaras de eo. Communi conſenſu placuit, ut qui pecunias multas nulla probabili ex cauſa accepiſſent, partim totas, partim dimidium redderent. Vide eundem Iſaacio Comneno de donationibus Ludovici xi. Vide Serranum Carolo 8. de ejuſdem donationibus etiam quae Eccleſiis facta non ſervatis Philippum Cominaeum lib. 9. Marianam. vero de donationibus quas Arragoniae Rex Ramirus fecerat, reſciſſis, Libro 10. cap. 16 de Iſabellae donationibus reſciſſis per ipſam 272. Cromerum de Caſimiti Regis Poloniae teſtamento partim probato, partim improbato xii. So that by Grotius his own Reſolution, with the reſolves of the Hiſtorians, Emperors, Kings, and near 20. famous Civilians cited by him in the Margin, King Johns Charter and Penſion muſt needs be void in Law to all intents, againſt himſelf, his Succeſſors, kingdoms, their reaſons, and reſolutions extending punctually thereunto.
*The General Hiſt: of France p. 576, 577, 578 Grimſtons Imperial Hiſtory, p. 646, 647.Francis the 1. King of France being taken priſoner in the battel of Pavia by the Emperor Charles the 5th. to procure his Liberty Anno 1525. by Articles under his hand and Seal ratifyed by his Corporal Oath, promiſed to conſign and deliver up unto the Emperor the Dutchie of Burgundy, for his ranſom: Whereupon being enlarged, the Emperor preſſing him to perform his Articles and Oath, he returned this Anſwer, to which he adhered; That it was not in the power of a French King to bind himſelf to the alienation of any Lands, Towns or Territories belonging to the Crown, without the conſent of the General Eſtates of France, and of his Soveraign Courts and Officers, in whoſe hands the Authority of the whole Realm remained: And that he had no power to releaſe his Right to any of the territories belonging to the Crown of France, without his Kingdoms and Parliaments conſents; no not to purchaſe his own freedom and ranſom thereby; wherein all the Civilians of France concurred with him. Much leſſe then could King John ſurrender and alienate both his kingdoms to the Pope without any conſideration at all.
I ſhall conclude with the Authority of that moſt famous Grand Lawyer and Stateſman John Bodin, in his Book of Commonwealth, tranſlated into moſt Languages; where he thus reſolves at large, with abundance of Reaſon and ingenuity, againſt the power of Kings or Republikes to alienate the publike Revenues, diſcovering the maniſold miſchiefs, frauds enſuing thereupon.