1

had made no submission. Becket, therefore, had no authority to remove the excommunication; he would have incurred irregularity by doing it, and thus have, himself, become liable to the censures of the church: hence, he refused, and braved, by his refusal, a cruel death. His conduct was admired and applauded by the whole world. You must be aware, that the liberties, confirmed to the church. by Magna Charta, included equally those rights for which Becket contended at Clarendon, and those for which he was murdered at Canterbury.

Some candid protestants have done justice to his memory: Collier's account of the controversy between him and his sovereign* deserves a serious perusal.

With one further observation I must trouble you. No roman-catholic imagines, at this time, that the ecclesiastics were entitled, by divine right, to the immunity, for which Becket contended, in the first stage of the controversy. All agree, that the only real title to it is by grant from the state, or by immemorial usage, in which a grant is always pre-supposed. Now, such a grant might have been made on grounds, both of wisdom and sound policy. The rules of the gospel are equally calculated to produce obedience to the laws, as to form individuals to virtue and holiness; it is, therefore, the duty of the state to promote whatever has a tendency to make the gospel respected. Experience shows, that respect for the gospel exists seldom, without respect for its ministers; there might,

* Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, p. 343–347.

therefore, be good sense to keep their occasional scandals from the public eye, and, for this purpose, to confine the investigation of them to the ecclesiastical tribunals of the realm: some individuals might, by this arrangement, escape punishment; but the legislature might have been wise in considering, that although this would be mischievous, exposure would be a greater mischief.

LETTER IX.

I. CESSION BY KING JOHN OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ENGLAND TO POPE INNOCENT III.-II. TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE.

SIR,

1 HAVE now reached your ninth chapter; it turns chiefly on the pope's exercise of temporal power. In the present state of the controversy between the protestants and roman-catholies of this realm, it is the most important chapter of your work. I shall premise my discussion of it, by some observations on your account of the transactions between the pope and king John.

IX. 1.

Cession by King John of the Sovereignty of England to Pope Innocent III.

It is usually supposed, that John absolutely divested himself of the sovereignty of the kingdom, and transferred it to Innocent. This was not the fact the monarch retained his sovereignty, but agreed, that he and his successors should hold it from the pope and his successors in fee simple, by homage and fealty, and by the annual render of 10,000 marks. The consequence was, that, in respect to his subjects, and their rights, John continued in the possession of the same regalities, and subject to the same obligations, as before; for, in all cases of lord, vassal, and sub-vassal, the lord had no direct

right over the sub vassal, or any direct estate or interest in his territory. The lord's right and interest consisted in this, that if the vassal neglected to perform the services, or pay the rent incident to his tenure, the territory was subject to the lord's remedy for enforcing them, and liable, in some instances, to be forfeited. When this happened, the vassalage was extinguished; and the sub-vassal became, from that time, chief or immediate tenant to the lord. It is the same, at the present time, with respect to a manor, which the lord of it holds of the lord of another manor. If the intermediate lord neglects to pay his rent, or to perform his service, the superior lord may enforce them by distress, and, in some cases, by seizing the intermediate manor for forfeiture. When the forfeiture takes place, the lordship of the intermediate manor ceases, and the tenants of it become actual or immediate tenants of the superior lord. It may be added, that, at the time to which the subject of these letters has led us, there scarcely was, in Christendom, a sovereign who was not possessed of territories, for which he was a vassal, either to some other sovereign, or to the subject of another sovereign.

Still, if the transaction had rested here, both the monarch and the pontiff would have been inexcusable, as the former had no right to confer, or the latter to receive, the ultimate feudal superiority created by the arrangement.

But it may be observed, in justification both of the monarch and the pontiff, that the prelates,

barons, and knights of the realm, were parties to the transaction, and concurred in it. You yourself inform us, that all parties had alternately appealed to the pope. The ignominious ceremony was performed in their presence, and without even a murmur of disapprobation: it may be added, that it took place under a national apprehension of a French invasion; and it is not a little remarkable, that the barons, soon afterwards, transferred their allegiance to Lewis, the son of the French monarch, then at the head of the invading army. Considering all these circumstances, you will probably think with me, that the transaction has not been fairly represented by the generality of our historians; that the king, and his spiritual and temporal lords, share the blame in common with the pontiff; and that he was less blameable than they.

IX. 2.

Temporal Power of the Pope.

FROM an humble fisherman, the pope successively became owner of houses and lands, acquired the power of magistracy in Rome, and large territorial possessions in Italy, Dalmatia, Sicily, Sardinia, France and Africa, and ultimately obtained the rank and consequence of a great temporal prince.

Here the pope did not stop; but claimed, by divine gift, a right to exercise supreme temporal power over all christian sovereigns, when a great