If he seem proud of any thing, it is of the divine panoply of truth, with which he feels himself encompassed. "Illa dei donis et tanto lotus honore Expleri nequit, atque oculis per singula volvit, The terms "gentlemanly" and "gentlemanlike," and words of similar import, borrowed from the language of refinement, occur so often in "the Book of the Roman Catholic Church," that the author's principal anxiety appears to be, that the Roman Catholic faith should be considered the most aristocratic and gentlemanlike religion in the world. The writer of "the Accusations of History against the Church of Rome," is equally bent upon keeping his temper, and preserving the rules of decorum, but he conducts the discussion, not merely as a wellbred disputant, but as a philosophical, and what is more important, as a Christian reasoner,- -as one, who has an high interest at stake, and who must earnestly contend for "the faith once delivered to the saints." He speaks as one having authority, as though he felt strong in the assurance that he has the testimony of history, the voice of reason, and the word of God on his side. There is no trifling, and no playing with his subject. His paragraphs are short and pithy. He dispatches an argument in a few conclusive sentences. He does not leave it necessary to return to the attack, but bears down upon the assailable point at once, with all the force that sound principles and incontrovertible matters of fact can give him. Every chapter contains a fund of information upon historical and ecclesiastical topics;-so much so, that the best read, and most experienced controversialist, may gather something from the perusal of it. The manifest object of Mr. Townsend is to confute error, while he advocates a good cause, and not to shine as a bookmaker; the fastidious critic therefore will overlook some defects, which are to be attributed principally to the necessary haste with which the volume was got up. Mr. Butler's book required an immediate answer; and when it is remembered, that Mr. Townsend's reply of 312 octavo pages was published within a very few weeks after the other, the wonder is, how so many authorities could have been consulted, so many documents adduced, and such a mass of materials put together, in so short a space of time. Mr. Townsend has worked into a methodical series, plain, learned, and cogent arguments against the Roman Catholic tem. His book is, indeed, particularly valuable for the authori sys ties which he gives. The beginning corroborates the Bishop of Chester's observations, which we have just quoted; and at p. 23 is the following pertinent remark upon the taunt which Mr. Butler has condescended to echo against the variety of Protes tant sects. "I could have selected from the writings of the Romanist divines nearly every doctrinal opinion which is advocated by our jarring sectaries. Arminianism was the doctrine of the Jesuists; Calvinism of the Jansenists; Quakerism of the Franciscans; Socinianism in all its gradations from Arianism to Belshamism, was taught by the authors enumerated in the Roma Racoviana' of Jameson-the fanaticism of new sects among us was the same with that of new orders among you; yet all these appeal to Popery, and protest against the Scriptures. This recrimination however is unworthy of either party." We quite agree with Mr. Townsend in his address to Mr, Butler upon the comparison between Romish and Scripture miracles. "You in fact resign the Romish miracles to their fate, when you conclude that no miracles, except those which are related in the Old or New Testament are articles of faith. If all are from God, all are to be received, for all would be undeniable." P. 48. And the following is a striking passage: "The Protestant may reject the opinions which Scripture or reason convince him are absurd. The Romanist is permitted to reject nothing which his Church has once sanctioned. The undeniable fact is, that the council of Trent has sanctioned, and confirmed and strengthened all your past errors. The council of Trent has fettered your communion with its bonds and chains, and you cannot be free. You are like the imprisoned eagles. You have wings that can soar to heaven, and eyes that would meet the mid-day sun: but your wing droops, and your eye is blinded; for the council of Trent has legislated in darkness, and the morning is past and the day of knowledge is come, but you may not, you cannot fly, nor gaze." There are also some extremely good remarks upon the forced celibacy of the clergy, p, 60; and on the disputes between the Popes and Kings, concerning the rights of investiture, occurs this seasonable paragraph: "The Protestant asserts, that the perfect obedience of the subject cannot be enforced by the sovereign, if any foreign influence whatever be permitted to interpose. Then as now the Romanist would have granted that homage to the pope which he refused to his temporal prince. The evil complained of, was the conduct of the sovereign (in nominating to vacant bishoprics): the remedy proposed was the interference of the pope. A Protestant of the present day would decide, that the remedy should have been found in the law, and by the senate of the country, or that the Clergy should have submitted to persecution as the martyrs of old. The Romanist would decide that the pope was right, for he was authorized to govern, and his power was merely spiritual. Both theory and experience unite to convince the world that spiritual allegiance, without temporal power, is an utter impossibility." P. 68. The subject of the independence of the Clergy upon the State, and the separate (" divine," Dr. Milner calls it) jurisdiction of the Church, is farther treated very elaborately by Mr. Townsend in his Eighth Letter; and to this we shall at present confine our remarks, as it relates to the question really in dispute at the present day. As the primitive Christians died for the faith of the Gospel, so Archbishop Becket was the champion and martyr of that Church, which has not been backward to own and pay her debt of gratitude to him, formerly by the tribute of the most splendid ecclesiastical honours, and now by gallantly vindicating his memory. There is some special pleading in the defence, and the controversy is divided into three. stages, 1st. the exemption of the Clergy from the jurisdiction of civil tribunals; 2dly. the Archbishop's conduct with regard to the constitutions of Clarendon; and 3dly. his excommunication of the prelates, who in opposition to his authority, as Primate, had assisted at the coronation of the son of the reigning king. It is undeniable that the immunities of the Clergy in the age of Becket, were pushed to an extent, which produced great practical evils by sheltering from punishment ecclesiastics who had committed the worst crimes. Encouraged by success, the Popes had also begun to develope their system of temporal power, and of subjugating to their authority all sovereigns and countries. Henry the Second of England, in proceeding to check with spirit and ability these encroachments, which threatened to leave him only the shadow of a sceptre, reckoned upon the co-operation of his favourite, the new Primate; and it was natural the king should feel disgusted and irritated at finding that priest his most pertinacious opponent. Henry inherited from his Norman blood, as Mr. Southey observes, a temper to make men tremble; and in the course of the contest he broke out into acts of indefensible passion and violence. But was Becket faultless? Did he really perish, according to Mr. Butler's account. for" a faithful adherence to ecclesiastical duty?" Did he only assert the rights of the Clergy in a peaceable and legal manner? Quite the reverse: his obstinate pride and turbulence were blamed by the English bishops, even by the Pope, and by his chief abettor Louis, king of France. It is in vain to lay the fault upon the age. His sincerity and high courageous spirit are admitted: but contrast the temper and firmness with which, not fifty years afterwards, Primate Langton, at the head of the barons, extorted from King John (in spite of his foreign allies), not exorbitant privileges for the Clergy exclusively, but that great charter which, in laying the lawful foundation of the liberties of all classes of Englishmen, has been a benefit to each succeeding generation. No doubt the age was barbarous, and the immunities of the Church were useful and popular in affording protection from the tyranny of feudal lords; but these immunities had some reasonable limitation. Under the Roman emperors, "when the State was concerned in the prosecution, no privilege of Orders could secure the Clergy from the cognizance of the civil courts." Collier, b. iv. p. 372.. "The right of granting investiture of the temporalities was acknowledged in the Emperor Charlemagne, A.D. 773, by Pope Hadrian I., and the council of Lateran, and universally exercised by other Christian princes. Hence the right of appointing to bishoprics is said to have been in the crown of England (as well as other kingdoms in Europe) even in the Saxon times.” Blackstone, b. i. p. 378. In vain do the Roman Catholics contend that the constitutions of Clarendon were "recent inventions," contrary to the then law of the land. They might not all be " ancient usages" of the realm; but there is proof that generally they had a reference to customs prevailing before the innovations of the Norman conquest; when according to Mr. Sharon Turner (vol. i. p. 209 and 321) "the Clergy were subject to the common law of the land." Let us be permitted to produce another and a weighty authority to the same effect: "of clerical exemption from the secular arm we find no earlier notice than in the coronation oath of Stephen, which, though vaguely expressed, may be construed to include it. But I am not certain that the law of England had unequivocally recognized that claim at the time of the constitutions of Clarendon. It was at least an innovation which the legislature might without scruple or transgression of justice abolish." Hallam's Hist. of the Middle Ages, c. vii. p. 84. To these constitutions, Archbishop Becket himself engaged, and retracted his consent, with a wavering which should at least prompt the Roman Catholics to judge charitably of Archbishop Cranmer's well-redeemed inconstancy under somewhat similar 66 circumstances. Both afterwards met death with more than intrepidity, and we may therefore conclude that their previous hesitation was caused neither by fear nor want of principle, but by a suspense of judgment under events the most trying to human virtue. For Cranmer we claim these advantages,—an unvarying personal humility and meekness towards his enemies, and the pursuit of a line of policy, the wisdom of which, like Primate Langton's, has been proved by long experience and success. The storm raised by Becket failed to effect his purpose, for on the whole," says Hume (ch. 9.) "the constitutions of Clarendon remained still the law of the realm." King Henry " resigned none of the essential rights of his crown," though he made atonement to the Church, partly from devotion, partly from policy, for the murder of the archbishop; and submitted by way of penance to the lashes of the monks on that spot, where 450 years before Laurentius suffered a similar infliction, as he gave out, from St. Peter, but as we may reasonably suppose, from his own hands, in the sincerity of religious zeal. Such are the revolutions of opinion and of human affairs. The Archbishop's intractable temper towards the prelates who crowned the young king, in proportion as it gains for him the praise of bravery, must detract from his charity. The ceremony was performed during his absence or exile from England, and under the authority of a bull from Rome, which the Pope granted clandestinely, and revoked with duplicity. (Henry's Hist. b. iii. c. 2.) Besides in that age institution to offices, and even the succession to the throne rested not on fixed rules: Becket himself had been uncanonically appointed to the see of Rome; the reigning pope Alexander III. had to contend with the claims of three anti-popes in succession, during his long pontificate, and in order to prevent such confusion it was settled in the third general council of Lateran A.D. 1179, that twothirds of the whole number of cardinals must concur to make valid the election of the supreme pontiff. Such are the facts, but it is plain that our dispute with the Roman Catholics is not concerning historical events, but concerning the causes which led to these events, and the inferences to be drawn from them. They naturally tell their own story, plausibly, in their own favour; and in order to counteract their recent publications, it becomes necessary for Protestants to repeat what has been often established from authentic documents. The mischiefs of two independent jurisdictions within the same realm are strikingly exemplified in the reign of Henry the Second, when the Church and the King were contending for the government of England. Upon this point Mr. Townsend |