appears to have been the cry raised on a battle-field after a victory'. They hastily searched the palace for money and papers, and carried off as much spoil as they could. A multitude of people flocked in to the cathedral, and gathered around the body, kissing the hands and feet, smearing their eyes with the blood, dipping their garments in it, and each endeavouring to secure some relic of the saint.

6 66

“His pall and outer pelisse," says Benedict', were, with a somewhat inconsiderate piety, bestowed on the poor for the good of his soul; and happy would their receivers have been, had they not forthwith sold them, preferring the little money which they fetched."

After a time the monks turned out the crowd, shut the doors of the cathedral, and placed the body of the archbishop in front of the high altar; and they spent the night in watching around it with sorrow and anxiety. Then it was, according to Fitzstephen, that the confessor, Robert of Merton, thrust his hand into the bosom, and drew out the shirt of hair, which had been worn in secret; and the monks lifted up their voices in admiration of this proof of a sanctity beyond what they had suspected.

In the morning an armed force appeared in the neighbourhood of the city; and Robert de Broc, in the name of his brother Ranulph, threatened that the body should be exposed to indignities unless it were buried forthwith, and without ceremony. The monks in haste proceeded to the funeral rites. They either washed the corpse, or, (for here again the accounts disagree,) they did not wash it,-thinking no further cleansing than that of its own blood necessary for a body which had so long been purified by fasting and discipline; and in preparing it for interment they discovered fresh evidences of holiness; for not only was the shirt of hair, but the drawers also-a mortification without example among English saints'; and these garments were filled with countless vermin, "so that any one," says Grim, "would think that the martyrdom of the preceding day was less grievous than that which these small enemies continually inflicted." And thus, on the day after his murder, the body of Archbishop Thomas was buried by the Abbot of Boxley, in the crypt of the

cathedral.

It is not for us to relate at length the sequel of the history;

5 Bened. in Quadr. iii. 18.

6 Quad. iii. 21.

7 "Quod antea apud nostrates fuerat inauditum."-Joh. Sarisb., in S. T. C. i. 338.

8 S. T. C. i. 82. The words have already been quoted, p. 53.

-the miracles wrought by the saint; his canonization; the wretched end of his murderers (in which the fabulous element appears pretty strongly); the penance of King Henry; the renown acquired by St. Thomas; the immense resort of pilgrims to the place of his martyrdom; the magnificence expended on his tomb; the honours paid to him for three centuries and a half, until in the reign of Henry VIII. his shrine was demolished, his ashes scattered to the winds, his name erased from the servicebooks, and his memory declared infamous, as that of a traitor to the kingdom. Neither shall we detail the course of opinion as to his merits since that period;-the often grievously unjust and exaggerated censures of Protestants; the generally half-hearted and qualified apologies of Romanists,-until in our own days a re-action, begun in a just desire to discriminate between the deserved and the undeserved portions of his evil repute, has been carried out by paradox, affectation, and idle sentimentalism.

We could, indeed, wish, and we have all along intended, to express with some fulness our opinion as to the character and merits of Becket; but we must now be content with having indicated it in the course of our narrative, which has run out to an unexpected length. If the reader should consider us mistaken, we trust that he will not blame us as unfair.

For a description of this, when his honours were at their height, see Erasmus, Peregrinatio Religionis ergo." (Opp. Lugd. Bat. 1703, vol. i. 783-786.)

ART. V.-The Supremacy Question, or Justice to the Church of England. An Appeal to British Justice for the removal of the Difficulties which at present impede the proper Exercise of the Royal Supremacy and the necessary work of Church Reform, &c. By the Rev. G. E. BIBER, LL.D. London: Rivingtons.

THAT the connexion of Church and State gives rise to many embarrassing questions, and that it is liable to the incidental evils of encroachments and usurpations on the one part or the other, is undoubtedly true; and yet it is no such easy matter to put an end to this alliance, as some worthy men imagine it to be. Even supposing the total separation of Church and State to be a desirable event for the Church, and to be actually wished by the Church, it does not by any means follow that the other party interested should take the same view; and yet, without the concurrence of the State, a separation would perhaps lead to evils more serious than any which arise from the present arrangements. It is not impossible certainly that the clergy, if supported by the great body of the laity, might be able to refuse all interference, on the part of the State, in the organization of the Church, as a spiritual body. It might be very possible to resume the election of bishops; to hold synods, and enact ecclesiastical laws, without parliamentary or royal sanction or confirmation; to erect new sees; to effect reforms in ecclesiastical discipline, and to resume the practice of putting to penance notorious offenders. If the prelates, clergy, and people, were prepared to do this, without regarding the pains and penalties which they might incur as a consequence, they might undoubtedly succeed in a great measure, if not wholly, in establishing the independence of the Church. But the question is, whether the Church would not lose more than she gained in such a process? The temporalities would, we apprehend, be lost altogether, and with them the means of supporting the clergy in the rural parishes of England. But putting aside the consideration of the evils which might result from such a conflict, it would seem that, humanly speaking, there is little probability of its occurrence; for, clearly as some men may discern the evils which arise in connexion with the present system, the clergy and laity of the Church do not generally concur in their views. On the contrary, the great mass of the community are persuaded, we

believe, that the relations of Church and State do not very urgently require re-adjustment; and, under these circumstances, nothing but a very gross practical violation of the rights, or the discipline or doctrine of the Church, would combine a sufficient number of churchmen, in opposition to the plans of Government or of Parliament, to render such an opposition a means of establishing the independence of the Church. Suppose any measure introduced by Government, which would so far obviously affect the interests of religion as to combine the Church generally in opposition to it, and to furnish a basis, on which it would be possible to influence the great mass of clergy and laity, and carry them on to the assertion of a complete independence, there cannot be, we think, any reasonable doubt that the Government would immediately retire from the contest; and thus those who might wish to carry it on would be left without pretext for its continuance, and would be immediately deserted by the great mass of their adherents.

As to getting up any system of opposition to the present relations of Church and State, we should look on the attempt as entirely without prospect of success, unless the public mind should become most widely different from what it now is. The only issue of such an attempt would be the formation of some insignificant sect of Nonjurors, probably without the support of any bishop.

While, however, we look on all attempts to dissolve the present connexion of Church and State in England as merely chimerical, we are far from regretting the occasional expression of very strong feelings and principles on the subject. No one, who looks on the present state of things as a churchman ought to do, can help feeling very deeply the practical evils which religion is suffering. When mere politicians men without religious or moral principle of any kind, or even men of unsound principles-are invested with the great control which the ministers of the crown are now enabled to exercise over the Church in many ways, more especially in the appointment of its bishops and clergy, it is impossible that great practical evils should not ensue. There is a pos

sibility that the offices of the Church may be filled by persons of unsound doctrine; but there is every probability that they will be disposed of as so many pieces of patronage, available for the promotion of political or merely secular interests, and without any regard whatever to the promotion of the cause of religion. And yet, on the right appointment of the bishops and clergy, every thing depends. An indolent, time-serving, or worldly hierarchy, and a secular priesthood, intent on maintaining its position in society, would extinguish any Church, even if it were VOL. VI.—NO. XII.—DEC. 1846.

F f

in the free exercise of its synodical action, and otherwise at liberty to act for itself: and, on the other hand, a devoted and apostolical priesthood and episcopacy will accomplish the ends of its mission, in spite of every difficulty that may be placed in its way. Administrative abuses in the system of patronage are liable continually to occur, unless public opinion is brought to bear on those who are entrusted with it. And, therefore, we confess, that, while we do not see our way quite as clearly as some people do, to improvements in the theoretical and established economy of the Church, we rejoice when the conduct of officials is made the subject of searching investigation, and held up to public view; nor do we regret to see even the imagined or real defects in the legal theory of the Church fully discussed and pointed out; because, if there be any faults in the actual working of the system, attacks upon the system itself are likely to improve its administration, and to diminish the amount of abuse and corruption.

The relations of Church and State furnish, confessedly, some of the most difficult problems which the politician and the Christian respectively have to solve. And yet arduous as may be the task of reconciling the action of these two powers, and impossible as it is to adjust them so as never under any circumstances to clash, or to create jealousies and dissatisfaction in any quarter, still it is not possible for a Government to remain altogether neutral, and indifferent to the presence of such an element in the social system as Christianity. It must either persecute or protect; be either hostile or favourable. Its own interests compel it either to strengthen its own influence by a friendly alliance with the Church, or to endeavour to make the Church a passive instrument in its own hands. The present state of every nation in Europe furnishes an exemplification of this. The United States of America, doubtless, acts on a different principle, and preserves a neutrality towards all forms of Christianity; but this arises simply from the fact, that there is no one sect whose numbers render it a matter of any importance to the State to enter into connexion with it. All communions are (relatively to the numbers of the population at large) insignificant. Any connexion of the State with one sect would draw down on it the hostility of the great mass of the population. In the United States, therefore, it is as impossible that the State should unite itself to the Church, as in England it is that the State should separate itself from the Church. A communion which includes seven-eighths of the population cannot be regarded with indifference by the Government of the country: that Government cannot afford to relinquish its power and influence over such a Church,