either putting him to death, or depriving him of his eyes and tongue, and committing him to prison for life 1. Most of this appears to have been a mere invention, and the rest greatly exaggerated. The 13th of October, Tuesday, was the last and most memorable day of the council". By the advice of his confessor, the archbishop in the morning celebrated the mass of St. Stephen, beginning with the introit, Etenim sederunt principes, (" Princes sat and spake against me.") This was forthwith reported at court, with the commentary (surely very warrantable, although some writers treat it as the suggestion of bitter malice), that Becket intended a parallel between himself and the protomartyr3. It was his intention to proceed to the castle barefooted, wearing his pontificals, and with his cross in his hand; but at the entreaty of his friends he unwillingly gave up this, and went on horseback, wearing his ordinary dress, with a stole over it*. Crowds of people, supposing that he was going to his death, prostrated themselves as he passed, and besought his blessing. On dismounting at the gate, he took his cross from the attendant who had borne it, and entered the hall in which the bishops were assembled. The sight of the cross in his hand alarmed them. They seem to have considered it as a braving of the king, a claiming for himself the character of a champion of Christ against the power and violence of His enemies. The Bishop of Hereford requested leave to carry the cross for him, but the offer was declined. Hugh of Nunant, Archdeacon of Lisieux, who attended in the archbishop's company, remonstrated with Foliot on the impropriety of suffering him to retain it. 'My good friend," was the answer, “he was always a fool, and always will be one." Foliot, however, endeavoured to wrest the cross out of the archbishop's hands, and a somewhat unseemly struggle ensued, in which Becket, being the younger and stronger man, had the better. He then sat down, still holding the cross in his hands. Foliot prayed him to lay it aside, representing that the king would regard it as a sword drawn against him. The archbishop replied, that the king's sword was an instrument of war, but that his was a sign of peace, and therefore he would not let it go. 1 Grim, in S. T. C. i. 42, Roger, ib. 135. 2 By Alan and others it is strangely said to have been the hundredth anniversary of the Norman invasion. 3 He never was backward to claim a parallel with a yet more sacred Example; and this is carried out in the most extravagant (and, to modern taste, most offensive) way by the old biographers. Herbert's "Liber Melorum" is expressly devoted to it, and the writer usually there and elsewhere speaks of himself, like St. John, as "the disciple who wrote these things." 4 So Fitzst. and Roger state. Modern writers for the most part have followed less accurate authorities, which represent him as having retained his pontificals. Roger of York was the last prelate who entered the hall. His wish was to make it thus appear as if he had not been concerned in advising the king's proceedings. His cross was borne before him-the pope's order that he should not use it beyond his own province, being for the present eluded by an appeal. The king throughout the day remained in an inner chamber. The bishops were summoned into his presence, and Becket was left in the hall, with his clerks beside him. Herbert took the opportunity of advising that, if any violence were attempted, he should resort to excommunication. Fitzstephen reproved this counsel, and advised him rather to follow the saints and martyrs of old, in patient endurance and forgiveness of enemies. the king's officers interrupted Fitzstephen, and told him that he must not speak to the archbishop, whereupon he significantly pointed to the cross, an action of which Becket long after reminded him. The bishops told the king that the primate had rebuked them for joining in judgment against him; that he complained of the fine of 500l. as unjust, seeing that custom had fixed in every county a commutation for goods and chattels forfeited to the king's mercy, and this in the county of Kent, where the property of the see lay, was only forty shillings; that he had forbidden them to take any further part in the proceedings against him, and had appealed to the pope. Two earls were sent to ask Becket whether it were true that he had acted thus, contrary to his duty as the king's liegeman, and especially to his oath that he would observe the constitutions of Clarendon, one of which was, that bishops should attend the king in all trials, except such as involved life. They also asked him, whether he would give in the accounts of his chancellorship, and abide a judgment. He replied with firmness, that he had been summoned to answer for the affair of John the Marshal alone, and ought not to have been called to defend himself against any other charge; that in secular offices he had served the king faithfully, had spent all the revenues in his service, and had even contracted debts for it; that he had received an acquittance for all such matters at the time of his election; that he had made his appeal against being judged by the bishops, and would keep to it, placing himself and the Church under the protection of the pope. The earls withdrew, and some of those who were near the archbishop began to talk aloud, by way of intimidating him, of oppressions and barbarous acts of violence which had been done by kings and nobles against contumacious ecclesiastics. The king endeavoured to force the bishops to join in judging the primate. They pleaded the prohibition which had been laid on them. Roger of York retired, as if to avoid the sight of something shocking which might be expected. Some of the bishops tried to prevail on Becket to relent; but he was inflexible. At length an expedient was devised. The king ceased to insist that the bishops should join in the judgment, on condition that they should appeal to the pope against the prohibition. They returned to the hall; and Hilary of Chichester, in their name, told the archbishop that as he and they had pledged themselves to the constitutions, and he had now violated his oath, they held him as perjured, renounced their obedience to him, and appealed against him. There was some curious casuistry in Becket's reply. The first of duties, he said, is that to God. The stipulations made at Clarendon involved a reservation of the Church's rights. Nothing against these can be observed in fide bonâ or legitimè, nor can an infringement of the Church's privileges be part of the "dignities of a Christian king. The pope had sent back the constitutions rather with reprobation than approbation". "If," he continued, we fell at Clarendon, we ought now to rise again. If we there swore wrongly, unlawful oaths are not to be observed." 66 The bishops then withdrew. The barons came into the hall, and the Earl of Leicester was proceeding to pronounce sentence, when the archbishop interrupted him. He repeated his objections to the proceedings, and declared that, as the soul is more worthy than the body, and as the son must not doom the father, he declined all judgment from a secular tribunal, and referred his cause to the pope, who alone was competent to judge him. Raising his cross aloft, he proceeded slowly down the hall. A tumult of reproachful voices arose. The archbishop's foot struck by chance against some firewood which lay in his way; and on this the uproar became louder than before. Ranulph de Broc and Earl Hamelin, the king's bastard brother, called him perjured and traitor. He reminded de Broc that one of his near relations had been hanged (the like of which, says a biographer, had never befallen any of the Beckets); and to Hamelin he applied the most hateful terms, adding that but, for his orders, he would prove him a liar on his own person. The gate of the castle was found to be locked. One of the archbishop's attendants hastily took down a bunch of keys which was hanging near; and the first that he tried was found to fit the lock-not without somewhat of a miracle, if we believe the biographers. 5 Potius improbatæ quam approbatæ.-Fitzst. in S. T, C. i. 232. The multitude without the castle received the archbishop with enthusiasm. He rode through the crowded streets, with his cross in his hand, bestowing his benediction as he passed'. On reaching St. Andrew's monastery, he prayed, and deposited his cross in the chapel; and then, finding that the usual companions of his table had disappeared through fear, he entertained (of course, with an intended reference to the parables,) as many of the crowd as could find room. In the book which was read aloud at supper, the text "when they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another," occurred. The eyes of the archbishop met Herbert's, as if the words suggested the same thought to both. pro The bishops of London and Chichester soon after appeared, and proposed that the archbishop should make his peace by resigning two manors to the king; he sternly refused to alienate the perty of the Church. He then sent two bishops to beg that he might be allowed to go abroad. They found the king in very good humour, but he deferred his answer until next day, and Becket was soon after told by two eminent noblemen that some great mischief was intended against him. He signified his intention of passing the night in the chapel, and his bed was made behind the high altar. In the meantime, the means of escape were provided; horses were in waiting without the walls; and in the middle of the night the archbishop left Northampton. In the history of Becket, as in that of Mahomet, the flight (or hegira) is a remarkable point. Here, therefore, we shall pause for a time. 7 If we understand Fitzstephen rightly, he took up Herbert of Bosham behind him. : ART. III.-1. A Chronological Introduction to the History of the Church being a new inquiry into the true dates of the birth and death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, &c. By the Rev. SAMUEL FARMAR JARVIS, D.D., LLD. London: Cleaver, 1844. 8vo. 2. Ordo Saclorum. A Treatise on the Chronology of the Holy Scriptures, &c. By the Rev. HENRY BROWNE, M.A., Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester, &c. London: J. W. Parker. 1844. THE uncertainty of history, and of that essential part of it, especially, which is called chronology, is a common matter of complaint; and much of late years has been done to encourage the suspicion, that after all there is no such thing, to any great extent, as authentic history, and that all the researches made by the industry of the present generation, and by the learning of those which are past, tend but to perplex, not to inform. Such, doubtless, must be the opinion of those, who, having studied history either under the bias of some partial theory, or with the same degree of diligence that one reads a romance, have been suddenly arrested by some of those apparent contradictions which a more enlarged view of the subject often presents. They will either question the newly presented facts, or mistrust the imperfect information already obtained but their minds, untrained to the rigid and diligent pursuit of truth, and enfeebled by theorizing, will in mere indolence conceive those difficulties to be insuperable contradictions, which a more severe and enlarged contemplation of the great objects before them would regard as temporary obscurities, capable of eventual solution. The fact is, that so far from having reason to complain of uncertainty in the study of the annals of the world, it is a matter of astonishment to find how many sources of definite information actually exist, reaching even to the most dark and distant periods of time. The providence of God, according to His uniform system of operation, has made the curiosity, and even the superstitions of mankind, the instruments for conveying to the latest ages the knowledge of things which happened in the earliest. First, we have the ancient traditions, which for a long time supplied the place of history. These often speak with a wonderful |