The Sun.
London, England, 1868-08-04 00:00:00

ARCHBISHOP 314 NN I-NG ON SPIRITUAL

LIBERTY.

In these days; in which accidental circumstances
have brought about an unnatural alliance between
Liberals and Roman Catholics, it is specially impor-
tant that there should be no mistake as to the real
attitude and objects of the allies, and in particular
that eminent representatives of the Roman Catholic
Church should not be allowed without contradiction
to re-present the body to which they belong as being
friendly to principles to which, in fact, it is and
always has been radically opposed. Liberals and
Roman Catholics ►n.iy agree in wishing for the abo-
lition of the Irish Establishment ; they may agree in
deprecating as equally foolish and wicked the " No
Popery" cry which some of the supporters of the
present Government have atte7npted to raise with a
view to the approaching elections ; but their dif-
ferencesat e deepandirr,:concilable, and proceed from
contradictory principles upon the most important
subjects to which • the human mind can address it-
self, whilst their alliance is temporary, and intended
merely to effect practical purposes which will pro-
bably be speedily accomplished. It is for this rea-
son that we notice an address upon the subject of
Thomas A'Becket lately made by Archbishop Man-
ning at Salford.

It is very curtly reportel iu the newspapers, and
of course a conthnsed report of a few lines can
hardly do justice to the author; but condensed as
it is, it appears to us to afford an almost perfect
specimen of the sort of sophistry to which eminent
Roman Catholics are continually in the habit of
resorting for the sake of rendering their Creed and
Church palatable to Englishmen in general. As
the report t 5 which we refer is short, we give it at
length from the Times of July 31 :
" Archbishop Manning attended a-meeting -at
Salford on Wednesday night which was held to
raise funds for the restoration of the church
of St. Thomas of Canterbury at Rome. Dr. Man-
ning declared that St:Thomas died in defence of the
law of England. As an Englishman he stood up
for tho law of the land against the most atrocious,
corrupt, and oppressive exercise of Royal preroga-
tive by one whom no English historian would ven-
ture to defend. The first article of Magna Charta
was The Church shall enjoy its liberty.' That
embodied and expressed the very cause for which
St. Thomas laid down his life. In touching upon
that he (Archbishop Manning) could not avoid say-
ing—not in a controversial, much less in a political
spirit—that St. Thomas resisted the excess of Royal
power, interfering with the freedom of religion and
conscience. Take one great example : the King
claimed that no one should be put out of the Church
by spiritual authority without his leave. W hy, the
Wesleyans would not acknowledge that. Another
point was, that in the election of bishops the per-
sons should be chosen by his recommendation.
He would not say that the Free Kirk of Scot-
land would not tolerate that, but even the
Establishment would not tolerate it. The

truth was, that they had come to a time
when the people of England and of Scotland had
literally vindicated for themselves the very principle
of spiritual liberty for which St. Thomas suffered.
He said guardedly, the people of England and
Scotland, for, though the people of Ireland had no
reason to love Henry II , they had for 300 years,
with an inflexible firmness and heroic fidelity, ab-
solutely refused to recognise interference by the
State. It appeared to him, therefore, that the great
principle for which St. Thomas died was the prin-
ciple avowed by two-thirds of Great Britain and
Ireland at the present day. He therefore claimed
the candid sympathy of Englishmen and Scotchmen,
who, although opposed to them in faith, must see
that the restoration of the church of St. Thomas of
Canterbury was simply the building of a memorial
to a man who loved the freedom of his conscience,
the freedom of his Church, the purity of his faith,
not only more than all the world, but more than
life itself."

It is not our object to enter into a historical dis-
cussion with Archbishop Manning upon a subject
so trite and well worn as that of the merits of the
quarrel between Thomas A'Becket and Henry 11.,
but we thick it very important, for the reasons al-
.'
ready assigned, to expose the audacity of such a
statement as that " the great principle for which
St. Thomas died was the principle avowed by two-
thirds of Great Britain and Ireland at the present
day," or that the restoration of the church dedi-
cated to him at Rome is to be regarded as a memo-
rial to a martyr to the principles of freedom of
conscience. To us it appears that no two things
can be more utterly unlike than the principles of
Thomas A'Becket and those which English Protes-
tants usually act upon at the present day.
The principle for which Becket contended was
clear and simple. It was that the clergy were
and ought to be regarded as the moral and spiritual
sovereigns of the human race, that they had
privileges which were altogether independent of
and superior to any human laws whatever, and
that the civil Government must be forced to
respect those privileges, and the people at
large to submit to that authority by what-
ever force might be necessary for that pur-
pose. This is a perfectly clear, intelligible view,
and no doubt it involved Becket as well as others in
constant struggles with the civil Government; but
it is monstrous to describe him as a defender of re-
ligious liberty because he stood up for clerical
power as it would be to describe James if. as a
friend of civil liberty because he tried to over-
throw the Government of William 111. The struggle
between henry and Becket was a struggle not for
liberty, but for power; and to represent either as
the representative of what we now call the prin-
ciple of spiritual liberty and freedom of conscience
is to transfer to the twelfth century, not merely
the language, but the thoughts of the nineteenth.
This is clear to demonstration when we come to
particulars. An advocate of religious liberty and
freedom of conscience in the present day might
say more, but could hardly say less, than these two
things :

1. Every one ought to be permitted by the law of
the land to choose freely his own religious opinions
and to adopt whatever form of worship he pleases,
and to change or vary it as he sees fit, nor ought he
to be exposed to any civil penalty or disability
whatever for the way in which he exercises these
rights.

2. Persons wishing to form religious societies
ought to have every legal facility afforded them for
so doing. Contracts to form such societies should
be recognised as legal by courts of law, and, in case
of need, enforced like other legal contracts.
It is difficult to imagine anything more funda-
mentally opposed to the principles or spirit of
Becket than these propositions. Not long after his
death Innocent 111. caused to be laid waste
with fire and sword the whole of the South
of France on account of the heresy of the popula-
tion—for practically asserting, that is, the first of
the two principles iu question. As for the second,
at the very time when the quarrel between Henry
and Becket was at its height, the whole of Europe
was divided by a schism between Pope Victor IV.
and Pope Alexander, each of whom had excom-
municated that part of Christendom which adhered
to his rival. In other words, heresy, in the eye of
the law of all Europe, instead of being an exercise
of an undoubted legal right, was the most enormous
of all crimes. Schism was a state of spiritual
warfare forming one of the greatest of State affairs
instead of being left, as at present, to the opinion
of individuals. Becket would have regarded with
stupefied horror the spectacle of a Roman Catholic
archbishop calling upon his countrymen to sympa-
thise with him as a martyr to the doctrine that
heresy and schism ought to be placed under the
protection of the law of the laud ; but, unless Dr.
Manning has been much misrepresented, this is
the only way in which what he said can be
interpreted.
The Archbishop, however, does not leave mat-
ters altogether at large. To a certain extent he
goes into particulars, for the condensed report
which we have quoted refers to two of the sixteen
Constitutions of Clarendon which embodied the
matters in difference between Henry and Becket.
" Take," says the Archbishop, " one great example
—the King claimed that no one should be put out
of the Church by spiritual authority without his