Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

WHOEVER has visited London, and, standing upon Westminster Bridge, looked up the river, will have noticed, at no great distance, towards the left hand, a long brick wall, between which and the river there appears to be a not unpleasant walk, and just beyond the end of which he will perceive a very old-looking brick tower. That tower belongs to Lambeth Palace, and that wall is one of the boundaries of the grounds in the midst of which the palace itself stands. It is the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and has been so now for nearly six hundred years. In the time of William the Conqueror, the manor of Lambeth belonged to the see of Rochester; but in the reign of Richard I., who wished to have Baldwin, then Primate, near him, an exchange was made by which it came into the possession of the Archbishops of Canterbury. It was during the primacy of "Boniface of Savoy," that instead of the manor-house, a palace was erected; and the occasion was a singular one. It is given by Matthew Paris, and reported by Stow. We quote the account for two reasons. It refers, in the first place, to the origin of the place of which the present Number contains an engraved representation. And, secondly, we have now before us a Tract against "Modern Methodism," in which the VOL. VI. Second Series.

N

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

WHOEVER has visited London, and, standing upon Westminster Bridge, looked up the river, will have noticed, at no great distance, towards the left hand, a long brick wall, between which and the river there appears to be a not unpleasant walk, and just beyond the end of which he will perceive a very old-looking brick tower. That tower belongs to Lambeth Palace, and that wall is one of the boundaries of the grounds in the midst of which the palace itself stands. It is the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and has been so now for nearly six hundred years. In the time of William the Conqueror, the manor of Lambeth belonged to the see of Rochester; but in the reign of Richard I., who wished to have Baldwin, then Primate, near him, an exchange was made by which it came into the possession of the Archbishops of Canterbury. It was during the primacy of "Boniface of Savoy," that instead of the manor-house, a palace was erected; and the occasion was a singular one. It is given by Matthew Paris, and reported by Stow. We quote the account for two reasons. It refers, in the first place, to the origin of the place of which the present Number contains an engraved representation. And, secondly, we have now before us a Tract against "Modern Methodism," in which the VOL. VI. Second Series.

N

66

writer has proved the Methodists to be schismatics, and all their Preachers mere intruders into the sacred ministry, by giving, from "Palmer's Ecclesiastical History," a correct series" of the names of the Bishops constituting the uninterrupted succession from the present Archbishop of Canterbury. to the times of the Apostles. The writer in that enumeration, very confidently puts down, "1. St. Peter and St. Paul." He takes for granted that plain readers would never have heard that it is yet a disputed fact whether Peter ever was at Rome. He then adds, "2. Linus. 3. Cletus. 4. Clement." And here he takes for granted, too, that by boldly putting these names down, his less learned readers would suppose all was fair. He should have told them that even the Roman Catholic historian, Tillemont, (far more candid than the Romanizing writers of such Tracts as we now refer to,) writes on that part of his history like a man who felt that it was encumbered with difficulties, especially as to the position of the apostolical Clement. And yet, if the chain be not fastened to the staple in the wall, of what use is it to parade a long list of names subsequently? Especially as we are required to believe that all these links are regularly fastened together, in proper chain fashion. Even as it is, between Nos. 71 and 72, there is an admitted vacancy of four years: vacancy in an unbroken chain! And another between 98 and 99! Perhaps when the reader has read the account of "Boniface of Savoy," No. 111, A.D. 1244, he will think that such a man was worse than a vacancy. But the advocates of this system, who unchristianize some of the holiest men that ever lived, and deny some of the most indisputably scriptural evidences of the work of God in saving sinners, though they would allow there may be non-conductors of electricity, totally breaking off the communication, seem to think that anybody and everybody will do for the regular communication of the sacred influence by which men are to be made meet for heaven! But, to the narrative of the historian:

-

"Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his visitation came to this Priory of St. Bartholomew, in Smithfield, where, being received with procession in the most solemn wise, he said, that he passed not upon the honour, but came to visit them.

To whom the Canons answered, that they, having a learned Bishop, ought not, in contempt of him, to be visited by any other. Which answer so much offended the Archbishop, that he forthwith fell on the Sub-Prior, and smote him on the face, saying, 'Indeed, indeed! doth it become you English traitors so to answer me?' Thus raging, with oaths not to be recited, he rent in pieces the rich cope of the Sub-Prior, and trod it under his feet, and thrust him against a pillar of the chancel with such violence that he had almost killed him. But the Canons, seeing their Sub-Prior thus almost slain, came and plucked off the Archbishop with such force that they overthrew him backwards, whereby they might see he was armed and prepared to fight. The Archbishop's men, seeing their master down, being all strangers, and their master's countrymen, born at Provence, fell upon the Canons, beat them, tore them, and trod them under foot. At length the Canons, getting away as well as they could, ran, bloody and miry, rent and torn, to the Bishop of London to complain; who bade them go to the King at Westminster, and tell him thereof. Whereupon four of them went thither; the rest were not able, they were so sore hurt. But when they came to Westminster, the King would neither hear nor see them; so they returned without redress. In the mean season the whole city was in an uproar, and ready to have rung the common bell, and to have hewed the Archbishop into small pieces; who was secretly crept to Lambeth, where they sought him, and, not knowing him by sight, said to themselves, 'Where is that ruffian, that cruel smiter? He is no winner of souls, but an exacter of money, whom neither God nor any lawful or free election did bring to this promotion; but the King did unlawfully intrude him; being unlearned, a stranger born, and having a wife,' &c. But the Archbishop conveyed himself over to Westminster, and went to the King with a great complaint against the Canons, whereas himself was guilty."

In consequence, the Archbishop excommunicated his opposers; but they appealed to the Pope, who decided against the Archbishop, and required him, in expiation of his offence, to build a splendid mansion at Lambeth, for the future occu

« PreviousContinue »