priests, and no species of superstition was ever more terrible than theirs.

Julius Cesar invaded Britain 55 years before Christ. The Romans however, did not complete their conquest till the time of Vespasian. About A. D. 450, the Saxons began to invade the island. In the course of 170 years, a large portion of the natives were destroyed, and the Saxons established in the island seven kingdoms, called the Heptarchy. In the time of the Heptarchy, it was a custom among our ancestors, to reduce captives to slavery, and for poor people to sell their children, and even themselves, as slaves. In A. D. 597, Gregory, bishop of Rome, sent Austin, with forty others, to establish Christianity in Britain among the Anglo-Saxons. "No traces of literature, nor any marks of civilization appear until the introduction of Christianity among them; and," says Mr. Bigland, "it is doubted whether our Saxon ancestors were acquainted with letters, previous to their arrival in the island." Vol. i. p. 102.

In A. D. 827, the seven kingdoms were reduced to one, under Egbert, the grandfather of Alfred. Before Alfred ascended the throne, the Danish invasions commenced, which occasioned the most deplorable calamities in the course of the two following centuries. Speaking of the laws established by Alfred, Mr. Bigland says, "The multiplied scenes of violence and depredation, which had extended to every corner of the country, had given rise to an unexpected and singular species of disorder. The Saxons were

frequently plundered by banditti of their own countrymen, disguis ed in the habit of Danes; and it was customary among both nations to steal, not only cattle, but also men and women, and to sellthem to each other. For this reason a law was enacted which prohibited the sale of cattle or slaves without a voucher. But for the prevention of those, and many other disorders of a similar nature, nothing could be better calculated than the system of general responsibility, which Alfred established. Every householder was answerable, not only for his own family, but also for any stranger who lodged more than two nights in his house. The village or town was answerable for each householder, the hundred for each town or district, and the county for each hundred which it comprised.” p. 112.

Other laws of Alfred were designed to limit the custom of private war and revenge, which preyailed at that time. What he did, appears to have had considerable influence in reforming the morals of the nation. It is however pretty evident, that they still remained, in a great degree, a savage people, or that they very soon returned to their sayage manners. This may appear by the preamble to laws, passed by his grandson, king Edmund, who began to reign A. D. 941. He states, as a reason for his laws, the "general misery occasioned by the multiplicity of private feuds and battles." And he adopted several expedients to remedy these evils. He ordained, that if any one committed

murder, he might, with the assistance of his kindred, within a year, pay the fine for his crime. The fines were fixed by law according to the rank of the person murdered. Even the king's head had a fixed price, as well as that of a baron, a bishop, or a private citizen.

Gangs of robbers greatly disturbed the peace of the country. The practice of perjury in courts of justice had become so prevalent, that witnesses had to appear with compurgators, that is, men who knew nothing about the facts, but who would swear that they believed the witnesses spoke the truth. The practice of judicial combat, was also admitted as a remedy against perjury. A man, who had a cause in court, might, if he pleased, challenge a witness, or even the judge, if he suspected his integrity; and the person challenged was obliged to fight. The successful combatant was supposed to be in the right, and the vanquished person in the wrong; for the combat was regarded as a solemn appeal to God for a decision.

In those days of darkness and barbarity, our ancestors adopted various other modes of determining whether an accused or suspected person was guilty, or not guilty. One was the decision by the cross. After an accused person had cleared himself by oath, he then took two pieces of wood, one of which had on it the sign of the cross; these he wrapped up together in wool, and placed them on on altar, or on some celebrated relic. Solemn prayer was then made for the success of Vol. IV. No. 3.

11

the experiment. The priest, or some other person in his stead, took up one of the pieces of wood, and if it happened to be the one marked with the cross, the accused person was pronounced innocent; if otherwise, guilty.

The ordeal was another of the barbarous methods adopted at that period. Boiling water or red hot iron was consecrated by prayers, masses, fastings and exorcisms. The accused person must take up a stone, sunk to a certain depth in the boiling wa ter, or carry the hot iron to a certain distance; his hand was then bound up for three days, and the covering sealed. If, at the end of the three days, his hand appeared to be hurt by the fire, he was thought to be guilty; but if he had received no injury, he was pronounced innocent.

Another method of trial was by cold water. The accused person was bound hand and foot, and cast into a river or a pond; in this situation, if he floated, he was deemed guilty, if he sunk, he was declared innocent.

Several other methods were adopted, equally absurd; such as walking blindfold among hot plough shares, and the trial by bread and cheese, consecrated with abundance of ceremonies, and administered with dreadful imprecations.

Let it now be asked, Would not well educated children at this day, of ten years old, readily perceive the folly of such methods of deciding questions of right and wrong, or guilt and innocence? Yet such were the modes and customs of our ancestors, sup. ported by the clergy and the mag

istrates? Is it a sin to suppose that the people of the present age are more enlightened, and more virtuous, than such ancestors?

In November, A. D. 1002, was the time of the great massacre of the Danish inhabitants of Britain, by the Saxons. On hearing the news, Swein, king of Denmark, vowed revenge. He soon sent an army which spread desolation in England, and finally made a conquest of the country. Canute, a Danish prince, became king of England. The Danes however held the government but about 28 years; it then fell into the hands of Edward the confessor, who was of the Saxon line. In 1066, the Saxon government was again overturned by William, duke of Normandy, who has since been called William the conquer

or.

The almost incessant wars in Britain, and the frequent revolutions in the government, had a powerful tendency to render the people ferocious and blood thirsty. With regard to the manners of the Anglo Saxons," says Mr. Hume," we can say little, but that they were in general a rude, uncultivated people; ignorant of letters, unskilled in the mechanic arts, untamed to submission under law and government, addicted to intemperance, riot and disorder. Their best

conduct.

quality was their military courage, which yet was not supported by discipline or Their want of fidelity to the prince, or to any trust reposed in them, appears strongly in the history of their later period; and their want of humanity in all their history."

Such were our ancestors generally, but about 750 years ago; and having concisely traced their history from the days of Julius Cesar, to the commencement of the reign of William the conqueror, we must now pause, and request the reader's patience, till he can see the next number of this inquiry. We may however remark, that probably very few readers after this survey, will wish to trace back to an earlier period than the eleventh century, to find a race of ancestors more enlightened, or more virtuous, than the present generation. If it may be truly said of them in general, at that period, that "their best quality was their military courage," they must have been a barbarous race of beings. For so far is military courage from being a Christian virtue, that it is more common to the worst of men than to the best; and there is nothing in it more amiable, or more Christlike, than there is in the intrepid ferocity of the tiger.

THE earliest Christians seem to have been bound together by ties, stronger than any before

known; and to have exhibited a model of union, affection, faith and zeal, which has justly excit

ed the admiration of subsequent ages.

It has been the unadvised practice of too many of the advocates for Christianity, to represent in too humiliating a manuer, the circumstances of the first converts, to enhance, as they have imagined, the impediments which existed to the first reception of this divine religion. It appears not to be true, either that all the disciples of our Lord, or that all the first converts of his apostles, were men of illiterate minds or indigent circumstances. Had they been all illiterate, the history of our Savior would not have been written with such un affected simplicity of language, and in some cases, such purity and elegance. And I think it is clear, that some of the earliest followers of our Lord were by no means dependent on the charity of others.

James and John left their ship and their hired servants, when they began to follow Jesus. Peter had a house at Capernaum, where our Savior sometimes dwelt; and he, with bis brother Andrew, said to Jesus, "We have left all and followed thee;" which implies, that he and the other apostles, in whose name they spoke, had something to leave.

It is said, that John was a relation of Caiaphas, the high priest, and our Savior, when he was on the cross, committed his mother to the care of John, and he took her to his own home. It is hence natural to conclude, that he was able to provide for her.

Matthew was called to be a disciple of Jesus, when sitting at the receipt of custom; that is,

may

as we should say, in the collector's office. We well suppose, that this was not entirely unprofitable, as we are told soon afterwards by Luke, that he made a great feast, to which Jesus and his companions were invited, as well as Matthew's ac quaintance and his brethren in office. But whatever may be supposed to have been the worldly circumstances of Jesus and his disciples, he did not suffer his little company to forget the poor. They had a stock for these and other purposes; yet to show how little they depended on this for their support, it was committed to the care of Judas, who seems to have been in the habit of purloining from this little treasure of our Savior's beneficence.

common

If we consider the situation of other followers of Jesus, we find that Mary Magdalene was able to minister to him of her substance; and if we may judge from the quantity of spices, which were prepared by his fol lowers to enbalm his dead body, they could not have been in very indigent circumstances.

Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so profuse in the use of the precious ointment, which she poured on the head of Jesus, ji-st before his death, as to excite the murmurs of bystanders. Joseph of Arimathea, who begged the body of our Lord, was a rich man, and Jesus was buried in his sepulchre. And the invitations, which our Savior received to the tables of the rich pharisees, prove that neither he nor his disciples could have been regarded in a contemptible light,