ing the horrors of war in succeeding times.

Edward kept the people of England so employed in war with other nations, that they "had no leisure to breed those disturbances to which they were naturally so much inclined. This was the chief benefit which resulted from Edward's victories and conquests. His foreign wars were in other respects neither founded in justice, nor directed to any salutary purpose."

The state of religion and morals during this long rein was probably such as might have been expected among a people, who could not be kept from kill ing one another without employ ing them in murdering the people of other countries. We are happy however to remark, that in the latter part of the reign of Edward III. Wickliff made his appearance, and began to call in question the propriety of many opinions, which had for ages been regarded as infallible truths. This was like the morning star before the dawn of day. Wickliff was the harbinger of the partial reformation, which occurred in the days of Luther

and Calvin.

Richard II. succeeded his grandfather Edward ill. A. D. 1377. Insurrection, war, and homicide prevailed in his reign, till the king himself was murdered.

Henry IV. was successor to Richard II. A. D. 1399. He obtained the crown by rebellion; and finding himself weak, he courted the papal clergy. The principles of Wickliff were gaining ground, and Henry was

supposed to be friendly to them; yet he was induced to engage the parliament to pass a law for their suppression. "It was enacted, that when any heretic who relapsed or refused to abjure his opinious, was delivered over to the secular arm by the bishop or his commissaries, he should be committed to the flames by the civil magistrate before' the whole people." This weapon did not long remain unemployed in the hands of the clergy. William Sautre, rector of St. Osithes in London, had been con demned by the convocation of Canterbury; his sentence was ratified by he House of Peers; the king issued his writ for the execution; and the unhappy mau atoned for his erroneous opinions by the penalty of fire. This is the first instance of that kind in England; and thus one horror more was added to those dismal scenes, which at that time were already but too familiar to the people." Hist. Eng. Vol. 111. p. 68-9.

Mr. Hume informs us, that until this reign there had been no penal law in England against heresy. "An indulgence," he says, "which proceeded, not from a spirit of toleration in the Romish church, but from the ignorance and simplicity of the people. which had rendered them unfit either for starting or receiving any new or 'curious doctrines, and which needed not to be restrained by rigorous penal ties."

Passing and executing this sanguinary law against heresy may be regarded as proof of two facts: 1st, that the clergy and

the people in general were blind as to the nature of Christianity; and 2d, that some dawnings of light had arisen in the minds of individuals From the days of our Savior to the present time, it has been the general practice of the majority to treat reformers as heretics or wicked men. So uniformly has this been the case, that when we hear that a man was abused or reviled as a heretic, there is ground to hope that there was some good thing in him, and to suspect that he was really a better man than his persecutors.

Henry V. began his reign A. D. 1413. The Wickliffites or Lollards still gained ground in England. The king was opposed to sanguinary modes of conversion; but the clergy had so much influence, that they succeeded in their attempt to destroy Lord Cobham, who was a principal character among the disciples of Wickliff.

Addi

tional laws were passed against the "heretics," which not only exposed them to be burnt alive, but which deprived their children of the right of inheritance. It was also enacted, that "the chancellor, treasurer, justices of the two benches, and all the chief magistrates in every city or borough, should take an oath to use their utmost endeavors for the extirpation of heresy :" that is, those officers were required to take an oath “to use their utmost endeavors" to burn men alive, who happened to dissent from the opinions of the dominant party.

It was," says Mr. Hume, "the dying injunction of the late

king to his son, not to allow the English to remain long in peace, which is apt to breed intestine commotions; but to employ them in foreign expeditions, by which the prince might acquire honor,-' the nobility, in sharing his dangers, might attach themselves to his person, and all the restless spirits find occupation for their inquietude."

.6

66

This murderous injunction" of the dying" monarch was not only followed by his son, but by too many of his successors. The savage principle, implied in it, has probably occasioned the slaughter of ten millions of people in Christendom

That we may have a proper view of the awful character of this popular principle, let us bring it nearer home. A. and B. are brethren and neighbors. The children of A. are much inclined to quarrelling and murder. The father, instead of teaching them better, and through fear that they will kill him, or one another, employs them in fighting with the family of B. Such has been the murderous policy of princes bearing the name of Christians!

Between the years 1422 and 1485 we have the reign of Henry VI. of Edward IV. of Edward V. and the usurpation of Richard III. About half this term of 63 years was employed by our ancestors in wanton and destructive wars with the French; and the other half in buschering one another.

After mentioning the battle of St. Albans, which occurred 1455, in a civil war for the crown, Mr. Hume says, "This was the first blood spilt in that fatal quarrel,

which was not finished in less than a course of 30 years-which was signalized by 12 pitched battles which opened a scene of extraordinary fierceness and cruelty-is computed to have cost the lives of 80 princes of the blood, and almost entirely anni. hilated the ancient nobility of England. The strong attachment which at that time men of the same kindred bore to each other, and the vindictive spirit which was considered a point of honor, rendered the great families implacable in their resentments.

When this writer had given the history of our ancestors to the close of the usurpation of Richard III. he observes, "Thus have we pursued the history of England through a series of barbarous ages, till we have at last reached the dawn of civility and science."

The reign of Henry VII. commenced 1485, and continued to 1509. In his time there were several insurrections and many sanguinary scenes; but the state of society was less perilous and distressing than in former years, He was a man of considerable energy and vigor, and he happened to be successful in quell ing tumults and insurrections.

Until this reign a great, and perhaps the greater portion of our ancestors were slaves. In former ages, "every one that was not noble was a slave; the peasants were sold along with the land; the few inhabitants of cities were not in a better condition: even the gentry themselves were subjected to a long train of subordination under the great

barons or chief vassals of the crown." Hist. Eng. Vol 111. p. 316-17.

While speaking on the subject of slavery Mr. Hume observes, "The latest laws which we find in England for enforcing or regulating this species of servitude, were enacted in the reign of Henry VII. And though the antient statutes on this subject remain still unrepealed by parliament, it appears that before the end of Elizabeth, the distinetion between villain (slave) and freeman was totally, though insensibly abolished, and that no person remained in the state to which the former laws could be applied." p. 318-19.

When the subject of the African slave trade was before the British parliament, Mr. Wilberforce, in a speech in favor of its abolition, stated as a fact, that "the people of Bristol, in the reign of Henry VII. had a regular market for children, which were sold to the Irish. Hist. of Abolition, Vol. 11. p. 53.

The fact that a great portion of our ancestors were slaves, and that the custom of selling children as slaves existed so lately as the reign of Henry VII. may be regarded as full proof of a barbarous and uncultivated state of society. Perhaps there is not one to twenty of English descent in the United States, whose ancestors of the fifteenth century were not slaves.

It will not be denied, that in the preceding ages there were some virtuous and enlightened individuals; but it is evideut that the mass of population in Great Britain had but little claim to

centuries remain to be examined; and in them, if any where, we must find those virtuous ancestors, in whose praise so much has been said in our day, and in com

the name.

The records of the three last

inhabitants of Great Britain and the United States are said to be a degenerate race.

In every respect man is allied to other animals in his earthly or mortal nature, he has all his senses in common with them, supports his existence as theirs is supported, and resigns it or dies as they die. So that in this relation we may say to the worm, "Thou art my mother and my sister," and ask the question with the wise man, "Wherein is a man better than a beast ?"

On the other side, man is al lied to celestial beings, he is in one sense immortal, since his soul will never cease to exist.

Nothing can exceed the beautiful simplicity of the account that Moses has given of the creation of man-And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

Considered then as he came into the world, man is possessed of a living soul, without judg ment and without conscience, but is endowed with a capacity to acquire them.

Judgment is first produced when the soul is capable to reason upon and to understand a

simple subject that is proposed to it. It involuntarily examines and decides upon this subject; and that decision, whether true or false, forms the beginning of its judgment. When the same

subject is again proposed, its judgment in the case is present; it is understood in like manner as before, but now without examination; and it never afterwards will examine, until the foundation of the judgment is shaken, so as to excite an apprehension, that its conclusion was

erroneous.

Reason is this capacity to examine and to draw conclusions. In the exercise of this faculty we begin with something known or admitted. A creature then, who cannot know or admit a principle, can never reason. But children are early taught to know some things, and to admit many principles to be correct.

These instructions form the basis of their reasonings, and have the effect to produce true or false conclusions. In other words, they effect the formation of the judgment; and hence the great variety of judgments: they are

found contradictory to one another; and as they are held in integrity by sincere men, who are thus opponents one to the other, so they are conclusions fairly and naturally drawn from their respective premises; and the cause of the disagreement is, that one or both have admitted, (perhaps without examination) some premises that are not correet. Reason, noble as it is, and certain in natural things as the truth itself, draws its conclusions, from the premises given; and conclusions are true or false, not always according to the correct ness of reasoning, but they also partake of the quality of the premises admitted, and on this account it can and does lead into error, as certainly as it can guide us in true judgment.

Having considered the formation of judgment, and observed the agency of reason in producing it; having seen too that judgments are different and contradictory to one another, yet on both sides held by sincere men, let us extend the inquiry, and examine what Conscience is.

This too is acquired. Men are born without conscience as certainly as they are born with out judgment.

In the subjects upon which we reason or that are examined by the opening capacities of the mind, many are of a moral nature, and relate to our conduct, our duties, &c.

That judgment therefore that is formed from conclusions, drawn respecting these duties, has relation to and is inseparable from Conscience. In the first instance of our lives that we have decided any

thing is our duty, that decision becomes our judgment; and as it is of a moral nature, so it is the beginning of the formation of conscience in us. The recollection of this conclusion is always present with us, whenever the subject is again proposed. We are satisfied with ourselves when we act according to this judg ment (whether true or false) and always are sensible of convic tion when we do the contrary.

It is an index, or present view of the state of our judgment in the case, and conscience and judgment are thus inseparable companions. In the same way, then, and from the same cause that men's judgments are sometimes correct, and sometimes erroneous, so conscience in some men condemns them for doing, what conscience in other men would condemn for not doing. And conscience is therefore no test of truth or error, for the reason that men's judg

same

ments are no test.

The premises admitted by some men, leads them, and necessarily leads them to the conclusion, that it is right to defend themselves. The inference is natural, and their reasoning is correct; but the conclusion is erroneous, because the premises are erroneous; and the doctrine is known to be anti-christian by those who examine the foundation of the argument, see its fallacy, and draw their conclusions from the example, the precepts and the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

One half of the evil prejudi ces, much of the error, and all the bigotry in the world arise from our admitting to be true