each of the rival popes excommunicated and anathematized the adherents of his opponent, it became a matter of deep importance to ascertain which of the competitors had the best pretensions to infallibility. On this point, the salvation of the Catholic world was supposed to hinge; for however devoutly it was believed that there existed a Trinity in Unity, the common sense of the plainest understandings rẻvolted at the monstrous inconsistency of two infallibles. The consequences of this memorable schism became at length so alarming, that the European Princes determined to put an end to the contest by the interposition of secular power, and re-unite, under one acknowledged head, the jarring interests of the Church. To accomplish this object, a Council was summoned at Constance by the Emperor Sigismund, during the pontificate of John the Twenty-third. An expectation was entertained that the Council of Constance would not have confined their debates to the disputed Popedom, but have pushed their inquiries into the general condition of the Church, and reformed its more flagrant abuses. In this expectation, however, the public were disappointed, though it is worthy of observation, that a resolution was passed, rendering the decision of a general Council obligatory on the Pontiff. But this resolution proceeded from a

jealousy of the Pope's prerogative, and not from any anxiety for reform. For, however eagerly the members of this Council desired to abridge the attribute of infallibility, regarded as the exclusive and peculiar privilege of their Sovereign, they felt no inclination to abandon it altogether; so that, in point of fact, the power which originally resided in the Pope alone, was transferred from him to the constituent members of a general assembly. With respect to the corruptions, which were said to have crept into the Church, and sullied its purity, the existence of them was flatly denied: the complainants were stigmatized as seditious and blasphemous revilers of the venerable representative of the Apostolic Church, and the pious and credulous admirers of things as they are," were gravely and solemnly assured, that the system "worked well." But though the clergy refused to correct their own vices, and resolved to enjoy a monopoly of the license for sin they declaimed most zealously against the dangerous diffusion of heretical doctrines; and in order to testify their horror of innovation, and their concern for existing institutions, they sentenced John Huss and Jerome of Prague to be burnt. And not satisfied with offering up two living victims, as a sacrifice on the altar of intolerance, they proceeded to wreak their holy vengeance on the

dead. The memory of the famous Wickliffe was branded with the infamy of spiritual censures, and his writings and his bones committed to the flames. About thirteen years after these proceedings, another Council was summoned at Basil, which terminated in another schism; and Christendom was again edified with possessing two infallibles. Between this period and the breaking out of the Reformation, the keys of St. Peter were held by Alexander the Sixth, who has richly deserved the appellation of the Papal Nero, and the illustrious Leo the Tenth, whose ostentatious magnificence better accorded with the splendour of Augustus, than the modest virtues of the Apostles.

From this rapid notice of the more memorable transactions which occurred in ecclesiastical history, from the conversion of Constantine down to the Reformation, it must be obvious to every reflecting and unprejudiced reader, that differences of opinion concerning doctrine and Church government, are not the spawn of modern philosophy, but are coeval with the first political establishment of the Christian Religion. The dominant parties attempted to silence the contests between faith and reason by precisely the same wea

I

pons, as are employed in modern times, to produce conformity. The same spirit of intolerant pride which now manifests its hatred of free inquiry, by fines and imprisonments, endeavoured, formerly, to coerce and subjugate the human understanding, by excommunications and interdictions. It will also be perceived, that every attempt at a forcible suppression of inquiry, originated in an ambitious desire of the party in power, to dictate a creed to the party out of power: in which there appears to have been a much stronger disposition to secure temporal authority, than to promote the spirit of the Gospel. That the system was impolitic, the separation of the eastern and western Churches, the memorable schisms, which produced the double pontificate, and the Reformation, abundantly testify. If then, in those dark days of credulity and superstition, which preceded the Reformation, when Dissenters were unknown, when the art of printing was undiscovered, when reading was confined to the clergy, and when the head of the Church was considered as holding a divine commission, differences of opinion silently and progressively gained ground, does it not argue insanity to suppose that, in the nineteenth century, fines and imprisonments will produce that conformity which the Church of Rome,

in the plenitude of its greatness, vainly struggled to command.*

At the commencement of this section, the sceptical argument against the usefulness of Christianity was examined, and we endeavoured to show that the miserable condition of society is to be ascribed to the neglect of the moral precepts of the Gospel. Into the discussion of this question we shall now enter more at length, and proceed to illustrate and confirm the truth of our opinions, by an inquiry into the comparative degree of happiness enjoyed by the different states of Europe; in which examination, we propose to investigate the causes of the remarkable difference. In the speeches and writings of English patriots, it frequently happens that the orator or author

* Though Luther is justly entitled to the merit of having completed the triumph of the Reformation, he did not pull the first brick out of the building. The first enemies of the Catholic Church were the pride, ambition, and avarice of her own ministers; which paved the way to ruin before the new doctrines were promulgated. The unity and infallibility of the Popes had been destroyed, before the Augustine Friar commenced his attacks. The double pontificate, by breaking the chain which connected the Pontiffs with St. Peter, put an end to the one, and the decree of the Council of Constance, annihilated the other. Instead, therefore, of the reformed doctrines having occasioned disunion in the Church, the disunion of the Church gave rise to the reformed doctrines.