that age, or by the credulity of subsequent times; but every thing else which appertained to the Church of Lindisfarne was involved in one undistinguishing ruin. The monasteries of Jarrow and Weremouth shared the same fate. Few years had elapsed, before the Mercian and EastAnglican territories were over whelmed in a similar manner. Croyland, or Crowland, Medehamstead, or Peterborough, and Ely, were among the most celebrated monasteries in the whole island. The first and the last were situated among impenetrable morasses; and are supposed to have had their origin in the cell of some pious anchorite, who retired from the world and its inhabitants, to mortify his body in the bogs of Lincolnshire, and Cambridge. Of the size of the original buildings nothing can now be known. The monks had recovered from the Danish invasion, and been comfortably re-established for upwards of two centuries, before their earliest historians lived and wrote. And it is impossible to reflect upon the singular situation of these famous churches, without remembering that in such a position, Cassibelaunus held out against Cæsar; and Alfred preserved himself when every thing else was lost. Croyland and Ely, (and Medehamstead likewise, if it was placed not on the scite of the present town of Peterborough, but in the neighbouring marshes,) were well chosen places of defence; but the taste of the monks, which was subsequently so correct, had not yet taught them to select very agreeable situations, if their abode in these desolate fens was the result of preference, rather than necessity. The truth probably may be, that the original monasteries were built on the scite of Saxon or British fortresses, and that after the monastic fervour ceased, a great part of the building was used for military pur represents the taking of Croyland monastery as a protracted and bloody victory. The Danes were defeated in the immediate neighbourhood; the battle in which they ultimately triumphed, was obstinately disputed and only gained by stratagem, and even then the relics and jewels and charters were conveyed away by water, to a place of security, and reproduced in after times. At Medehamstead also, the resistance is described as having been most fordable, and the revenge of the barbarians as at least equal to their loss. Ely yielded without much op position; but even there multitudes had assembled as in a place of security, and the ruin which ensued might have been delayed, if not averted, by a handful of brave men. Considering the slight resistance which the invaders experienced throughout the country, and how a great part of this little proceeded from Croyland and Medehamstead, it is certainly not improbable, that these celebrated houses had been converted into castles of defence, and were the stage upon which Saxon liberty was fought for and lost. The most circumstantial detail of the Danish ravages amounts merely to a repetition of what has already been described. Those who resisted were put to death in battle, and those who yielded were murdered in cold blood; until at length nothing remained even to King Alfred himself, upon whose head the crown of Wessex had descended, except the island or bog of Athel. ingay in Somersetshire, in a corner of which, he secreted himself both from friend and foe. But Alfred, although reduced to great straights, was born to re-establish the independence of his coyntry, and he united in his person as many of the requisites for such a task, as any individual is known to have enjoyed. His genius was every way superior to the age in which he lived. Called to rule over defeated and dispirited tribes, his courage, perseverance, and resources never failed. The king of an island, which had not yet learned to defend itself by sea, he was the first to prepare a naval armament, and its success must have answered his most sanguine expectation. His favourite military manœuvre, in the face of a superior aud practised enemy, consisted of long and rapid marches; and when he could not fight at an advantage, he retired, or pretended to retire, until an opportunity offered of attacking the invader in detail. These are so many proofs that King Alfred was born a general; and if his talents were exerted on a small scale, against barbarous adversaries, and at the head of troops of savages, he had still the means of shewing what he could have done in a nobler sphere, and he merited the high reputation which was given to him by his contemporaries and successors. He placed his territory in a state of security by means of his fleets and castles. His militia was ready to be called out at any moment, and at any place, and a few fortunate and favourable events, (especially the Danish inroads on France,) concurred, with his own great achieve ments, to give him the highest place among our Saxon kings. The title, however, was earned by his civil, as much as his military conduct; and it is to the former, and especially to that part of it, in which he appears as the restorer of religion, that we are now particularly to advert. The task would be comparatively short and easy, if it were confined to an explanation of what is related by contemporary authors. But the great body of English writers, antiquarians, commentators, lawyers, and historians, have agreed to work up the life of King Alfred the Great, into an amusing romance. From the solemn and laborious Spelman to the flippant and superficial Hume, the history of Alfred has been made the subject of extreme misrepresentation. His learning is spoken of in terms which would suit the at tainments of a modern scholar. His writings are multiplied till they make a formidable catalogue. The whole cycle of the sciences is reported to have been familiar to him, and his religion is described not merely as sincere and effectual, but as free from the least tincture of superstition. And what is more extraordinary, these fictions are reported by historians upon the faith of the monkish chroniclers; while they affect to be familiar with a contemporary of King Alfred, by whose assistance all such fictions may be detected. The narrative of Asserius, is the only authentic account of Alfred's private life. Its general credibility has never been impugned; one half of what it contains, is transcribed by the panegyrists of the Saxon Solomon; and the other is neglected for no better reason than that it brings down the highly coloured paintings of Malmesbury, to the sober hue of truth. The fact appears to be, that the literary attainments of King Alfred were very slender, although his love of letters was intense. He was twelve years old before he learned to read his native tongue; and whatever knowledge of Latin he may have acquired, and probably its amount was always small, was communicated to him after he had reached his thirty-ninth year. The writings which are mentioned by later historians, as the compositions of Alfred, are either mere extracts from the Bible and other books, which were furnished by his instructors and associates, or translations from the Latin, of which he himself expressly says, that the originals were expounded to him by his bishops. But his merit consisted in having assembled eminent men about his court, and in endeavouring to profit by their lessons. When he came to the throne of his ancestors, there was not one individual in his native kingdom of Wessex, and scarely any within the limits of the Heptarchy, who could read the offices of the Church in Latin, or even in Saxon. The learned persons by whom Alfred was subsequently surrounded, had been educated in foreign countries. Grimbald, who taught at Oxford, in France; Asserius at St. David's, in Wales; and Johannes Eujena, by birth a Scot or Irishman, at several continental schools. These and many others, were invited over to England by the munificence of its king, and entrusted with the general superintendence of learning. But what more especially distinguished Alfred from his predecessors, contemporaries, and followers, and even from many lovers of learning, in a more enlightened age, was his endeavour to diffuse knowledge over the great body of his people. He desired to communicate the rudiments of learning to the young of all ranks; and commanded that no one should be taught any art or science, until he could at least read English. The knowledge of Latin, as a secondary step, was also strongly recommended; and made indispensable to the acquisition of the King's favour, and to many of the most considerable of fices about his court and person. Learning was not locked up in universities and monasteries; though of both the King was a liberal patron. Knowledge was not confined to a privileged order, or to one profession, though the nobles and the clergy were expected to be better informed than their fellow-countrymen. The gate of virtue, of religion, and of happiness was thrown wide open, and all were invited to enter. If we had no other proof of the genius of Alfred, its claims might rest securely upon this fact. It proves his immense superiority over those with whom he lived-his intimate acquaintance with human nature-his possession of a wisdom which books and languages cannot bestow. The long night of darkness by which his reign was followed, the re-establishment of monkery, and all its abuses, the complete success of papal usurpation, and even the errors and violences of the Reformation, might have been avoided if Alfred's great design had been carried into execution, in the spirit of its excellent author. For the restorer of Saxon independence, and the founder of the English marine, was a sincere and pious Christian; and although his faith was deformed by superstition and ig. norance, few crowned heads have been such consistent supporters of religion. As our acquaintance with the state of religion during his reign, is confined to what Asserius has related concerning Alfred, a more particular notice of the facts which that historian has communicated, will form a proper addition to the present sketch. Alfred's connexion with the Pope is of an obscure and doubtful nature. There is no proof that the power of Rome was exercised in England during his long and glorious reign. Nor, on the other hand, can we discover any explicit assertion of the independence of the National Church. Catholic writers lay great stress upon the circumstance of Alfred having been taken to Rome by his father, when five years of age, and confirmed and anointed, (anointed, as Asserius says in regem,) by Pope Leo. But the most zealous controversialist will not pretend to say, that Alfred was more than pas sive upon this occasion; and the anointing, which has been called an instance of the Pope's sagacity, is also a pretty, convincing demon. stration of his fallibility; for the reigns of Alfred's elder brothers, intervened between his father's and his own; and he possessed no kingly power for twenty years after his solemn inauguration. The ceremony was probably nothing more than a compliment to the King, who had travelled to Rome to pay his respects to the Pope, and who bequeathed an annual sum of three hundred marks to be dispensed in the following manner, viz. one hun-' dred in purchasing oil to be burnt at St. Peter's, in honour of that Apostle; one hundred in paying the same respect to St. Paul; and one hundred to the apostolical and universal Pope. Civilities of the same description, appear to have passed between Alfred and the successors of the Apostles; one of whom, Pope Marinus, remitted to the King a considerable portion of the true eross. But in the restitution of religion and learning, Alfred is not known to have communicated with the Pope. The foreigners whom he collected were brought from all countries, except Italy. There is nothing said about receiving archiepiscopal authority, or even archiepiscopal ornaments from Rome-there were no legates, no councils, in short, no marks of ecclesiastical domination or supremacy. The monasteries which Alfred founded were not filled with monks of one particular order; but by a mixed and irregular society. In the time of his immediate successors, the parochial clergy were allow ed to marry, and it may be presumed that the custom prevailed when he mounted the throne, and was not discountenanced during his reign. He had no exclusive attachment to the monks, as his establishment of the University of Oxford, and his plans for general education sufficiently prove. He continued that opposition to image-worship by which the Church of England was already distinguished, and his copy of the ten commandments which united the first and second after the fashion of Rome-made amends for this inaccuracy by the addition of a new and concluding precept against adoring the works of man's hands. In all these respects, and some of them are very important, the example of Alfred gave no encouragement to the errors of a corrupted Christianity. REMEMBRANCER, No. 46. On points which relate more nearly to personal conduct, the same observation does not apply. His devotion and piety, which like that of the majority at the same period, was unquestionable and fervent, was also like that of the majority, disfigured by ignorance.-Relics of saints retained their sacred character, and it was on them that Alfred required the conquered Danes to swear, when more particularly anxious that they should keep their oath. His conversions were carried on at the point of the sword; and when the invaders of Britain could no longer resist his arms, they were compelled to embrace his religion. The length and regular repetition of his daily prayers, were calculated for a monk who had renounced the world, rather than for a sovereign, who was toiling to amend it. His alms which were bestowed with a liberality and a discrimination that can never be too highly praised, were preceded or followed by the very unnecessary declaration, that they were given for the good of his soul, and for the remission of his sins. In short the private life of Alfred affords an instance of what we may see even in this, or in any age, and of what in a barbarous and uncivilized nation, is all that we can generally expect to see-a man who lived very well, though his principles were not sound -a man whose sincere piety, and long practised virtue, corrected the tendency of his erroneous tenetsof a man, to whom little had been given; but who nevertheless did much. The temptations which he was enabled to resist, the adversity and bodily suffering which he patiently bore; the moderation, zeal, and the humility which he ma. nifested after his dominions were secured, may prove what the Christianity of those times could produce in the hearts of its faithful disciples. 4 G the MISCELLANEOUS. To the Editor of the Remembrancer. they may think essential to the be "London Missionary Society Tuesday evening a numerous meeting of Ladies and Gentlemen of different religious denominations, took place at the Freemasous' Tavern, Great Queen-Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. Sir George Keith, Bart. was unanimously called to the chair, who, after a preparatory prayer had been read by the Rev. Mr. Churchill, addressed the meeting at some length, describing the happy results likely to arise from the present institution, which had for its object the evangelising of the poor inhabitants of London and its vicinity. Resolutions were agreed to, in unison with the objects of the Society." The members of the Society, who were assembled on this occasion, had, doubtless, in view, the spiritual improvement of the poorer classes of the immense population of London and its vicinity. And this is surely in itself a laudable object, worthy of being prosecuted with all the zeal that is consistent with a sound discretion. It is indeed devoutly to be wished that the spirit of pure and undefiled religion were infused into the mass of this population, for the prevention of crime, for the security of society, and the honour of our common Christianity. But it may reasonably be doubted whether this desirable purpose is likely to be effectually attained by the union of persons "of different religious denominations." It is obvious that those who profess different religious sentiments, cannot cordially unite in any one common system of faith; and that they must be at variance as to what articles *Gen. Even. Post. Jan. 8 to 10, 1822. lief and acceptation of those whom they undertake to instruct. The Churchman, if he is a true friend to the establishment to which he professes to belong, cannot consider any article of his Creed of such subordinate importance, as that it may be conceded to the claims of his dissenting brethren: he cannot abandon the doctrine of his Saviour's divinity and atonement, in compliment to the Socinian or Arian : neither can he consider the government of his Church by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, lawfully or dained, as a matter so indifferent, that self-appointed teachers may allowably intrude themselves into the Christian ministry; nor think that the solemn duty of a religious instructor may be usurped by any ignorant enthusiast or fanatic. Those, on the other hand, who dissent from the Church, will be equally tenacious of their own peculiar opinions, and anxious to impress them earnestly upon the minds of their disciples. Unanimity cannot subsist between persons of discordant principles. There has hardly been any association, founded on such principles, which has not, in fact and experience, found its designs frustrated. It is not therefore to be expected, in this case, that the work of "evangelising the inhabitants of London and its vicinity," should prosper in the hands of persons "of different religious denominations." But, beside the improbability of any society, so constituted, uniting cordially and effectually in the prosecution of such a scheme, it proceeds upon the extraordinary assumption, that "the poor inhabitants" of the Metropolis and its neighbourhood have not the Gospel preached to them. A project of this kind must appear extraordinary and unnecessary, when it is considered what effectual provision has |
