pire by their means. But in vain; the Roman society was irrecoverably gone; and the Church itself for awhile seemed to be lapsing into barbarism; for while the Franks and Goths became priests and bishops, the bishops imitated the example of the conquerors, becoming leaders of bands, and making war, like the companions of Clovis. Meanwhile, however, the Church upheld effectually, for its own protection, the doctrine of separation between the temporal and spiritual powers; and introduced into the West the monastic order, as an asylum for the weak from the violence of the strong, and an additional barrier against the Barbarians. Then came the reign of Charlemagne, which gave the Church new vigor, and definitively established the Pope as its permanent head. On his death a relapse followed in ecclesiastical, as it did in civil affairs; and the Church endeavored strenuously, but imperfectly, to maintain its unity and purity by means of councils, which were the prevalent usage of the feudal age. But every thing tended, at that period, to the isolation of men; the clergy were infected with the same spirit; and extreme abuses, and much depravation of manners, were introduced by it, where they should least have place. This did not and could not last; better feelings, principles, and practises subsequently obtained; the Church rallied again; the necessity of order, system, organization, was more strongly felt than ever; and a genuine reformation took place throughout the Christian Church. It was a movement rendered illustrious by the talents of Gregory VII as the spiritual head of the Christian world; and signalized also by the remodelling of the monasteries, and the introduction therein of the severe rules of Saint Norbert and Saint Bernard.

What, during this period, was the Church doing for the civilization of Europe?

In the first place, it was the great instrument of the moral and intellectual, as well as the religious, improvement of mankind. It began by converting the Barbarians.

C*

It was the only intellectual pursuit or profession of the times. All other classes of men operated upon their fellows by the impression of mere force: this employed the agency of reason, persuasion, moral considerations. The literature and science of Europe owe their developement to the clergy, who not only sustained and accelerated the intellectual movement of their age, but did it in the name of a system of doetrines and precepts, which, independently of its qualities as a rule of faith and salvation, was far superior to what the Is the East, intelligence is ancient world had known. altogether religious: among the Greeks it was altogether human. The effect of the intellectual culture of the clergy spon the intellectual developement of modern Europe has been to combine the two principles, so as to give equal scope to knowledge in both temporal and spiritual relations, and thus to elevate and improve essentially its general char

acter.

Secondly, it exercised the most salutary influence in reforming the vicious usages of the social system, and repressthe universal recurrence to force, by which society was ing Despetually torn and agitated. Thus it labored to bring about the enfranchisement of serfs, which it eventually accomplished; it sought to substitute mild and more rational laws in the place of the barbarous customs which then obtained. And the history of the feudal age is full of the examples of the untiring efforts of the clergy to correct the passion of rapine and war; to introduce sentiments of order, peace, and mutual good will; in a word, to counteract the violent Who has not heard of the peace of spirit of barbarism. God, and the truce of God,' expedients of the clergy to abate the infuriate rage of strife, and give to the human race occasional breathing times from war?

But while the Church was so useful in these respects, standing as it were alone to stem the tide of barbarism, — in ts political influences, its influences upon government and human liberty, it was undoubtedly injurious. It possessed,

and long retained, the monopoly as it were of science and philosophy. Its tendency, its effects, its legislation, had for object the establishment of power, sometimes in the form of a theocratic, sometimes of a monarchical, system. When feeble, the Church sought to shelter itself under the name and prestige of the Empire: when strong, it undertook to claim that authority as its own, and to exercise temporal, as well as spiritual, power. It was natural enough that, in such lawless times, the Church should have been glad to strengthen its hands by such means; for the very purpose of religion is restraint, restraint of the passions, the appetites, the will; and therefore, especially at that time, the Church, in its anxiety to check the licentiousness of men, could not fail to sympathize with principles of government, which impaired their liberty. Thus it happened that the Church was apt to be found on the side of despotism, and occasionally to call in its aid; and thus it came to be adverse, in some sort, to the expansion of the public liberties in Europe.

Reviewing the ground we have passed over, from the fifth to the twelfth century, it will be perceived that we are now in possession of all the elements of the European political system except royalty, which had not yet reached the decisive crisis of its full developement. But we have the elements of political system only: we have not the system itself. If we look at the aspect of things in the eighteenth century, we shall see two grand objects occupying the scene of the world, namely, a government and a people antagonist to, or at least reciprocally acting upon, each other, and together constituting a nation. Nobles, clergy, commons, all appear, displaying their own peculiar features, but each subordinate to the two primary powers in society, the government and the people. But, prior to the twelfth century, who hears of a people, a nation, a national government? We discern the germs of a nation, of a government; but not the thing itself, nor any thing which deserves the

name. All is local, special, separate; there is no generality of aim, no principle of political combination, nothing in the broad sense public, no true nationality. It is the peculiarity, which distinguishes the modern, from the primitive, Europe.

When, and how, did Europe undergo the striking transformation, which the fact in question implies? This is the point we now have to consider. And we are now prepared to discriminate the successive epochs in the history of European civilization, and to signalize the specific properties of each, with reference to this ultimate aim and end. We distinguish three great periods. 1. The period of elementary formation, when the original principles of the political system are disengaged from the chaos of barbarism, and arise in their peculiar forms, but each independent, and isolated from the rest :- which extends from the fifth to the twelfth century. 2. The second period is that, wherein these elements appear in the process of transformation, of attempt at combination, without yet giving birth to any thing regular, general, or durable: — which lasts until the sixteenth century. 3. Lastly, the period of developement properly so called, when European society assumes a definite form, follows a determinate direction, aims at a clear and precise object:—a period, which begins at the sixteenth century, and is still pursuing its vigorous and resistless march.

It is necessary to premise these explanations, because, without them, the period, which we now enter, would seem to be an age of returning confusion, a time of aimless movements, of fruitless agitations; of incessant activity, but no advancement; of innumerable attempts, terminating in no accomplished end.

To begin, we have the Crusades, the first great shock given to European society in general, after the destruction of the Roman Empire. Never, before, had modern Europe concurred in any single event, or been stirred by the same

sentiment. The Crusades, in fact, revealed to men the existence of a Christian Europe, a great Republic of nations, having a common origin, ideas in common, purposes in common. At the same time, and by virtue of the same impulse, à spirit of nationality manifested itself; for, in the universal camp of the Crusaders, men had learned to perceive, to feel, and to cherish, their more immediate community of interests as grouped into nations.

Still the Crusades, moving all Europe, and gathering its thousands under their national banners, were, in their incep tion, the spontaneous movement of individuals, not the organized acts of men acting under and through the impulse of governments; and such they appear in substance to the end. Who were the first Crusaders? Popular bands of nameless men, led on by Peter the Hermit, followed rather than conducted by a few obscure knights, and losing themselves among the hostile tribes of Asia Minor. The feudal nobility then caught the infection; and they also banded themselves for Palestine, under the command để Godfrey of Bouillon. It was impossible to withstand the universal enthusiasm: kings at last assumed the red cross; and Philip Augustus, Cœur-de-Lion, Saint Louis, led great armies of their nobles and vassals to perish in Syria and Egypt. But, throughout, it is a popular impulsion working through the whole European society, and not the direction of the governing will of individuals acting upon nations, in the manner that England and France would now make ww. And as the Crusades began and continued in popular impulse, so also, when that died away, they terminated, without having secured their object, although the resources and the means of conquest were more amply possessed by the crusaders at the end, than at the beginning, of the period. What, then, produced, and what determined, this miversal popular movement of Europe?

The Crusades, originated, it is clear, in twrs caused, & moral and a social one, namely, the religious impulse,