lawful, because superstitious. Accord ing to a Bill passed some years ago, a bequest was made for these uses, and, besides the uses mentioned in the Bill, was specified the saying of prayers for the dead. The matter came to be tried in our courts of law, and a decision was come to, that for certain things mentioned in the will, the bequest held in law, and was good; but for other matters mentioned, the bequest did not hold in law, because the things specified were superstitious. The object of this Bill is to remove that hindrance out of the way, so that bequests for spiritual purposes may be legalized in England. Then you would have large sums left for saying masses for the souls of the dead, according to British law.

"We gave them," this extract continues, "we gave them political power as a shield for themselves; they have turned it into a sword wherewith to attack and destroy their benefactors."

I ask, Sir, What more would they have? There is something more that they want; and I protest that, upon the principles advocated in the House of Commons, I do not see how it can be kept from them. On what principle, maintained on either side of that Honourable House, can the Act of Settlement be kept? Is it not an insult to our Roman Catholic fellowsubjects, that the Sovereign on the throne cannot be a Catholic? Is it not an insult to that Church, that the Lord Chancellor cannot be a Catholic ? Oh, shame on these enlightened days! Why retain such a rag of intolerance on the Statutebook? Why is it absolutely necessary that the Sovereign should still be a Protestant? It is very easy to applaud such a question, but I should like to get an answer. Why should it be? I would not wish to involve you, Sir, in any more trouble than is forced upon you, but I should be exceeding glad if you would ask Sir Robert Peel or Lord John Russell to tell you, and to tell the country, on what principle must the Sovereign be a Protestant still? I think the answer to this question would involve a principle very inconvenient to the Right Hon. Gentlemen at other times. There

is a great principle involved in that question, and I should like to hear it stated; it would do the country good to hear it stated. It would be a very awkward question for them to refuse to answer, it would be a very awkward question for them to answer,and it would be a very proper question for you, Sir, to put.

The Times" proceeds :

"In the speech of Sir James Graham to the people of Glasgow, delivered a few days ago, on receiving the freedom of that important city, the Right Honourable Baronet employs the following language with reference to the conspiracy now disclosed and proclaimed by the Roman Catholic leaders throughout Great Britain and Ireland against the Protestant religion, which he justly calls the foundation of the British monarchy, as professedly recognised by all our national statesmen since the expulsion of the Popish tyrant James:

You have referred in your address to my attachment to our national Protestant religion. The pillar of our greatness rests, as I think, on this religion, established in these realms. This is the source of all moral and intellectual improvement, and if you allow the foundations to be shaken, the superstructure must fall. But it will be said, Why mingle religion with political strife? My answer is, that the national religion is studiously blended with all our national institutions; that it was the avowed object of our forefathers to render the State itself an oblation not unworthy the Most High; and this connexion between the Church and State is the ancient policy of these realms, under which our native land has consolidated her strength, matured her happiness, and acquired her glory.'"

Such was the language of Sir James Graham when he was appointed Rector of the University of Glasgow

-I think in 1839.

"The Right Hon. Baronet proceeds to show, that every occasion during the last three centuries, since the soul of man within Great Britain was released, and his reason set loose from the shackles of Popery,' since Luther and Calvin taught men to think, and Cranmer, Latimer, and

TIMES,

Ridley, left them an example how to suffer and to die'-the power which moved the national mind of this country in all crises was religious feeling. The Reformation, says the Right Hon. Gentleman the great Rebellion-the union with Scotland -the Act of Settlement-the union with Ireland, are one and all evidences of this main truth. The Scotch Covenanters fought for their national religion against Charles; those who politically were Jacobites sacrificed James II. to their zeal for the national religion; for the sake of the Kirk and Presbytery, recognised by Parliament, the Scotch, justly proud of their national independence, consented to an incorporating union with this country; for the sake of securing the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, the Protestants of both islands brought about the union of 1801. It is vain and childish, therefore, to preach to the sound sense of Great Britain about 'voluntary' principles' or 'harmless' Popery-about new experiments in religious institutions, heretofore untried by fact, though condemned by the clearest à priori reasoning-or about old experiments, which, having been tried for ages, are too well known from their disastrous consequences to be further hazarded at the price of civil and intellectual liberty, of practical morality, and eternal truth."

O Sir, these are weighty words; but the extract contains the words of another Right Hon. Gentleman :—

"Thus it is," says the writer in the "Times," ," "that our magnificent Reform Bill, aided and followed up by a general system of Whig 'liberality,' has ended in destroying Gatton, Old Sarum, and some similar nomination boroughs, of which the patrons were Englishmen at least, while it has supplied their places by the creation of one gigantic boroughmonger-he, too, a foreigner-the never-changing foe of our monarchy in Church and State, viz., the Rev. George Spencer's spiritual Sovereign, from whose hands that Rev. convert will one day receive the ‘hat,' or at all events the 'mitre' —viz., his Holiness Pope Gregory XVI., who is actually patron of no less than sixty-five or seventy seats in

I still quote from the "Times," called the "Thunderer:"

"Was it for this," the writer asks indignantly, "that the Legislature of our once Protestant country passed the Bill for arming Popery from the arsenal of the Constitution itself? Was it that by forsworn and perfidious traitors the weapons thus generously given might be pointed at the vitals of the monarchy?"

These are hard words-" forsworn and perfidious traitors." The next passage, however, brings us to the words of the Right Hon. Gentleman to whom I have alluded, Sir James Graham, quoted in the same speech from a former speech by Sir Robert Peel :

"Sir Robert Peel, indeed, as quoted by Sir James Graham, had manifestly in his mind's eye an outline of the state of things which was to follow from the Bill of Emancipation, even at the moment when he reluctantly introduced that measure. Towards the close of his remarkable speech, the Right Hon. Gentleman, then Home Secretary under the Duke of Wellington, used the following words."

I know how tiresome reading is, but I want you to listen to these very important words, used with reference to the Bill of 1829, by Sir Robert Peel. He said,——

"If, unhappily, my expectations" (of domestic peace) "shall be disappointed, if, unhappily, civil strife and contention shall take place-if the differences existing between us do not arise from artificial distinctions and unequal privileges-if, on the contrary, there be something in the character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be intrusted with a participation in equal privileges, or anything short of superiority, still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle must be fought, if the contest cannot be averted, let the worst come to the worst-the battle shall be fought for other objects, the contest shall be on other ground; the struggle will be not for equality of civil rights, but for the predominancy of an intolerant religion; and I say, we can

fight that battle to greater advantage if, indeed, these more gloomy predictions shall be fulfilled, and our more favourable hopes shall not be verified -we can fight that battle against the predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this measure has passed than we could at present."

According to this showing, after yielding in the struggle, which was avowedly for equality of civil rights, the Right Hon. Bart. was prepared to stand his ground, and maintain the fight against the predominance of an intolerant religion.

Sir, this is our ground now; we ask the country to stand on this ground now; and it is precisely that we may be defended against an intolerant religion that we ask this compact for the next election.

LUTHER ON MONASTIC VOWS.

LETTER FROM MARTIN LUTHER TO HIS FATHER, JOHN LUTHER, GREETING. DEAR FATHER,-It has for a considerable time been my intention to dedicate the present publication to you in the most affectionate manner; not from a vain wish to give publicity to your name, but with a view to avail myself of the opportunity, which an address to you afforded, of explaining to pious readers the nature of my book.

You are well aware how deeply I have been impressed with the belief, that nothing could be more important or more sacred than to yield obedience to the impulse of the Divine command. And here you may be disposed to ask, " Have you ever had doubts on such a subject, and is it but lately that you have learned the true state of the case?" It is so, I confess. Until lately I have not only entertained doubts, but have been grossly ignorant of the true "state of the case." Let me add, with all due respect, that I believe I could prove, that, like myself, you were greatly deficient in this respect. It is now nearly sixteen years since, without your knowledge, I ventured to make myself a monk. With the warmest parental affection, you felt alarmed on my account, because you

knew beforehand the various privations and disadvantages of that mode of life. Your object was to connect me by marriage with a respectable and affluent family; and your anger at the course I had taken, was for some time exceedingly great. The words of the Psalmist, "God knoweth the thoughts of man that they are vain.”

These words occurred to you, but without producing a full effect. At length you desisted and consented that your wishes should give way to what was the will of heaven. My fears, however, were not then terminated, for I well remember that when you conversed mildly with me, and heard my declaration that I had become a monk not from partiality to the mode of life, but from the apprehension of Divine wrath, your observation was, "I wish that it may not prove a vain illusion." These words Bounded in my ears as if they had proceeded from the voice of God.— At no subsequent period have I forgotten them; nor have any words, which I have ever heard, made so lasting an impression on me. Still I heard you only as a man, and persisted in adhering to what I regarded in the light of Divine inspiration. Had it been in your power, you would certainly have prevented me from becoming a monk; but as to me, hạd I even known what I now know, I should have pursued the same course and have suffered death rather than have been stopped in it. Of the propriety of my conduct at that time, my opinion has certainly undergone a change; but God, by his infinite wisdom and mercy, has been pleased to produce great good out of evil. Would you not rather have lost one hundred sons than not have seen these happy effects arise? Satan seems to have anticipated in me, from my infancy, some of those qualities which have since appeared; and to prevent the progress of the cause in which they have been instrumental, he affected my mind to such a degree as to make me often wonder whether I was the only human creature whom he tormented.* Now, however, I

*Ut sæpius fuerim admiratus, egone solus essem inter mortales, quem peteret.

perceive that God directed that I should acquire, by personal experience, a knowledge of the constitution of universities and monasteries, that my opponents might have no handle to boast that I pretended to condemn things of which I was ignorant. It was ordained, therefore, that I should pass part of my life in a monastery.

Let me proceed to ask what is the nature of your present opinions and feelings? You are still my father; I am still your son; and vows, we are now satisfied, have ceased to be binding. The right of paternal authority was on your side when you opposed my change of life-in mine, there was a wish to obey the command of God had it depended on you, would you not ere this have taken me from the monastery? But lest you should imagine that God has only anticipated you by taking me himself from it, let me ask what if I should persist in wearing the monastic garb and tonsure? Are, then, the cowl and tonsure sufficient to constitute a monk? -My conscience is now freed-I am, and I am not a monk-a new creature, not of the Pope, but of Christ. The monks created by the Pope are the mere fictions of temporal authority.—Of that number I was one, but from that bondage I am now delivered by the grace of God. It may be asked why I do not ascribe my removal to the influence of your authority.

God, who moved me to withdraw, has a more powerful claim on my acknowledgment. .." He who loves his father or mother, more than me," said our Saviour, "is not worthy of me." By this Christ did not mean to set aside the authority of parents, but to express, by a familiar illustration, that when their orders come in competition with those of our Saviour, the latter ought always to be preferred. These things I recapitulate merely to show that I could not obey you otherwise than at the hazard of my conscience. At that time neither of us knew from Scripture that the impulse of God was to be accounted superior to any human orders.-I now dedicate this book to you that you may see how remarkably Christ hath enabled me to relinquish the pro

fession of a monk, and hath given me so much liberty, that although I am become the servant of all, I am subject to him alone. He is to me, "bishop, abbot, prior, Lord, father, and master."-I know none but him -let me, therefore, hope that he may have taken one son from you to make him instrumental in the salvation of many of his other sons. This, I am fully persuaded, you are prepared to receive not only willingly, but with great joy. Nor have you reason to do otherwise-what though the Pope should be the cause of putting me to death? He cannot raise the dead and make them suffer a second time. The day, I trust, is approaching, when that kingdom of abomination and perdition shall be destroyed. Would to God we were the first who were reckoned worthy to be burned or put to death by the Pope, that our blood might be the means of accelerating his condemnation. But if we are not worthy to show our sincerity by our blood, let us at least pray and entreat that God may show us this mercy, that we be enabled to testify by our life and conduct that Jesus Christ alone is our Lord God blessed for ever. Amen.-Farewell, salute my mother, your Margaret, with all those who are in Christ.

and

Ex Eremo, XXI. Novr. Anno MDXXI.

Having seen the manner in which Luther thinks fit to address his father, we are now to observe his language to other persons. The work is introduced by what he calls a protestation, or opinion concerning monastic vows.

"In the first place," he says, "I wish those who have discovered such inveterate hatred to me to be informed that I do not address the work to them. They would condemn on my account the plainest truths, because I am unwilling to give what is holy to dogs, or to throw pearls before swine." My object is to serve those persons who are suffering under the tyranny of conscience and sin."

After mentioning the injury which Christianity had sustained from monastic vows, Luther proceeds to state that he does not mean to discuss the question whether a Vow ought to be performed, but to inquire "what