of the advocate of Popery to be considered as sound? Let us take two suppositions.

In the first place, supposing it were granted, for argument's sake, that the devil actually did instruct Luther that the Mass is no real sacrifice is it necessarily true that all is wrong which that wicked spirit asserts to be right, and the contrary? If so, our Redeemer is not to be regarded as the "Holy One of God;" for the "unclean spirit so called him. If so, the Apostles were not the "servants of the most high God;" for so the evil spirit in the damsel at Philippi denominated them. The truth is, that, when mischief is to be done, the spirit of evil is not confined to one mode of doing it. For this purpose, as in the conference with our Lord, he quotes the Scriptures; for this purpose he "transforms himself into an angel of light;" for this purpose he adopts the mode-of all others, as the Popish advocates well know, the most injurious to truth-of mixing up truth with error, and giving just enough of the one to render the other specious.

:

The proper answer, on this first supposition, to the reasoning adopted by this Popish advocate, is, that Protestants neither admit nor reject the Mass on the authority either of Luther or of Satan, but simply and altogether on the authority of Scripture. Papists assert that Christ is sacrificed every time the Mass is celebrated Scripture says, that "He was once offered." A bolder insult was never inflicted on Scripture and common sense, than in this favourite tenet of Popery. If the bread in the Mass be actually changed into Christ, we suppose this must have been the case in every instance of its administration. But, if so, was it thus changed at its first administration? In this case, when Christ took of the bread, he took of himself; when he brake the bread, he brake himself; and when the Apostles ate the bread, they literally partook of the body and blood of the Redeemer in his

own presence. The only wonder is, how, with Scripture, fact, testimony, and all our senses, opposed to such a tenet, mere assertion should persuade any man of common sense to receive it.

Thus far I have admitted, for argument's sake, the supposition that Luther states such a conference to have taken place between himself and the spirit of evil. But, whatever may be the language of Papists, no falsehood can rest on a slighter foundation. The solution. of the difficulty may be found, among other places, in Mr. Scott's truly valuable Continuation of Milner's History (see Appendix III.); and I shall do little more than adopt his statement on the subject.

A certain eminent person, on having a very extravagant proposition stated to him, as the result of a long chain of difficult reasoning, exclaimed, "There is nonsense somewhere, I venture to say." In like manner, where such a statement as that contained in the history of the supposed conference is made, it is clear "there is falsehood somewhere;" or, if not falsehood, at least misapprehension. Is it credible that Luther, after having maintained for sixteen years that he received his religious system from the Scriptures, should at length, gratuitously, and without a motive, avow that he received a leading truth of that system-namely, that the Mass was no sacrifice, from the immediate suggestion of the devil? What is the authority for this foolish story? Cochlæus, the contemporary, and the virulent enemy, of Luther, gives a widely different account of the same occurrence. He tells us the devil had suggested to Luther, not that the Mass was no sacrifice, but that Luther had committed idolatry for fifteen years in celebrating Mass. After the time of Cochlæus, an obscure monk first gave the present version of the story; and this version has been gladly adopted and circulated by every Popish writer, even by Bossuet. All that we de

sire from the libellers of this distinguished servant of God is, that the question should be reduced to a mere question of fact: "Did Luther, or did he not, assert that he had held any such palpable and visible communication with the devil?" The following observations may serve to settle the

point.

The original work of Luther was written in German. Of this work, the Latin version of Justus Jonas, which is the work ordinarily referred to by the opponents of Protestantism, is rather an abstract than a translation; and an abstract on the fulness or accuracy of which no reliance is to be placed. In the introduction of this story, as given by Justus Jonas, an omission occurs, which seems decisive of the present controversy. The language of Luther is: "Satan commenced a disputation within my heart." These last words (within my heart) Justus passes by; and thus converts what was designed to be merely the record of an inward temptation of the Reformer, into the history of a palpable appearance, or what Bossuet falsely calls an "apparition" of the devil. Nothing can be more evident, from the sequel of the history, than that Luther was simply giving in this passage the history of a temptation to despair, which he justly considers as suggested to his mind by the agency of the devil. This temptation was founded upon the fact that he had long celebrated a festival which he now knew to be idolatrous. That evil spirit is made by Luther to say, "You know that for fifteen years you have celebrated private masses, and these masses are idolatrous." "Convicted by the law of God," says Luther, "I confessed before my adversary that I had sinned, and was condemned, even as Judas; but," he adds, "I turn me to Christ, like Peter. I regard his infinite merit and mercy; and immediately he abrogates my awful condemnation." The Reformer then proceeds to treat at length of such temptations; and

his language leaves not a shadow of doubt as to the character of the temptations to which he refers. "The temptations of Satan," he says, "are crafty, and well calculated to deceive. He lays hold of some truth which cannot be denied, and so twists and misapplies it, that the most wary must be deceived. Thus the conviction which fastened itself upon the heart of Judas, 'I have betrayed the innocent blood,' was true; the falsehood was in the inference-'Therefore thou must despair.' But this inference the devil so pressed upon him, that he could not stand, and sunk into despondency."

Can there be any doubt, to an honest mind, after reading this statement, to what class of temptations the remarks of Luther referred? Who can wonder that the honest Seckendorf, after giving these extracts, should openly charge those who propagate the story circulated by Bossuet and in the tract above alluded to, "with palpable falsehood." Nor is this the whole of the misrepresentation; for the charge assumes that Luther had never denied the Mass to be a sacrifice till after this reputed conference; whereas the slightest inspection of his works will shew that he had denied it long before.

On the whole, can any refutation be more complete? But, if so, what is to be said of the honesty of the author of this tract, and, indeed, of the church which continues to propagate such falsehoods? Nor can it be pleaded that the fault is committed in ignorance of the difference between the Latin and German versions; for the author of the tract refers to the German edition. Here, then, we have an offence, not of ignorance, but of intention: and to whose agency or influence are such offences to be ascribed, except to his with whom the German Reformer is charged with holding too intimate communion? If the devil is the "father of lies," to what family must the abettors of falsehood belong? And

"2. That the mind possesses a number of distinct or primitive faculties, each of which is dependent on a particular material organ for its manifestation; the power of manifestation being, ceteris paribus, in proportion to the size of the organ.

is it not mournful that forgeries such as this should be circulated and believed among thousands and millions of our fellow-countrymen, in this and the sister island? Would that, in spite of popes and priests, they would seize the book which is the test of truth! that they would honestly try Popery and Protestantism in its scales; and that they would shake off the chains of Rome, and possess themselves of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free!

"The subjoined list exhibits some of those points which either were, or still are, matters of dispute in the old school, but which phrenologists regard as set at rest by the discoveries of their science. The bringing of these points into one view, may perhaps tend more impressively to shew the advantages which phrenology is one day destined to confer on mankind, when passion and prejudice shall have given way to a conviction both of its truth and importance.

"1. That the brain is exclusively the organ of the mind.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 330,

"3. That these faculties and organs are divided into three great classes; propensities, sentiments, and intellect.

"These may be considered as the great leading discoveries of phrenology. The following either flow from, or are included under, the above general heads.

"4. That faculties, and not ideas, are innate.

"5. That attention, perception, memory, and imagination, are not primitive faculties of the mind, but only modes of activity of all or any of the intellectual faculties.

6. That there is an infinite variety among individuals in their respective endowment of the primitive faculties. Hence the differences among men are original and innate; a mathematician is not necessarily a metaphysician, nor a poet a painter.

"7. That these original differences descend, by the laws of propagation, from parents to children.

8. That it is upon this principle chiefly that national character depends; the feebleness of the Hindoo character, as compared with the European, being caused by the former inheriting from nature a smaller brain than the latter.

9. The distinctive character of the sexes, particularly in the propensities of amativeness and philoprogenitiveness, and in general size of brain.

10. The essential distinction between man and the lower animals. In particular, the latter do not possess the organs of the sentiments of hope, veneration, conscientiousness, &c., nor those of the reflecting faculties of comparison, casuality, or wit.

"11. That man possesses a natural sentiment leading him to the worship of a God,

3 B

12. That man has an innate moral sense. This depends chiefly, though not solely, on conscientiousness. The existence of this faculty disproves the theories of virtue given by Hume, Hobbes, Mandeville, Paley, &c.

"13. The existence of the faculties of adhesiveness, acquisitiveness, secretiveness, love of approbation, benevolence, conscientiousness, and intellect, prove that a state of society or civilization is natural to man; in opposition to the reveries of Rousseau, Monboddo, &c., who held that the solitary or savage state was natural, and the social unnatural.

"14. That we may determine, a priori, the education most suitable to be given to, and the professions best adapted for, different individuals.

15. That insanity is, in every case, a bodily and not a mental malady; and that the seat of the disease is exclusively in the brain, or in some particular part of it.

music, chiefly tune, time, imitation, and secretiveness.

"21. The necessity and importance of imitation and secretiveness; the latter in particular giving expression in acting and in the fine

arts.

"22. That the disputes which existed as to the reality of an external world, arose from casuality attempting to take cognisance of that which belonged exclusively to individuality and the other knowing faculties.

"23. Phrenological theory of virtue; the faculties on which it depends being benevolence, veneration, and conscientiousness; former theories having been founded chiefly on propriety, prudence, or benevolence.

"24. That the causes of the different degrees of liberty, enjoyed by different nations, are dependent chiefly on their respective endowment of the higher sentiments, and not on their particular forms of government, free institutions being the effects and not the causes of liberty."

JOURNAL.

"17. The causes of idiocy, partial or total, arising from the deficiency of size or structure, in all or any of the organs.

"18. The phenomena of dreaming; profound sleep being the repose of all the organs, and dreaming the activity of only some of the organs. "The points above-mentioned are held by phrenologists as indubitable. Some of those which follow may admit of doubt, but are considered as, at least, highly probable.

"19. The analysis of humour, the combination of wit and secre

tiveness.

"20. Analysis of the different faculties which concur in producing

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I HAVE been exceedingly interested in reading the Journal of the late excellent Bishop Heber. It is impossible to rise from the contemplation of his character, thus undesignedly, and undisguisedly, pourtrayed by his own pen, without feeling more pungently the greatness of the loss which the Christian church, and especially that part of it of which he was so bright an ornament, has sustained by his premature removal. There is, however, a passage, in a delightful letter, full of Christian feeling and consolation -addressed to Miss Stowe, on the death of her brother, the Bishop's chaplain-which struck me as novel, if not unscriptural. After thus most affectionately expressing himself, "And now farewell! God support,

bless, and comfort you! Such as my prayers are, you have them fervently and sincerely offered;" he adds, "But you have better and holier prayers than mine. That .the spirits in paradise pray for those whom they have left behind, I cannot doubt; since I cannot suppose they cease to love us there. Your dear brother is thus still employed in your service, and still recommending you to the Throne of Mercy; to the all-sufficient and promised help of that God, who is the Father of the fatherless; and of that blessed Son, who hath assured us that they who mourn shall be comforted." There is certainly something very soothing, to a sur. viving relative, in the sentiment here advanced; but the comfort it is calculated to afford is of a very questionable nature. Is the idea scriptural? Have we any reason to believe, from the word of God, that our deceased pious friends are engaged in interceding for us with the Father of our spirits? I know of no passage which warrants such an interpretation. Such views fall in with our natural feelings under such circumstances; but they are calculated to withdraw our minds from those only real sources of consolation which the Scriptures of truth open to us.

CHARLES.

up such points to one another, for the sake of one common public worship. Above all things, abstain from ridicule or reflection upon their persons and teachers; from reproaching them with the conduct of their ancestors, or predecessors of the same sect; from idle reports of their absurdities or immoralities; from groundless suspicions of their insincerity; and particularly from charging them with opinions which they disown, or consequences they do not deduce."

The first head of this advice is much too generally expressed; for though some differences of opinion may be trivial, others are of the greatest moment. When the main points are right, much should be sacrificed for peace; but Dr. Paley would not, I conclude, have wished a clergyman to tell his flock that "the points which divide" them from the Socinian or the Papist are things of "unimportance.' He doubtless meant only to inculcate a kind and charitable spirit, especially towards pious Dissenters, of whatever class; which is quite another thing from destroying the landmarks between truth and error.

But in his second article of ad

vice I fully agree, and would strongly urge it in our controversy with the Church of Rome. In every one of the particulars mentioned by Dr. Paley, too many Protestants offend in their speeches and

CATHOLICS.

Tothe Editor ofthe Christian Observer.

DR. PALEY, in his college lectures, used to offer the following advice to his pupils :

"If you should have Dissenters in your parish, make it your business, by your behaviour, conversation, and preaching, to possess both them and your own congregation with a sense of the unimportance of those points which divide you; and of the convenience, and consequently the duty, of giving

of them I would say, with Dr. Paley," abstain." Neither the "wrath" of man, nor his ridicule, or misrepresentation, "work the righteousness of God." D. E.

ON THE CONVENTICLE ACT.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

YOUR correspondent, " A Friend to Order," whose letter on the subject of the Conventicle Act appeared in your Number for March last, has, I con