The assertion that it was a contrivance of the secretary of state was not advanced till sixty years after the event. No one at the time questioned the reality of the conspiracy. The State Trials contain a detailed account of the whole proceedings-the discovery of the plot, the examination, trial, and conviction of the parties. In the Statute Book of the realm is to be found the act of parliament passed in the year 1606, enjoining the observance of the fifth of November, and proceeding on the assumption that it was a Romish device. The Special Service appointed for the day also furnishes conclusive proof. Can we doubt the evidence of all these? Can we suppose the state trials had no existence, or that their details have been falsified? Can we imagine that the whole parliament of England conspired to invent a falsehood, and to support it by legislation, or that the act never passed into a law? Or is it to be conceived that our forefathers, both in Church and State (for the original service was sanctioned by both), should, in the solemn services of religion, knowingly assert the existence of a plot which never did exist, and offer up thanksgivings for a deliverance which never was experienced, thus not only being guilty of the grossest wickedness, but affirming what, if it were false, could not but be repudiated by the general verdict of the nation? If all this be imaginable -which it is not-we ought to be furnished with evidence of this excessive falsification, and injustice, and hypocrisy; but such has never been adduced. It has been said by some that the king's speech, at the opening of parliament, exonerated the Roman Catholics. The reverse is the case. He said, indeed, as we say, that it did "not follow that all professing the Romish religion were guilty" of that "desperate device," but he distinctly traced the whole treason to the Romish religion, which is the really important point. It is not with persons we have to do so much as with principles. None of the conspirators ever complained of being ensnared into the plot; on the contrary, their confessions and letters abundantly prove the falsehood of the allegation

by which, through a grievous perversion of historical fact, it is thus attempted to evade the branding of Rome with the guilt of this transaction.

2. It is said by other apologists that it was only the act of a few desperate individuals, and that, even admitting the reality and the wickedness of it, none but themselves are involved in the guilt of the proceeding. Now this is not at all a correct description of the parties concerned. There was only one of them who did not move in the rank of a gentleman. Some of them were naturally amiable men, whose kindlier feelings were overborne by the principles in which they had been instructed. Though it might be said of one or two of them that they were daring adventurers, or desperate in character and circumstances, yet this was far from being the case with the majority. There were among them men of high family, great abilities, amiable dispositions, and considerable fortune. But it is not so much with their personal character or condition that we are concerned. It is with the principles by which they were actuated. It is with the sanction, direct or implied, which their proceedings received. It is with the connection between their religion and their practice; and to this we shall direct our attention in a subsequent part of this discourse.

3. We are told also that it was a Roman Catholic nobleman who discovered the conspiracy; and the inference drawn from this is, that members of the Church of Rome, as such, ought not to be implicated in the matter. But this is very inconclusive. We deny both the fact and the inference. We have already seen that some unknown person, privy to the plot, and approving of it, sent a letter to the nobleman in question, Lord Monteagle, simply with the design of saving his life. The writer did not communicate the nature of the danger, but warned this peer to absent himself on the opening of Parliament; and he, having received the mysterious communication, thought it advisable to lay it at once before the secretary of state. This, coupled with the vague information.

which had been received of some intended treason, eventually led to the discovery. But it cannot be said that Lord Monteagle revealed the plot, for, in fact, he knew nothing about it; and even if he had done so, this would not affect the question under consideration. God forbid that we should say that all Roman Catholics approved of the diabolical design. Many, I doubt not, reprobated it then, as now. But this is not the point. The enquiry turns, not upon what certain individuals did who were not implicated in the transaction, and, probably, disapproved of it, but upon the connection between the religion and the conduct of those who were implicated. And this is precisely the ground taken by the king in his speech at the opening of parliament.

Secondly. We may view the text, not only as reminding us of this fact, but also as suggesting a grateful MEMORIAL OF GOD'S MERCIFUL DELIVERANCE VOUCHSAFED TO US.

I. The GENERAL BEARING OF THE CASE RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF ESTHER IS OBVIOUS.

1. We may consider it as affording a precedent worthy of imitation. Not that we are called on to follow, or that it would be right to do so, all the details connected with the feast of Purim. In the first celebration of that festival, though the Jews were to be commended for not flying on the spoil when they had the king's authority to do so, and though they thus proved their disinterestedness, yet they would have shown a more forbearing spirit if they had not taken advantage of the decree to slay their enemies. It may be that they did so only when they were attacked (for there seems some obscurity in the matter), but if they, of their own accord, sought out their enemies and put them to death, it was a course which, without a warrant from Heaven, was greatly to be deprecated. Better for them, in the moment of their triumph, to have been contented with strengthening their own position, by procuring the enactment of laws *Compare Esth. viii. 11, ix. 2.5, &c.

which would have restrained their enemies from any future cruelties, for it is the very spirit of liberty and toleration to restrain from intolerance. In like manner, in the subsequent observance of the festival to this day, there is much that is objectionable. There is often great intemperance, and a spirit of revenge displayed, not merely in the record of Haman's cruelty, (which, for the exciting of their gratitude, might be well,) but in the curses they pronounce upon him. Viewing, then, the feast of Purim as a precedent for us, we are simply to take the grand and leading feature of a commemoration of deliverance experienced, and in this respect we find the practice accords not only with the reason of the case and the spirit of religion, but with the very mode in which God himself has spoken and ordained. Not only did individuals erect monuments or give names to places that God's gracious dealings might be had in remembrance-not only did the Church or nation ordain commemorative seasons, as in this case of Purim, and in that of the festival of the "dedication of the temple," which was instituted by Judas Maccabæus to commemorate the purifying of the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes-but the Almighty himself appointed the feast of the Passover, as "a memorial" and an "ordinance for ever," that the people of Israel might bear in their remembrance the gracious deliverance which He had wrought for them in Egypt. They were told also to "remember what Amalek did," and "what Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him from Chittim unto Gilgal;" and this, not to cherish in their bosoms feelings of hatred or ill-will towards their fellow-creatures, even though they were enemies, but that they might "know the righteousness of the Lord"that they might trace his hand, and adore the justice of his dealings, and be devoutly thankful for his mercies. We are, unhappily, so prone to forget "the loving-kindness of the Lord," that we require to be stimulated in our gratitude by repeated memorials of the past.

2. Accordingly, our Church and nation have deliberately established a memorial of that wonderful and gracious deliverance already spoken of. There was an act of parliament passed for the observance of the day, in which the merciful interposition of Divine Providence is gratefully recognised; and a special service of thanksgiving was drawn up by the bishops, and set forth by the authority of the Crown in 1606. This service, though without the direct sanction of Convocation, was duly read in the churches till the time of the Commonwealth. At the Restoration, when the Prayer-Book was again introduced, it was revised by the Convocation in 1661, and published, with the highest sanction of the Church, in 1662. Afterwards, when King William III. landed on the same day, it was thought well to commemorate both events in one service, and certain prayers and thanksgivings, composed by the bishops, were added by royal authority, though, from the peculiar temper of the times, they were not submitted to Convocation. As a whole, then, the present form has only the sanction of the Crown, but the original partsnamely, those that refer more particularly to the Gunpowder Treason—have the highest that can be pleaded, that of the Convocation of the Church.

It is possible that some persons may feel that certain portions of this service are needlessly severe, and I think it well, therefore, to say a few words in reference to this subject. Now it cannot be questioned that the facts stated, and the views of those facts embodied in the service, are strictly and accurately correct. There is no one expression descriptive of the crimes referred to, or of their authors, that does not convey a positive truth; for in very deed the plot was so flagitious and abominable as nearly to transcend belief—one of the most cruel, treacherous, and cowardly schemes of assassination that the wickedness of the human heart ever conceived. We can have no doubt, then, that the service does not overstep the bounds of truth; but, at the same time, it is certainly expressed in language not altogether such