Page images

justify me, unless the urgency of the case required it, in entering on a controversy with a new antagonist.

I will only add, that if Mr. Dowling asked me, as matter of favour, for my judgment of his work, I candidly tell him that a little more courtesy on his part would have been met with a more frank declaration of sentiment on mine. I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,

John KING Hull, April 9th, 1836.


[ocr errors]

SIR,- In looking into Dr. Milner's “ End of Religious Controversy," 1 met with the following passage, given as from Hooker, from which the reader, unacquainted with that author, might be led to conclude that one or other of the two doctrines, consubstantiation or transubstantiation, was supposed by that eminent divine to be true. He must indeed be an unlearned reader thus to be deceived: it is for such, I imagine, that this edition of Dr. Milner's work (the ninth, Dublin, 1830,) is designed. Among the testimonies of divines of the establishment to the real presence, as explicit," he tells us, “as catholics themselves can wish them to be," he cites Hooker in the following manner :-“ Lastly, the profound Hooker expresses himself thus: I wish men would give themselves more to meditate, with silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how. Since we all agree that Christ, by the sacrament, doth really and truly perform in us his promise, why do we so vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation ?"

The thought which first struck me was, by what process has Hooker been made to speak thus? I discovered that it was by omitting the last ten words of the last sentence! Had they been allowed to remain, the passage would have appeared a rather strange testimony to the real presence in the elements, brought from a writer who was

" as ex plicit on this subject as catholics themselves could wish him to be." Let me, however, supply the omission, and then the latter part of the above sentence will read thus, “ whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation THE SACRAMENT ITSELF be first possessed with Christ OR NO ?"

“ Hooker is known,” as Mr. Newman observes, “ to be opposed to any formal doctrinal assertion of the presence of Christ in the sacred elements, and especially on this ground, lest any such should withdraw our minds from His real presence and operation in the soul and body of the recipient."

On the subject of the pope's infallibility, Dr. Milner accuses Barrow and Tillotson of a shameful misrepresentation of Bellarmin. I have not access to Bellarmin's work. From the above specimen I should not be surprised if the shameful misrepresentation is on the side of Dr. Milner.

W. M.

BOSSUET'S EXPOSITION. SIR, -Although few can doubt but that it is the duty of us all. no longer to remain “ lukewarm and indifferent to the spread of” popery, yet there may be room for a difference of opinion as to “ the course which should be pursued in order to counteract the efforts of those, our vigilant and unscrupulous adversaries," who have declared their “determination to use every means in their power” to procure the “ subversion" of the established church, For this reason, 1 would venture to express my dissent from the suggestion thrown out by your correspondent “ Clericus,” who is of opinion that “an antidote against the subtle poison of popery” would be found in a “ popular examination of the tenets advanced in Bossuet's Exposition of the doctrines of the (self-called) catholic church.” Not to mention that an able and popular examination of that book already exists, it may be doubted (at least, so I think,) whether it be, except under very peculiar circumstances, expedient to allow Romanists to appeal to any exposition of the doctrines of their church other than is contained in their authorized books. I apprehend that few churchmen would desire to have any exposition of our articles palmed upon them by Romanists, instead of the articles themselves; and for the same reason our adversaries, when it suits their purpose, are ready enough to repudiate all expositions of popery, except those which have been authoritatively recognised by the church of Rome herself. To contend with Romanists on other grounds, is, indeed, to give them an advantage to which they are not entitled, but of which they well know how to make the most. It may be true that Dr. Murray has recommended Bossuet's “ Exposition" as ar accredited statement of the real differences, in matters of faith, between the reformed churches and his own,” as he, doubtless, would any other book that might be (if possible) better calculated to keep those “real differences” out of sight. Yet Dr. Murray's recommendation may, after all, have had something to do with that sympathy which is said to exist between kindred spirits : for the evasions, special pleadings, &c., practised by Bossuet, in the publication of the book in question, find no parallel so suitable as the transactions of Dr. M., connected with the setting forth of “ Dens' Theology.” Let the following statement of facts be well pondered by your correspondent Mr. Stanley, or by any other believer in the integrity of Dr. Murray. It is well known that Bossuet wrote his “ Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church” for the use of the Maréschal de Turenne, who became a convert to popery. For about four years the exposition was circulated only in MS., but the applause it obtained encouraged the author to publish it. Accordingly, it was put forth in the year 1671, with the recommendation of several bishops, who vouched for its conformity to the doctrines of the Romish church. At the same time a copy of the book was submitted to the doctors of the Sorbonne, who (alas !) were so far from approving of the “Exposition,” that they marked several passages in which Bossuet, in his too great anxiety to palliate the tenets of popery, had, in their judgment, absolutely perverted the doctrines of the church of Rome.

[ocr errors]

To have published his book under these circumstances would have been too barefaced an experiment on the credulity of protestants ; so the first edition was suppressed, and the “ Exposition” re-appeared in due time, with such corrections, additions, and mutilations as expediency required. When, however, these changes and modifications of the doctrines of the unvarying church, which the second edition of his book exhibited, were charged upon Bossuet, he boldly denied that any first edition had existed. And when a copy of the suppressed edition was produced, and he found himself unable to set aside the evidence of men's senses, this veracious Romanist did not hesitate to affirm that the first edition had been surreptitiously printed and published, without his knowledge and approbation. It will be imagined, of course, by all not versed in the history of popery, that this denial of Bossuet settled the question, since the commonest regard to worldly respectability may well be considered as a motive sufficiently powerful to induce a man to shrink from the disgrace attached to a detected falsehood. But no. Notwithstanding Bossuet's denial that he had any knowledge of the printing of an edition of his book but that which was in general circulation, it turned out that the suppressed “ Exposition” had been printed with the same episcopal recommendation, with the same royal permission, as were appended to the second edition, and by the very same printer; and, as if to brazen out the falsehood to the uttermost, Bossuet was so far from attempting to reprehend the printer for putting forth, without authority, so heterodox an edition of the book in question, that the same person, in the same year, was employed by the bishop to print the amended “ Exposition," and was afterwards the printer of all Bossuet's other works. Even so. Yet bad as all this is, one might be tempted to doubt whether this transaction has reference to Paris in 1671, or to Dublin in 1836 !

With all this jugglery before us, therefore, I am disposed to think that not much good would result from an examination of such a book as Bossuet's “ Exposition," because the very history of it shews that it was written to deceive the reader. So far, indeed, was the book considered from being an “ accredited” document by the church, the doctrines of which it professes to expound, that during the lifetime of Bossuet himself, some of the tenets maintained in it were condemned by the University of Louvain as scandalous and pernicious. It has appeared to me, therefore, that Dr. Murray's recommendation of such a book should be a warning against any dependence on its authority; and that instead of suffering ourselves to be misled by such expositions of popery, we should rather address ourselves to the comparison of the statements put forth by the Bossuets of the present day with the decisions of the council of Trent, and with the contents of popish missals and breviary. It is thus only, I believe, that the “real differences, in matters of faith,” between the Romish and English church can be ascertained, and the unscrupulous duplicity of our adversaries be detected.




DEAR SIR,—I do not know whether you may have seen a small pamphlet lately published by Mr. Seeley, entitled “ The Substance of an Address made to about 260 of the Irish Clergy, (after an early breakfast together,) at the Rotunda, in Dublin, on Friday morning, April 15, 1836, before the Annual Meeting of the Hibernian Auxiliary Church Missionary Society. By the Rev. Edward Bickersteth, Rector of Watton. First Thousand. London: Seeley, &c. Price 3d. ; or 25 for 5s.6d.” pp. 16. As it may possibly have fallen into your hands, permit me, as an Irish clergyman, to assure you that the Irish clergy, without any extraordinary pretensions to learning, are by no means so entirely ignorant of the commonest books as Mr. Bickersteth seems to imagine. His bibliographical advice to the clergy of this country is so curious, that I shall beg to transcribe it :

“ Having been requested to draw the attention of my younger brethren to a few of the more SOUND AND PROFITABLE DIVINITY WRITERS that may assist Christians in their studies, I readily mention such as occur to me as likely to be most useful, and are most easily accessible.

“ The writings of our Reformers appear to me eminently useful; there are two collections of them. Richmond's Selections of the Fathers of the English Church contains some that the Religious Tract Society, in its “ British Reformers,' could not give, on account of its general constitution; but the latter series, as a whole, is much more extended. Either are invaluable treasures of Christian truth and experience. Public attention having been more directed to Luther's works, there are now translations of them that may be obtained at a reasonable rate. The Harmony of the Confessions is full of valuable truth, exhibiting the unity of the protestant faith. For meeting the papist, I know few more full and complete treatises than your own Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, (lately printed at the Cambridge press,) and Fox's Book of Martyrs, and Jewell's Apology, and the defence of it. Fox's Book of Martyrs is full of genuine Reformation principles, and I am happy to say that I believe Messrs. Seeley and Burnside are now likely to reprint it under the care of a competent editor. It is a work the circulation of which should be encouraged by every true protestant.

“ Your own Archbishop Usher's writings in general are full of learning and unction; I would particularly recommend the little volume of his Twenty Sermons, republished by the Religious Tract Society.

". In the defence of the church of England Hooker is unrivalled. For the history of the church at large, at least Mosheim and Milner, continued by Scott, should be read; and for that of the Reformation, Burnet and Strype ; and for our daily work, my friend Bridges On the Christian Ministry.'

“ As practical writers, full of holy truths for our edification, I cannot recommend you to better works than the works at large of Bishops Hall, Leighton, and Reynolds, and those of Trail, Charnock, Owen, and Baxter, and the practical Walker, of Truro.

“For Commentaries on the Scriptures, after the most important of all, devout meditation, and comparing scripture with scripture, Horne, Poole, Henry, and Scott will, in general, furnish an English reader the best help. A smaller commentary of the Religious Tract Society condenses much valuable information in six volumes. It would be very easy to enlarge, and I doubt not most, if not all, of the brethren I see before me have extended their studies far beyond those few works that I have mentioned, and that some are in the very profitable habit of searching the Scriptures, not only in the English, but in the original tongues." (pp. 15, 16.)

Now really, sir, if Mr. Bickersteth intended anything but complimentary civility by this last sentence, it seems rather extraordinary to occupy the time of 260 clergymen with a list of books such as this, of whose existence and character I cannot conceive any decently conducted divinity student in our university to be ignorant. I assure you, sir, I have known undergraduates to whom Walch and Buddeus were not unknown. But if Mr. Bickersteth imagines that our clergy need to be informed that such books as Horne, or Poole, or Scott, or Luther, or Usher, or the Reformers, are “writers that may assist Christians in their studies," he is strangely misinformed. Nor are our clergy fairly to be denominated English reuders in any sense (as Mr. Bickersteth seems to have used the words) which would imply that a theological writer in the Latin language, or even the Greek, however

SOUND AND PROFITABLE,” would be inaccessible to their uneducated minds. Pray, sir, allow me to correct these mistakes, which Mr. Bickersteth has been led into, no doubt, by the foolish misrepresentations of those who should have known better, and who must have sadly imposed on the credulity of that excellent gentleman.

Who it was that requested Mr. Bickersteth to deliver this singular mixture of episcopal charge and professional præelection, I cannot imagine. I do not believe it to have been delivered by the injunction or request of the diocesan; and, therefore, I lament that speaker and hearers seem to think so lightly of what is certainly tantamount to being an Allorpioen Okoroc, if I understand the nature of that character.

Mr. Bickersteth has also suggested, (p. 12,) that the first and second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are adapted to the use of ministers. I can hardly suppose that Mr. Bickersteth is not aware that these epistles are acknowledged by the Irish church as canonical scripture, and are bound up in copies of the New Testament used in this country. It might even be taken for granted that most, if not all of the 260 clergymen to whom Mr. Bickersteth made this address, “after an early breakfast,” are pretty familiar with their contents.

One sentence in this address (p. 8) fairly puzzles me :-" The established church appears to me like a vast break-water, resisting the impulse of the waves and tempests of the tumultuous ocean of fluctuating opinions, and behind which men may remain safely anchored.” Pray, sir, who can these men be who may remain safely anchored Behind the established church? Are they the protestant dissenters? If not, who are they?

Dear Sir, very truly yours, C. Dublin, May 17, 1836.


Lectures on the principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic

Church. By N. Wiseman, D.D. Lecture I. The writer of this notice has no intention of launching into the whole controversy between Romanists and protestants. If he had, he would at once object to the title of these Lectures, and the mode of conducting them, because, in the title and the mode of conducting the controversy, Dr. Wiseman assumes that he, and he alone, is arguing the cause of the catholic church, and that the protestant is excluded from its pale. The real catholic, the member of that branch of the catholic church which has been reformed by the ecclesiastical autho. rities of this realm, and established in this kingdom, will object to this assumption, and he will represent the controversy as mainly

« PreviousContinue »