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. C. E. G.

MR. BICKERSTETH'S ADDRESS TO THE IRISH CLERGY.

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 much more extended. Either are invaluable constitution; but the latter series, as a whole, 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; would particularly recommend the little volume of his Twenty Sermons, republished by the Religious Tract Society.

I

"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 "writers that may assist Christians Usher, or the Reformers, are

in their studies," he is strangely misinformed. Nor are our clergy fairly to be denominated English readers 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 prælection, 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 AXXorριоεπìσкоπоÇ, 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?

Dublin, May 17, 1836.

Dear Sir, very truly yours, C.

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

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 authorities of this realm, and established in this kingdom, will object to this assumption, and he will represent the controversy as mainly

turning on this point, Has the church of Rome any just ground for claiming submission from the church of England ?'* But into this controversy the writer does not enter, although it is well to warn Dr. Wiseman's readers that this, in the view of a member of the church of England, is the real point at issue, while Dr. Wiseman loses sight of it constantly, and would of course object vehemently to the statement. The writer's object is merely to maintain what he conceives to be the truth against Dr. Wiseman's arguments, and to meet the Roman Goliath, armed in all his panoply, by the prevailing weapons of simplicity and truth. Without further preface, therefore, he begins upon his task :

Note 1.-Dr. Wiseman, like some other controversialists, first makes a phantom, and then destroys it. Let us see how he demolishes hist first protestant at one blow. The purpose of his lectures he proclaims to be," to examine the fundamental principles of the catholic and protestant religions"-(p. 2,) and he begins by complaining that protestants, in their reasonings concerning the Roman-catholic church, are guilty of a logical error, which almost amounts to a petitio principii, or assumption of the point at issue. His argument may be thus abridged, and nearly in his own words :

1. Protestants blame many of the doctrines of the Romish church as errors engrafted on the revelations of Christ, and "many principles of morals and practice" adopted by her "as directly at variance with those which he (Jesus Christ) and his apostles inculcated."-(p. 3.)

2. He asserts that protestants, on being closely pressed, will usually take refuge in one argument. They will say, "that the besetting sin of the catholic" (i. e., the Romish) "church is, having rejected God's written word in his Scriptures as the only rule and authority of faith;" and thus, that all these other grounds of accusation, having arisen from this one cause, merge in this one accusation.

3. He adds, that "the question," therefore, "divides itself into two"-" one of fact," and "one of right;" and that the first relates to the individual instances of corruption, whether dogma or practice, such as transubstantiation, or confession, &c. "These," he says, "form matters of separate consideration, involving distinct facts, each whereof may rest upon its own peculiar proofs."-(p. 4.) "Now, the catholics," according to him," maintain them all exclusively by the same principle, their being taught by an infallible authority vested in the church; and hence all these questions of fact are united and concentrated in one-i. e., the inquiry whether there is any authority which could sanction them, and upon which we are justified in believing them."-(p. 4.)

His complaint, then, is, that in arguing the question, protestants who "tax catholics" (i. e., Romanists) "with additions to the word of God, or with restraining the people from its use, assume the iden

Some persons will even go farther, and contend that the question is-Whether the Romish church deserves to be considered as a branch of the catholic church at all,-whether, in fact, it be not a schismatical and apostate body?

tical question at issue-namely, that Scripture is the only rule of faith."-(p. 5.) He adds, "assuredly it cannot be difficult to prove catholics in the wrong, when the protestant principle of faith is taken as a lemma."-(p. 5.)

That is to say, if we argue on Scripture alone, Dr. Wiseman's church cannot stand. This is an admission for which we Anglicans thank him, as we are bound to do; but it is one which we think is hardly likely to avail him in England. This, however, is by the way; we must be careful not to assume anything. In the conclusion, it will be seen how far Dr. Wiseman is free from logical errors, but it may be remarked, en passant, that, if protestants allow themselves to be driven up into this corner, it only proves that there are some weak brethren who are not able fully to argue their own cause. It is worth while to observe the reluctance which is here exhibited to arguing the question on Scripture grounds, and to admit Scripture at once as the test of truth. If the "morals and practice" enjoined by Rome, are at variance with Scripture, Dr. Wiseman stands, it must be confessed, in an awkward dilemma: One of his two grounds, Scripture or authority, must be out of joint, for it will hardly be allowed that the one may interpret the other in a sense plainly repugnant to its meaning. But Dr. Wiseman, doubtless, besides the attribute of infallibility which he undertakes to prove, will claim for his church the sole right of interpreting Scripture,—a mode of argument which, of course, puts the protestant at once in the wrong. Under the shadow of this shield Dr. Wiseman and his church may say that black is white, and no one dare to contradict them. "Oh! but the catholic church never has said, and never can say, that black is white," will of course be the reply. "It is preserved from error by its infallibility." How logical an answer this must be to a specific charge of error the blindest man may see quite clearly. It is observable that Dr. Wiseman, in the first part of his argument, offers battle on each of the points separately, but afterwards reduces all of them to this one question. Let us see, therefore, whether his reasoning is not chargeable with a logical error which as completely vitiates his conclusions as that with which he charges protestants.

"You contradict Scripture by your doctrines and traditions" is the charge of the protestant.

"That is impossible," is the reply of the Romanist, "for neither you, nor any but the catholic (i. e., the Roman-catholic) church has any right to interpret it; therefore, if your interpretation contradict our church, the Roman-catholic interpretation must be the true one, even though it should be, to a well-educated mind, capable of reading and understanding the Scripture, as clear as the noon-day, that it makes black, white." This is the plain English of the reply which sets the question on the one ground of infallibility. "Assuredly, (to use Dr. Wiseman's own phrase, mutatis mutandis) it is not difficult to prove the protestant in the wrong, if we assume the Roman-catholic principle of faith, as a lemma."

Which of the two parties has the most just ground for its assumption may, perhaps, appear in the sequel. The fact is, that these