neighbourhood, and contact of Protestantism. To this all their exertions now tend; for this were the palpable contradictions and inconsistencies that fill the Ninth Report of the Commissioners of Education Inquiry fabricated, and to this all the vehemence of Dr. Doyle and his colleagues is directed. "The Bible," we have Roman Catholic authority for it, "the Bible is the most revolutionary book in the world," and although a plain Protestant may be surprised at the hostility, which in every age, the Church of Rome has manifested to the Scriptures, which to him appear not only to be calculated to make man" wise unto salvation," but to carry in their train all the virtues and graces of the social life— any one acquainted with the life-giving principle of the book, with the intellectual as well as spiritual energies which it inspires, and who contrasts its contents with the essence and characteristics of the Church of Rome, will not be astonished that such hostility has been manifested: an early and effectual schooling in the mode of evading common language, and the power of supplying by conjecture and antiquity, the lamentable vacancies that the Roman Catholic must find in Scripture, may give to the timid, the ingenious or the ambitious intellect, that obliquity that always turns from the light, but as a general principle, and above all in a Protestant country, we may lay it down, and Popery knows it well, that the reading of the Scriptures will be fatal to her authority. Hence, she would surrender any other privilege. The celibacy of the clergy, the communion in both kinds, every other point of discipline would she give up, and every point of faith would she explain, but the prohibition on the unrestricted reading of the Scriptures, she will never relinquish. She may evade the confession, and equivocate about the charge; but when brought to the point, she will never hesitate to say with Priest Clowry in Carlow, "it is not the abuse but the use of the Bible to which we object," or with the Bishops assembled at Bologna, in their address to Julius II. "this is the book that has raised the storms in which we are tossed-labour then with all your might, that as little as possible of the Gospel be read, especially in the vulgar tongue."

These observations have occurred to us in considering the Charge that we have placed at the head of this article, and the controversy to which it has given rise. We rejoice that it has excited that controversy; we are glad that good sense and sound information have at last called out the Roman Catholic Prelate of Kildare and Leighlin, and we rejoice still more to see in his due place, and station, another of the Prelates who preside over the Established Church. That the events which have taken place have necessarily occupied much of their attention, we were well aware; that they looked on the struggle that was going forward with the interest of Protestants and the prudence of Bishops we well knew, and the pages of the Reports of the Commissioners and the Committees of Parliament, prove how deep an interest our Prelates took in the contest, and how well prepared they were to stand forward and defend the great principles of Protestant Christianity. We rejoice that the active and intelligent mind of the Bishop of Ferns, has been induced to turn its attention to this controversy, in which, before he was elevated to his present exalted rank, he had dis

tinguished himself by his learning and his acuteness. We know not any one better fitted to disentangle sophistry and hunt evasion through its recesses. With a mind richly stored with classical literature, an intellect trained in the severities of mathematical science, an experience derived equally from long continued academic exertion, and the labours of a parochial ministry, we are glad that he has found time to call forth the energies of J.K.L. who can have no excuse to decline meeting his equal in ecclesiastical and his superior in legal rank. The sneer with which Dr. Doyle meets every thing like reasoning, has no effect on a mind like that of his antagonist; the sophistry in which he involves the plainest statements, is penetrated by his acute and vigilant opponent, and leaving personality and passion to the advocate of a bad cause, the Bishop of Leighlin and Ferns presents a noble contrast to his adversary, equally in the mildness of his Christian temperament, and the simplicity of his controversial style.

His Lordship commences his admirable charge by noticing the remarkable change in the character of the Roman Catholic population, and pressing upon his clergy the obligations imposed on them by this new course of things, and the duties and the exertions to which they are called: after remarking on the error of those who would pervert the conscientious charity of our church, into an admission of the innocence of error in the communion of Rome, and showing fully the solemn engagement under which all the ministers of the establishment, by that character are bound, he remarks with equal prudence and

very

energy,

now,

"That duty, however, was to be regulated by circumstances. It would have been in vain for me to have exhorted you to preach to those who would not hear, or to attempt instructing those who would not listen to your instructions..... But that it has pleased the Almighty to open the hearts of many to our instructions: now, that many of those who had erred and had been deceived, have been brought into the way of truth; now, that the fields are white unto the harvest, it would be criminal indeed were we not to devote ourselves to the blessed work of extending to those who have been in darkness, that light of the Gospel which it is our happiness to enjoy.—pp. 8, 9.

But how can this be most effectually accomplished, he asks.We quote with sincere pleasure his admirable reply.

My answer is, that you should employ those means which our Church first used, when freeing itself from the corruptions by which it had nearly been overwhelmed. That you should exhort all men to read that Holy Book, which has God for its author, truth without any mixture of error for its matter, and salvation for its end." In this excellent and Protestant answer, the whole essence of the controversy with the Church of Rome, is contained; the reading of the Scriptures, and the right of private judgment, which is inseparable from it, form the great contest we have with that system which would substitute catechisms for Scripture, and the inventions of man for the Word of God. We regret that we cannot quote the admirable observations of the Bishop on the difference between the Bible and catechisms, that is, between the dead and inanimate fabric of human artifice, and the life-giving power of divine workmanship; but our regret is diminished by the recol

lection, that this charge is probably in the hands of every Protestant in the country, who thinks at all upon the subject. We would recommend, in the same way, the excellent observations of the Bishop, on the right of private judgment, as defined by the Roman Catholic, and as understood by the Protestant; and his Lordship's luminous exposure of the absurdities which Popish misrepresentation would impute to us. We quote a part :

"What we reject is the authority claimed by the Roman Catholic Church to interpret dogmatically, without allowing permission, in any case or under any circumstances, to judge whether that interpretation be right, but arbitrarily requiring that her interpretation shall be received without dispute or discussion. We do not reject the influence of wisdom, but we reject the despotism of power..... We contend that each man has a right to interpret for himself, but that in exercising that right it is his duty to employ every means in his power to procure information that may enable him to interpret wisely; and for the performance of that duty he will be made to answer at the last Great Day. This is the right of private Judgment which we claim, not that absurd extravagance which Roman Catholic writers impute to us."-pp. 16, 17.

Having proved the necessity of examining the Scriptures, by referring to some popular books of instruction for the Roman Catholics, containing some most awful perversions of the Bible, the Bishop having given some admonitions as to the manner of conducting controversy, conceived and expressed in the most Scriptural spirit, concludes his charge in the following admirable passage, which should be a motto for every Protestant in Ireland, whether lay or ecclesiastic:

"You are reproached with reading the Bible. You are called Bible Readers, and Bible Men, and Biblicals. Continue to deserve to be so denominated. Let your delight be in the Law of the Lord, and exercise yourselves therein day and night. Accept as your greatest glory that which is cast upon you as a reproach. Relax not your efforts till all men seek the truth in that Sacred Volume which contains the words of eternal life. It is the work of the Almighty in which you are engaged, and His Power will cause it to prosper."-p. 32.

Our readers require not to be told by us, that this Charge has been made the subject of a controversy, in which J. K. L. has put off his incognito, and has ventured out in defence of his church and character. We shall leave him to the just inflictions with which the Bishop and some other Protestants* have visited him, and make a very few observations on the discussion. It appears that Dr. Doyle, having been for some years Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, and having tired himself, his priests, and the public, with his politico-theological pamphlets, has taken to revising and re-writing little books for the poort-by accident, we

* See the excellent observations on Bishop Doyle's first letter, contained in letters from Rev. C. Otway and Rev. B. Johnson.

"I had been occupied in reading Tull's Book on Husbandry,' with a view of forming out of it a small treatise for the use of farmers and their children, in the country."-Dr. Doyle's Reply to the Appendix. We are glad to find J. K. L. so innocently employed; but we think he might have postponed even this occupation to the examining and correcting Tuberville's misquotations and perversions of Scripture.

suppose, he discovered that the "Christian Doctrine" had been in use for two hundred years, and that it required revision; and he set about revising it, having permitted, by his own confession, an incorrect edition of the book to circulate in his diocese, confessedly incorrect even in the quotations of Scripture, while he was penning inflammatory addresses. On this book, whose circulation and popularity Dr. Doyle allows, the Bishop makes some observations, to justify the propriety of recurring to the Scriptures to verify references, and like the Bereans, "to search whether these things be so."-The honor paid to saints and angels, is justified in this book, by Joshua's adoration of the angel who appeared to him, Jos. v. 14, 15. and St. John's falling down before the apocalyptic angel, Rev. xxii. 8. To the first reference the Bishop objects, 1st, That in the "Christian Doctrine," the passage is quoted, "I am the Prince of the House of our Lord," (instead of "THE Lord,") by which the subordinate character of the angel is fixed; and this, contrary to all versions, even the Douay. 2, That the angel who appeared to Joshua, in fact, was Jehovah, as he himself announced, both by using the words to Joshua that had been used on a former occasion to Moses, and by the very name Jehovah being applied to this angel. He also, in his notes, quotes Masius for this interpretation, who with truth asserts it to be the opinion of the Jews, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Justin Martyr, and he might have added Origen, and as Calmet says, "alii passim." To this the Doctor replies, that the erroneous translation was a mistake of the press, and that Tuberville, the author of the book in question, used no particular version, but translated for himself. Now be it remarked, that supposing this to be an error of the press, it is an error that the pious and Bible-reading Dr. Doyle, and his predecessors, have permitted to remain in the abridgment of Christian Doctrine for 200 years, and what becomes of their care and attention? it is an error which, making for their own opinions, more especially called for their scrutiny; and where is their honesty? it is an error, which, if the Doctor's doctrine be not true, is downright blasphemy; and then where is their religion ?-But Tuberville used no particular version, and Dr. Doyle has suffered his translations to stand! This alone was wanting to complete the inconsistency of infallibility. The immaculate character of the Scriptures is to be so preserved, that the bishop's imprimatur is essential, before the book purporting to be the word of God can pass into the people's hands. The Roman Catholic prelates declared to the Commissioners of Education, that nothing claiming to be Scripture, not even a quotation, could be given to the people, but in the versions approved by them,-the Douay and Rhemish. The whole well-arranged plan of the Commissioners has been broken up by this most laudable scrupulosity of the prelates; and now, Dr. Doyle, with happy forgetfulness, tells us that the poor of Ireland have been for 200 years, receiving as Scripture, the unauthorised, unauthenticated version of an individual.* If this be

The Bishop of Ferns gives two other instances of the same unauthorised translation being suffered to go forth to the people as Scripture, in Challoner's Catholic

not a dependance on private judgment in the worst sense of the phrase, we cannot understand the meaning of the words.

But Dr. Doyle justifies his friend Tuberville moreover, by denying the angel who was seen by Joshua, to be other than a created angel because he is called "a Prince of the army of the Lord," Josh. v. 14, because the name Jehovah is given to him who so frequently appeared to Moses, although Paul in Gal. iii. 19,* and Luke in Acts vii. 39, prove him to have been a created angel, but one of whom St. Augustine says, "Angelus loquebatur, sed Deus erat in illo:"-and thus we have Rome again symbolising with Racovia in its perversion of Scripture, and Dr. Doyle joining hands with Socinus to disprove the pre-existence of the Son of God, in contradiction to the whole Primitive Jewish and Christian Church. Is Dr. Doyle not aware, that if any title belong exclusively to the Supreme it is Jehovah, the incommunicable name? Is the "Lord God" a name more exclusive or superior to Jehovah, that the Bishop in his wretched special pleading has distinguished them-does he not know that the very angel to whom he alludes, as having appeared to Moses, has by all antiquity been declared to be the second person of the Trinity, and two verses beyond the one he has referred to in Acts, is so stated to be by St. Stephen."The voice of the Lord came to him saying, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and the Lord said," &c. Acts vii. 31, 32, 33—does he not know that the very Augustine whom be quotes so liberally, distinctly declares, that the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush was God, and that Chrysostom agrees in this opinion which all the ancient fathers hold? But we cannot wonder at the Doctor's interpretation when he falsifies Scripture to support it. The angel in Scripture is called "Prince of the army of the Lord," but the Roman Catholic Prelate sinks this exclusive and peculiar title, into " A Prince of the army of the Lord," one among many instead of the peculiar and single monarch! Such is the Doctor's accuracy. But notwithstanding all, Dr. Doyle will assert his interpretation to be that of the Church. We may, at least, ask him to prove it. How is it known that such an interpretation has been given of it even by the Roman Catholic Church-has any Council, or even any Pope pronounced upon it, has any canon been issued anathematizing those who please to interpret it as did Justin, Origen, and Theodoret? Dr. Doyle will not pretend to say, that he is a sufficient authority against those fathers, and he has quoted no others; nay, even the opinion of a Council would not be valid, for, according to Pope Pius' creed, the interpretation must be secundum unanimem consensum,

Christian Instructed, where Acts xiii. 2, is translated contrary to the Greek, the Vulgate, and the Rhemish, "sacrificing to the Lord," and James v. 15, "the Lord shall ease him." But why should consistency stand in the way of so desirable an end as the finding the Mass and Extreme Unction in the Scriptures ? Could these things happen among a Bible-reading people? And on this subject Dr. Doyle makes no reply. See the Bishop's note for an account of that impudent forgery, the Bourdeaux Testament, or Bp. Kidder's Tract, recently republished by Archdeacon Cotter.

* A reference to this passage will prove that it has no connection with the subject.