plement, equalling in voluminous prolixity the Answer even of his very principal.

As my business was with Dr. Trevern, not with Mr. Husenbeth, I was certainly by no means bound to notice the performance of the latter: for I venture to think, that the laws of just controversy do not require that an answer should be given to all the friends or friends' friends of a shrinking adversary, who may be pleased to take up in his defence that pen which he himself has thought good to resign. Yet, though not bound, I was induced, de propria liberalitate, to expend a pamphlet upon Mr. Husenbeth: for I was moved thereto, partly by the impotent anger of the Bishop's editor, and partly by some remarkable adventures in the perilous field of criticism jointly achieved by Dr. Trevern and himself.

Thus, on my part, ended the controversy: for, of course, it were superfluous to notice a mere scurrilous pamphlet of Mr. Husenbeth, which was stuffed with irrelevant personal abuse of myself, and which contained nothing deserving of attention, save an angry confession that the peculiarities of Romanism could not be established from the historical testimony of the antenicene Fathers, and a grossly inaccurate allegation respecting the Emperor

Julian. Each of these matters will be duly brought forward in its proper place: meanwhile, it may be here very briefly remarked, that the confession in effect gives up the very point in debate, and that the allegation is exposed by the simple process of adducing the direct testimony of Cyril of Alexandria.

VI. From a hope of rendering my Work both more evidentially satisfactory and more extensively useful, I have, in the present edition, been induced entirely to remould the Difficulties of Romanism, adopting throughout a perfectly new and more convenient arrangement.

1. The FACT, to be established by the Romanist, is: The aboriginal apostolicity of the peculiar doctrines and practices of the modern Latin Church.

In the first book, then, of my Work, the testimony to this effect, as adduced by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington themselves, in the Amicable Discussion of the former and in The Faith of Catholics of the latter, partly from Scripture and partly from the ecclesiastical writers of the three first centuries, is fully and openly stated: and, without the allegation of a single atom of counter-evidence, their testimony, even on their own exhibition of it, is shewn to be utterly insufficient

2. By adopting this plan, my Work will, I trust, have been very materially improved.

To the theological student and future clergyman, who in these latter days must anticipate the probability of not unfrequent controversy with the Roman Priesthood, the Work, as now moulded, may be useful; because it will copiously furnish him, not merely with english translations, but with the original documents upon which that controversy depends: to the lettered and inquiring Layman it may be satisfactory; because it freely affords him full opportunity to verify allegations by an immediate ocular inspection of the precise greek or latin passages upon which they are founded and to those of my clerical brethren, who may chance to be engaged in local disputations with the gentlemen of the Latin Church, it may be serviceable; because it will supply them with genuine matter upon which they may rely, and because it will exempt them from the apprehension of taking up assertions which cannot be established.

In truth, I have, from a troublesome habit of

diligence, I have been unable to find them: and I have not chosen to admit any passage unaccompanied by its original in the margin.

chiefly concerned in the first edition of the Difficulties of Romanism, has not thought proper, in his Amicable Discussion, to give the originals of the passages which he adduces in evidence: I felt myself at liberty, to follow his example, and thus to escape the labour of a somewhat wearisome transcription of Greek and Latin.

1. Judicious friends have regretted my adoption of this defective and (I readily admit) unsatisfactory plan: and I myself have since seen reason heartily to join in their regret.

In the present edition, the deficiency is supplied and, while, for the convenience of the general or the unlettered reader, I have carefully excluded from the text every vestige of Greek and Latin; I have no less carefully, in the margin, given at full length the original of every passage which has been cited, either by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington from the writers of the three first centuries, or by myself from writers of whatsoever description '.

'Dr. Trevern's references are so deplorably slovenly and unscholarlike, that I have had infinite trouble in following him. One or two passages, I believe, at the utmost, and those of no consequence, for they say nothing more than what other strictly parallel passages of the same author say, have of very necessity been omitted by me: simply because, with my utmost

I really see not what this has to do with the true matter in hand.

Granting for a moment, that Luther conversed bodily with the devil, I must needs say, even in that extreme and doubtless very remarkable case, that the Latin Clergy will not be a single jot nearer to that historical establishment of a FACT which has been imposed upon them by the Tridentine Fathers'.

1

That the anile figment of Luther's personal conference with the devil, who is alleged to have then and there inspired him with the thought of denying the sacrifice of the Mass, though he had already denied it previous to the date of the pretended personal conference, should have been lately retailed by Mr. Husenbeth, for the purpose of abusing the English Commonalty, will excite small wonder. But, that the garbled misrepresentation, in which the very misrepresenters cannot always agree in the same tale, and which entirely suppresses the not unimportant words within my heart, should, even AFTER Seckendorf had consigned it to well merited contempt, have been gravely adduced by Bossuet without ever mentioning Seckendorf, reflects no ordinary disgrace upon the character of that acute though disingenuous Prelate. Honest Seckendorf, the whole fabrication having been thoroughly dissected, indignantly exclaims: They, therefore, who affirm, that Luther acknowledged himself to have been convinced by the devil that the Mass was no sacrifice, are guilty of a palpable and gross falsehood. Our thanks are due to Mr. Scott for a recent exposure of what he justly calls this shameful and preposterous story against Luther. He intimates, that there was the more need of such exposure, because it has lately been served up in the shape of a small Tract to enlighten the lower orders of our