6

collected into one mass and heaped up together; amply verifying the truth of that proverb, No greater evil can ever befal a man than being elected Pope."

Although these testimonies necessarily refer to past ages, the criminal statistics of the present day, in towns where Romanism and Protestantism mutually prevail, constrain us to hesitate before receiving implicitly the vigorous affirmation of Dr. Manning, that "the sole and only guardian of morals in the world is the one, holy, Catholic and Roman Church, represented and impersonated in the Supreme Pontiff:" e. g., Whereas, in the ascending scale, the crime of murder, on an annual average, is only charged against 4 persons out of every million inhabitants in England, it is 113 in the Roman States, and it rises to the appalling height of 174 in the former Neapolitan kingdom. So in the descending scale, whereas the illegitimate births are 51 per cent. annually in Vienna, 35 per cent. in Brussels, and 33 in Paris, they only amount to 4 per cent. in London. In like forgetfulness that his facts and statements must be brought to the bar of public opinion, Dr. Manning admits that "some of the most fair, impartial, and truthful histories of the Catholic Church have been written by persons who rejected the doctrines of Christianity, or at least were not members of the Church;" specifying amongst others the great names of "Ranke, Macaulay, and Hallam." How far the testimony of any of these is in favour of the Temporal power, we need not stop to inquire. Of its truth and correctness we may be quite sure. And the following passage from the History of England affords little or no encouragement to the cause which Dr. Manning has so zealously espoused:-" During the last three centuries," observes Macaulay, "to stunt the growth of the human mind has been the chief object of the Church of Rome. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power..... Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred years ago they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency of Papal domination. Whoever passes in Germany from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of civilization."

Again, if the priestly government in Rome be, as Dr. Manning so confidently affirms, "the freest and the most popular in Europe," how are we to account for the continued of presence a foreign army in the capital during the last fourteen years, coupled with the general belief throughout "Catholic" Europe

that the Pope's throne would not, to use a familiar term, be worth twenty-four hours' purchase after its departure? This is a significant fact, which no lofty claims put forth in behalf of the Papacy can set aside. It resembles M. Thiers' romantic statement respecting "the battle of the Standard," which a recent correspondence in the "Times" has placed in its true colours. By this it appears, notwithstanding the historian's confident assurance that the standard in question was retaken from its English captor, who was killed in the mêlée, there are living witnesses who saw him enter Brussels with his prize on the afternoon of the day on which the battle was fought; he is known to have lived many years afterwards in the enjoyment of his deserved reward; and this obstinate fact sufficiently confutes M. Thiers' statement, that the flag itself is now to be seen in Chelsea Hospital, where it has remained since it was brought from the field of Waterloo.

We must conclude, then, that the continued presence of a French army at Rome is to be considered merely as a guard of honour to "the most popular government in Christian Europe," and that the recently published manifesto of Father Pasaglia with the signatures of nearly 9000 of the Italian clergy, against the continuance of the temporal power of the Papacy, is a sort of myth; or if such ever really existed, it can only prove a perverted state of mind on the part of those besotted clerics against "the cause of the Papacy," which, as General Lamoricière once declared in a military order, when he vainly undertook his crusade against the Italian revolution, "is the cause of civilization and of the liberty of the world."

We scarcely know which to wonder at most in Dr. Manning's defence of the temporal power of the Popes, whether at the innocent simplicity, or marvellous hallucination, which pervades every page of his recent work. Like Rip Van Winkle he must have fallen asleep somewhere about the middle of what have been called "the dark ages," when his favourite Gregory VII., more commonly known by the soubriquet of Hildebrand, or Hell Fire, was lording it over the emperors and kings of the earth, to awake in the middle of the 19th century, finding Pio Nono le désire of the Italians, the sole support of liberty and civilization in Christian Europe, and receiving the cordial homage of the world.

Haman however had his Mordecai, and the Ultramontanists find the counterpart in the illustrious and lamented Cavour. It was therefore natural for Dr. Manning to declare, "the other day it seemed an unequal contest; the Pope in his lonely weakness, right alone on his side, all might against him. Cunning and diplomacy, and the confederate interests of kingdoms and states-all against him in array." The death of the great Italian statesman at the convenient time changed it all,

and happily united might with right. "No man," he concludes, "who believes in the providence of God, no man who has read the history of the last twelve years, but has felt with a silent fear that there is a Will above all human wills directing this great conflict." And he piously suggests the idea, "Whether the voice has come in answer, I know not. The Church of God does not pursue its antagonists beyond the grave." No one who remembers what occurred in this country during the Marian persecution, to say nothing of even worse on the Continent, wherever the Papal power extended, can reconcile such a statement with historic truth. "On the 6th of February 1557," says Froude, "the coffins of Bucer and Fagius (who were buried in St. Mary's, Cambridge) were taken out of the graves and chained to a stake in the market-place; the Bibles and Prayer Books were heaped round them with a pile of faggots, and books and bodies were reduced to ashes."

In short, Dr. Manning's work is a great anachronism, and betrays such an infatuation on the part of the Reverend author, that it can only be accounted for on the principle of the ancient maxim, "Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat." That the temporal power of the Popes is doomed to fall, sooner or later, and never again to be restored, is what no man in his senses can for a moment doubt. It is now as plainly discernible in the signs of the times as the handwriting on the wall of the older Babylon, "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.' And though it is true enough, as the learned Doctor affirms, that "the human will is striving, and the multitudinous wills of men, like the tossing of a great sea, are lifting themselves against Him, but the Lord sitteth above the water-floods;" it is mere rhodomontade to conclude as he does, at the close of his defence of the Papacy: -"Nothing can harm the Church of God, nothing can harm the Vicar of Jesus Christ. For through His Church God is with us; and in the person of Pius IX., Jesus reigns on earth, and 'He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet.""

CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. BIRKS ON INSPIRATION,/ &c.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

MY DEAR SIR, The reviewer of bishop Colenso's work, in your number for December, along with many true and valuable remarks, has made some statements, which seem to require from me a few words of notice, since I am quoted as authority for a view of Inspiration which

Vol. 62.-No. 301.

K

I can by no means fully approve. Your reviewer, in my opinion, is not wholly consistent with himself. I cordially assent to those remarks of his, which represent accurately my own statements on the Human Aspects of the Bible; but I dissent strongly from others, in which he seems to me to contradict himself, and certainly contradicts the drift and scope of a whole chapter of my own work.

The remarks with which I agree include the first paragraph, as far as the sentence, "The first of these facts assures us that the Bible is all true," and the third, as far as the words, "shall faithfully express his meaning," and again, from "most assuredly" to the close of the page.

The sentences from which I differ are these:-"The second fact assures us that, mingled with its divine attribute of truth, there will always be the human attribute of irrability, and even of trivial error. We must take the two together; just as, in the person of the living Word of God, we had, at once, the Mighty God, the Creator, and yet a poor little infant in the manger; a child learning its lessons; and finally, a man who was wearied, hungry, athirst, who groaned, and wept, and died." "Yet there may be one or two immaterial inaccuracies in the document, of which he does not care to take notice." "Why were these discrepancies permitted ?" our own history, we find three of the chief actors giving three different dates for such an event as the raising of King Charles's standard at Nottingham." "We see, as a fact, that it did not seem good unto the Holy Ghost to exclude all such immaterial discrepancies from the Gospels."

"In

In quoting me as authority for these latter statements, your reviewer has unconsciously done me a serious injustice. Having been censured elsewhere, though in a most friendly way, for the prominence given in my work to the human side of Scripture, and which I have further unfolded in a separate Appendix, I feel it doubly important to guard myself against the imputation of an opinion which I do not hold, and against which I have really argued, through a whole chapter on Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, forming twentyseven pages of the enlarged edition of my work.

First, I would observe, that the illustration chosen by your reviewer, which I have also employed, makes directly against the inference it is supposed to prove. Our Lord had a true humanity, but the truth of that humanity did not imply in Him the presence, either of trivial sin or trivial error. My conclusion, from the same analogy, involves no assertion or admission of trivial errors in the Bible, but reasons from it in a different way. "The lowly birth, the hunger and thirst, the weariness and sorrow, the human words and looks and tears of the Son of Man, are the means by which alone we obtain a true knowledge of the Saviour, and are able to discern, in its fulness, that love of Christ which passeth knowledge. In like manner, we must attend thoughtfully, and with reverence, to the human features of the written word, in order to discern clearly its wisdom and heavenly beauty, as a series of messages, clothed with Divine authority, from the living God to the children of men. In one word, a perspective or side view of a building may be as free from error as the ground plan of the architect. Yet it cannot be fully understood

without bearing in mind the point of sight; and two or three such views, if mistaken for plans or elevations, will undoubtedly appear to contradict each other.

Two paragraphs of my work state my real view so simply, and are so plainly opposed to the inference drawn by your reviewer, that I shall content myself with transcribing them from pp. 282, 305, of my work.

"First of all, it is needful to get rid of an ambiguity, by which the true question has often been obscured. Discrepancy may be used in the sense either of simple divergence or positive contradiction. Differences of the former kind can create no real difficulty. When two or three inspired accounts are given of the same series of events, there is no reason, but quite the reverse, why one should simply repeat the other without variation. By this means, nearly the whole benefit of a double and triple testimony would be lost. Some partial divergence in the details recorded, or in the moulding of the narrative, is plainly desirable, and almost essential, that the main object of a plural testimony may be fully secured. It is only such divergence as implies real and direct contradiction, or the partial falsehood of the statement, which can furnish a real argument against plenary and complete inspiration."... "It is most reasonable, even on the view of the plenary inspiration of the Gospels, to expect the fullest measure of diversity, consistent with the general sameness of the narratives, and with the avoidance of positive contradiction."

The chapter closes with these words, which are sufficiently plain :"To conclude, the presence of a few slight inaccuracies in the Gospels, or other histories of Scripture, would be no decisive argument for a lowered theory of their inspiration, consistent with the entrance of human error, unless these were clearly inwrought into the texture of the narrative, and were more than solitary specks on the surface, easily accounted for by defective transmission, and as easily removed. But while there is ample proof, in the Gospels, of the diversity of the testimonies, and the independent authority of the four witnesses, the attempt to establish a contradiction, whether by Christian critics, or sceptical adversaries of the faith, when submitted to close examination, INVARIABLY FAILS. Its usual result will be, tɔ bring to light some undesigned coincidence, some delicate harmony of truth, which escapes the careless reader, and only reveals itself to a patient, humble, and reverent study of the oracles of God." I remain, &c.,

Kelshall; Dec. 11, 1862.

ENGLISH AND SCOTCH THEOLOGY.

T. R. BIRKS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-You have done good service to the Church of England by showing, I venture to say, beyond the power of refutation, that her moderate theological system is more in accordance with the Scriptures than the severe theology of her sister Church in the North. But I think it possible to do more than this-to turn the keen edge of Dr. Cunningham's logic upon himself, and prove by a simple reductio ad absurdum, that the thesis which he maintains, and for which he chal