as a presumptuous meddler and fool, is an exile from his Roman home, is denied a hearing by his former friend, and is disgraced as the author of a profane and prohibited book. He has not ceased to be a Catholic, a Jesuit, or a Papist. His words in his plea for the Italian cause are not words of protest against religious tyranny, but of almost servile obsequiousness to the spiritual supremacy of the successor of Peter. He protests that he has no thought of denying one iota of the Apostolic right, and that he is perfectly submissive to the will and sentence of his religious superiors. He is not a rebel, like Gavazzi, or even a reformer, like Ventura, but still a true and obedient son of the Church. All that he wishes to do is to show the bishops that the Church is strong enough to stand without temporal sway, and that this temporal sway forms no part of its original right and claim. The tone of his book is in no respect arrogant, but rather annoys by its excessive humility. Some of this may possibly be feigned, and the art of the Jesuit doubtless has something to do with it. But no one can doubt the general sincerity of the author's profession of submission to the Holy See, or can believe that his apologies disguise a latent heresy. He would be at once a Catholic and an Italian; but he is Catholic first, and if he is to take an alternative, he will be Catholic always. His Preface is the key to his faith, his desire, and his purpose. It is an argument in behalf of the right of a simple priest to advise the bishops whom he is bound to obey.

The main "Apology" is, in its construction, its style, its logical method, its winding ingenuity, and in the character of its illustrations, a fair specimen of Jesuit pleading. The drift of the argument does not appear until the conclusion is nearly reached. No one would suspect from the first sixty sections that any word is coming against the Pope's temporal power; rather the argument would seem to vindicate the Papal power throughout. Every point is fortified by quotations from the recognized patristic authorities, from the words of Augustine and Cyprian in their controversy with heretics. It is only hinted that it were desirable, if possible, to save to the Church some who have been cut off; and we seem to see a plan presented for their restoration. Passaglia has merely arranged the testimonies of the great doctors, and wishes no praise for any original idea. And, as he told Cardinal Altieri in their amusing interview, if the "Sacred Congregation" condemns his book, they will condemn their own canonized teachers and saints, and condemn words which were used to refute heresy. The connection, indeed, of all these citations with the main point at issue seems not always clear, and it is rather an obscure logical process which makes Augustine an advocate of the citizenship of the head of Christendom. But it is easier to feel dissatisfied with the argument than to point out the flaw, and probably none of the judges of the Jesuit Father will be able to show where his plea is weak and defective. It is sprinkled over with axioms which have adhered to the substance, and cannot well be separated.

However obscure the argument, the conclusion, which we give in Passaglia's own words, is definite enough. "If there have been times

in which the conditions of human society have seemed to require the union of the civil power to the supreme Pontificate, the situation, both public and private, is so modified now, that nothing should be more desirable, for the Pontiff himself, than the separation of the sceptre and the keys, of the sacerdotal tiara and the royal diadem. This separation is unanimously called for by those who still (in spite of themselves and by foreign arms) are subject to the pontifical rule; it is unanimously called for by all the peoples of Italy, who cannot longer allow the new kingdom to be deprived of its capital, Rome; it is called for by the most civilized nations of Europe, convinced by arguments the most conclusive that the civil power can only injure religion and the supreme Pontificate, and even bring on their ruin. These dangers, from which neither the Church nor civil society can be freed, unless the soul of the Pontiff will hear the counsels of concord and peace, these dangers require the separation. The mission of the supreme Pastor, too, requires it, as he should care in all things for the good of his flock. It is demanded, in fine, in the name of human and divine rights, by virtue of which we cannot help addressing to Pius IX. the same words which the African bishops addressed to Innocent I. Since the Lord, by a special gift of his grace, has placed you upon the Apostolic Seat, and has made you such that it would be easier to show our negligence if we, hid from your Holiness what is good for the Church, than to suppose you would neglect our advice or take it in bad part, we come to beseech you with all a pastor's diligence, to deign to heed the grave perils which are threatening the weak members of Christ."

Ir is well at times, if we can, to view our own faith from a foreign stand-point, and to see ourselves as others see us. A good Christian may be edified by putting himself in the position of a fair-minded Jew. This the remarkable book of M. Joseph Cohen, one of the most practised and accomplished Israelite writers of France, enables us to do.* The title of the book, "The Deicides," the murderers of God, — is certainly startling; but the invention of this is not to be charged to M. Cohen. It is of Christian origin; and it is the blasphemous insult which it offers to the Jewish people which has moved M. Cohen to his task of vindication. The immediate cause of this new attack upon the Jews is very honorable to that race. In the contributions for the relief of the suffering Christians of Syria, large offerings were tendered by the Hebrews of France. In fact, the Jewish offerings were earliest, and the idea of the contributions was suggested by Cremieux, formerly a member of the French Provisional Government. But two Catholic journals indignantly protested against receiving for the aid of Christians the impious gifts of "Deicides." Happily their fanatical protest did not hinder the donation; but the fact that it was made in such a form, moved the heart of a strong Jewish champion to defend his people against such a vile and monstrous charge.

* Les Déicides. Examen de la Divinité de Jesus Christ et de l'Église Chrétienne au Point de Vue du Judaïsme. Par J. COHEN. Paris: Michel Lévy, Frères. 1861. 8vo. pp. 399.

M. Cohen's book is not, in any sense, an argument against Christianity. He does not deny any doctrine of the creed, does not deny that Christ is God, or that the Gospel is a special revelation. He assumes, for the sake of the argument, the truth of the Evangelical narratives, as they stand in our common versions, taking the Vulgate throughout as authority, and quoting from it. His object is to show that the Jews who crucified Jesus did not know, and could not know, that they were killing God; that they acted in good faith, according to their light, and that they are not to be blamed for their act, much less their innocent descendants. By a careful examination of the Christian record, he finds that, while the Jews readily recognized Jesus as a prophet, they could discover in his acts, his words, and his life nothing which should identify him to their minds with God, or even with their expected Messiah. His miraculous birth was not revealed to them, either by the shepherds or the Magi, and was never alluded to by himself. He was recognized as a carpenter's son, and had sisters and brothers. All the signs which could seem to mark him as the Messiah were concealed from general knowledge. The disciples, when they learned from him that he was the expected Christ, were strictly forbidden to divulge the secret; and in answer to the repeated entreaties of the Pharisees, Jesus refused to say plainly that he was their Holy One. The miracles which seemed to prove that he came from God were only such as their own prophets had performed before, and merely repeated to the Jews the acts of Elijah and Elisha. M. Cohen cannot find any sign by which a Jew might recognize in Jesus the Son of God.

Beside this studied silence and secrecy, the conduct of Jesus seemed directly designed to make the Pharisees, the believing Jews, suspect and reject him. His words to them and about them were not only evasive, but highly insulting. He chose as his followers men of an inferior class, and associated with the obnoxious publicans. His friends and companions were not the sort of men to commend his pretension to be Messiah, much less to be God. He refused, too, the honors which the people would pay him. He predicted his death, uttering so a blasphemy, since the Messiah was to conquer, and God cannot die. Moreover, while most of his moral and religious teachings, most of the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount, were repetitions of the teachings of the Law, the Prophets, and the Jewish traditions, some things which Jesus said were exceedingly repulsive to pious Jewish minds, such as the hating of father and mother, the damnation of all and the advent of

the rich, as such, the servant becoming master, the kingdom of God as a time of war, and not of peace. What in the Gospel of Jesus was new would not seem to them true, and what was true would not seem to them new. This part of M. Cohen's argument is very ingenious, and the improved Sermon on the Mount which he constructs is certainly very harmonious with what we are apt to hear preached as enlightened Christianity.

Without denying the miracle of the resurrection, or rejecting it because of the conflicting accounts of the four Evangelists, M. Cohen

shows that the Jews evidently knew nothing of it; that for some time all knowledge of it was confined to the disciples, and that when it was preached, it rested on the veracity of these preachers. From his own point of view, he certainly makes out a perfect case, and shows that it is preposterous to accuse the Jews of wilful wickedness in their treatment of Jesus. Against the legal plea of M. Dupin, he maintains that Jesus was lawfully condemned as a blasphemer, that the words which he repeatedly uttered were blasphemous, according to the Jewish Law. The second part of this curious book is devoted to a refutation of the double argument that the Jews ought to have been convinced of the Deity of Christ, both by the triumph of Christ's religion in the world, and by their own disaster and misery as a people. In the first place, M. Cohen shows that the triumph of Christianity is explained by natural causes, and that it needs no assumption of divine intervention to account for its slow progress. Its methods were human, its fortunes human, and it grew like other religions. A Jew can see in the propagation of the Gospel no such miraculous agency as he sees in the rapid deliverance of his people from Pharaoh and in the Law given from Sinai. In the second place, the woes and persecution of the Jews are traced to natural causes, and are shown to be much more the result of human passion and cruelty than of the Divine displeasure.

This is a very inadequate notice of an admirable book, the tone of which is temperate, charitable, elevated, and sincere, in which we have found little to censure, and which as a vindication is conclusive. We are not quite ready, however, to believe that all that the author says in praise of Jesus will be approved by his Jewish brethren.

THE Rev. John Lamb's course of "Hulsean Lectures"* have added nothing valuable to theological science. His argument is as superficial as his scholarship is defective and his conclusions are feeble. The orthodoxy of his soul is painfully obtrusive, and he is either too pious or too timid to be free. The "seven words" which he discusses are the seven charges brought against Jesus by his "cotemporaries, of blasphemy, of treachery to Judaism, of Sabbath-breaking, of worldliness, of keeping low company, of treason to Cæsar, and of serving Satan." Mr. Lamb finds that all these charges had their root in "prejudice," that no one of them was any good reason why Jesus should be rejected, and that he ought to have been accepted, in spite of the apparent justice of the charges. The verdict of the reader, we think, after fairly weighing his plea, will not be quite so positive. In regard to the charges of "blasphemy" and Sabbath-breaking, it is impossible to condemn the feeling of the Pharisees, unless we condemn the whole Pharisaic system too; and the fourth and fifth charges the Saviour himself allowed. The accusations of treason to Judaism, treason against Cæ

The Seven Words spoken against the Lord Jesus or an Investigation of the Motives which led his Cotemporaries to reject Him. Being the Hulsean Lectures for the Year 1860. By JOHN LAMB, M. A., Senior Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, and Minister of St. Edward's, Cambridge. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co. 1861. 8vo. pp. xvi., 136.,

sar, and Satanic possession, are certainly not just; but for the others, there is reason, sufficient, at least, to justify the Jews on their own ground. In regard to the necessity of miracles as the evidence of revelation Mr. Lamb is quite heretical. He thinks that too much has been made of that argument. He is constrained, too, to differ from the Puritanic notion of the Sabbath. His heresies, nevertheless, are very mild, hesitating, and apologetic. And he atones for any divergence from the approved standard by his application of the doctrine of each. lecture to a class of offenders of the present day. He finds that these same words of objection are spoken now against Jesus, and with less excuse than when they were first spoken. Those who say now that Christ blasphemes are the "humanitarians"; the Unitarians speak the first word against the Lord. Those who say now that Christ was not a good Jew, are the men who hold that the Lord's Supper is only a memorial, and baptism only the sign of admission to the Church. Those now call Christ a Sabbath-breaker who make the whole of the fourth Commandment binding upon Christians. Of course the austere haters of all amusement complain still that Christ is too worldly, and the "exclusive" close communion brethren find fault because he associates with "publicans and sinners." The men who see in Christ a political rebel are those who would sustain the truth by the secular arm and art, and believe in the alliance of Church and State. And lastly, those who would ally Christ with Satan are the men who in any form deny or reject the miracles.

BIOGRAPHY.

No one, perhaps, of the four great nations whose struggles have developed, and whose power has diffused, our present civilization, presents in its history so many brilliant epochs as France. Often the leader, sometimes the victim of revolutions, her history is but a sadder, more startling illustration of the unchanging law, that the conflict of ideas is not to be less a fruitful source of misery because it is the permanent condition of progress. The historical painter and the philosophical thinker both find in it congenial and original subjects. Ranke has approached it in the spirit of an inquirer, without a prejudice and without a theory. That exhaustive method, severe and obedient to control, which early established his reputation as one of the greatest historians of his country and of the age, is applied to the history of France with new vigor and with fresh results. His work, begun in 1852, is now brought to a close. A translation into English of the first two volumes appeared in the same year, but we do not know whether it has been continued. Its title was: "Civil Wars and Monarchy in France, in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. A History of France principally during that Period. By Leopold Ranke. Translated by M. A. Garvey. 2 vols. London: Bentley. 1852." It is not, however, till the third volume that the author reaches the sixteenth century, to discuss the character and policy of Mazarin, to analyze and explain the troubles of the Fronde, and to explore the origin and set forth the extent of the