day, some of whom however are Germans, seek their fortunes on the once prosperous shores of the vast republic. Every effort is made, on their arrival, to induce them to join the army. Thousands do so and perish. But great numbers find employment at wages enormous in comparison of what they have received at home; and this is the real inducement which leads an Irishman to emigrate. Emigration will proceed until labour in Ireland is in demand; that is, until the superfluous population has disappeared. We cannot join in those expressions of regret which we hear from several different parties on this subject. The Romish priest deplores the loss of his spiritual subjects. We are glad that he should lose them. More degraded they can scarcely be; they may become more human; and at length more open to receive the truth of the Gospel. But while they remain at home, we have very little hope of their conversion. whole people unemployed, or partially employed on wages which scarcely sustain life, must always be discontented, low in the scale of morals, and little disposed to receive spiritual instruction. We can scarcely believe that any general reformation will reach Ireland while the Irishman remains indolent and helplessly uncivilized; for he will neither inquire, nor even listen with patience to instruction. The exceptions to this rule, in all our missions, have been rare.

A

The Pope has issued an allocution, and Cardinal Wiseman a Pastoral. Both are extremely curious; both are striking illustrations of Romish cunning and versatility. The Pope comes forward as the champion of Poland. He suddenly finds himself overwhelmed with sympathy for the distressed; and this time it is a free people, struggling for their rights, who find the Pope their firm ally. This seems the more admirable, because it compels him to punish Austria with his severest censures, and to denounce unbelieving Russia with supreme disdain. It is not probable that Russia will trouble herself much with what she will probably consider the Pope's impertinence; but it does seem strange that the Church of Rome should act with so much unkindness to her obsequious child Austria; and stranger still that she should be found the patron of a state contending for liberty. One might wonder by what stretch of ingenuity she can reconcile her more than parental fondness for the dethroned tyrant of Naples with her tender regard for liberal Poland. But the difficulty is easily explained when we learn that Poland was for two centuries firmly in her grasp; and that it was not until the Jesuits fell, that she lost her hold upon it. If she could recover Poland, she would plant a thorn in the side of Russia, exercise a beneficial oversight on Prussia, and govern Austria more absolutely than ever. The scheme, no doubt, is cleverly conceived, and how worthy of "the man of sin," the great "deceiver of the nations of the earth!"

Nor does Cardinal Wiseman deserve less of that praise which unprincipled cleverness too frequently secures in this world. His pastoral is a model in its way, and we almost regret that we cannot prolong its existence, and give it a place upon our pages. He beholds with sorrow the distractions of our Protestant Church, and with still deeper distress the incapacity of our Bishops and Ecclesiastical Courts, to deal with them. He thinks it a melancholy circumstance that the inspiration of Holy Scripture should be questioned, and that

doctrines firmly established on the authority of the Bible, should be made the subject of profane discussion by recreant Bishops and Essayists of infidel principles. He thus contrives to suggest how admirably these matters are arranged within the Church of Rome. But how is it that the Cardinal has thus suddenly been seized with an overwhelming zeal for the honour of the written word? What has he done heretofore to show his love for it, or to promote its circulation? What has he ever said or written to prove that it is the depository of sacred truth? This sudden outburst of zeal for the honour of the Scriptures is somewhat suspicious. How can it be explained?

His distress at the growth of Rationalism seems to present a similar difficulty. Rome, in general, has shown herself tolerant of every form of infidelity that was tolerant of her. We believe that she is so up to the present moment; Cardinal Wiseman himself, not less than his sovereign, the Pope of Rome. But he thus gains an oppor tunity of telling his congregations that all the answers yet given to the rationalists in England are 66 utterly inadequate;" a point on which we must take leave to say, that we think we are quite as competent to decide as he himself. He has neither the learning of McCaul, nor the critical powers of Birks; nor has he ever shown that he possesses the learning and acuteness of the Archbishop of York, and the other respondents to the Seven Essays. He intimates that we have no court of jurisdiction at all qualified to deal with heresies such as these. We must admit that this is not the case with the Church of Rome. But his tribunal is not precisely such an one as would satisfy the people of England. Whether any public, solemn, final and crushing denunciation of heretics should be made or not, is itself a serious question; but it is no question at all that it should not be made according to the terms of that canon law by which the Cardinal "governs," and tells us that "he will continue to govern" his archdiocese of Westminster." We would not settle the question even between rationalists and the Bible by half a dozen executions at the stake, either at Charing Cross or Smithfield; and this is what the Canon law of Rome would do.

Surely it is time that the rulers of our Church should stir themselves, if not against Rationalism, against the incursions of the Jesuits. We see how they lie in wait. We see their advances; really in alliance with infidelity, though to outward appearance opposed to it. The heart of Rome herself is infidel. She is rotten to the core; and when her final overthrow shall be proclaimed, the Antichrist of superstition will be found within her, in firm alliance with the Antichrist of infidelity.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Mr. CATOR's letter came late in the month into our hands. It will appear in our next number.

Ir seems important to notice, from time to time, the subtle advances of Rationalistic error. Ever since its late introduction from Germany, in the shape of Bible criticism, it has been assuming a more distinct form, and putting on a bolder face every year. It has come into collision with the Church in various ways; and even the secular papers-as the Times, the other day-recognize it as constituting "a religious crisis into which we seem to be entering." But in no direction is this rapid growth so marked, and, we fear, likely to be influential, as in the serials now pouring forth from the press. In former days, we might have felt secure that the Christian public would not go after the poison contained in the professedly infidel literature to which it was then confined. But now, the poison, under a new name and in an attractive form, is insinuating itself into every corner, and we might almost say every family, of our land.

In order to see how much this is the case, we call attention to two articles-one in the January number of the National Review, and the other in the February number of Fraser's Magazine. Here are two periodicals, not professedly religious, taking up the Broad Church question, and advocating it with a zest. They seem to be fair specimens of the tendencies of the age; and though evidently not written by the same hand, are remarkably identical in effect. As such, we cannot help thinking they deserve the serious attention of our readers. We hasten, therefore, to give a sketch of their contents, and then to make a few observations upon them.

To begin with the latest of the two, the article in Fraser is upon "The Life and Writings of Theodore Parker," reviewed also by the Christian Observer for February. Some of us will be rather surprised to find that a Church which can boast of a Butler, and a Whately, and an O'Brien, is described

as

a perfect by-word for impotence and inanity;" while the solid and sober "Hora Apocalyptica," in which are gathered up all the musings of the Church from the beginning on the subject of prophecy, is "only laborious trifling, of no real value whatever." But this is nothing. Presently, in speaking of Parker's criticisms of the Bible, and how "they led him to the conclusion that the books of which it is composed do not differ generically from other books, and that therefore assertions which it contains, and which would be incredible in other books, are not to be believed merely upon its authority," it is added commendatorily, that "the application of this principle to the Old Testament is sufficiently notorious to all the world; and its application to the New Testament will be equally notorious before the world is many years older." We know what this points to. Indeed, there seems no longer any attempt at concealment, as there used to be in the originators of this heresy in our country. It is now a bold and determined effort to cast off all revealed religion, and to return to the old heathen philosophy of natural religion, or rather of no religion. This writer, for instance, coolly speaks of "the pedigree of the Biblical criticism," tracing it back as far as the infidel Spinoza, if not further. He says that a vigorous statement of it will be found in Bolingbroke's writings; and even hesitates not to add, that "it does not differ widely in its negative results from the creed of Voltaire!" After this, we need not be surprised to find that it is demonstrated by history, science, and criticism, that "we have no infallible book," and that the Atonement is "an improbable dogma." Bishop Butler is scorned for quoting St. Peter and St. Paul. Our modern clergy are told that their "eyes are hoodwinked, and their mouths shut. They can only think in chains, and how can a guide in shackles expect to be fairly honest?" whilst Theodore Parker is a "good man," and "deserves the admiration and gratitude of his contemporaries." "The innocence of any opinion whatever," is affirmed, if only formed "in good faith." The model man is the amiable moralist, "wavering between two opinions;" and "all the falsehoods mixed up with Christianity, however old or venerable they may be," (amongst which is everything Calvinistic or Evangelical,) "are to be fearlessly separated from the truth"-"the tares must be burnt, and the wheat gathered into the barn!" The conclusion of the matter with this writer seems to be "This is not a work to be done in a day. Pending the process, the laity would probably do well to follow that form of worship to which they have been accustomed. What that belief may be, to which inquiry will lead, no one can at present pretend to guess. It is highly improbable that it should coincide altogether with any form of religion at present known among men !"

Such is the teaching of Fraser's Magazine. Now, let us

turn to the National Review. Here we have a critique upon Dr. Smith's new "Biblical Dictionary." That able but heterogeneous work has been thought by some of us to go too far in a way of concession, in parts at least; as where a handle is given to Dr. Colenso to quote from its remarks on the Deluge in confirmation of his sceptical views, and where Dean Stanley is found writing side by side with his protesting Canon Dr. Wordsworth. But it seems that this measure of concession little satisfies the insatiable appetite of these advanced and advancing theologians; but rather whets it for more, and gives them courage to unbosom their hearts, and lay out their ultimate aspirations before us.

"The old-fashioned orthodoxy" of the Dictionary is first lamented; as also the absence of Dr. R. Williams's name as a contributor, though "no Hebraist in the Established Church is equal in knowledge of the old sacred books. His name, however, does not appear as a contributor: to his honour, it is absent." In another place a writer of one of the articles is informed that he should "observe-if he would not learn from the Germans-how two English critics handle the Pentateuch, Davidson and Colenso, each differently from the other, but with results substantially impregnable." We are then told that "these remarks may prepare the reader for finding that the subjects in this Dictionary are not advanced. New light is not thrown upon them. The higher criticism is hardly tried, because their stand-point precludes its use. It was not expected of them, and few can do it. . . . Progress in Biblical matters is often associated with danger." Regret is expressed that "Balaam's ass still speaks in Hebrew, even in the second edition of the first volume; the contributor remarking in his simplicity, that it pleased God to interfere on behalf of His elect people." "The ravens still feed Elijah with bread and flesh by God's command; and Samson's exploits are taken literally as the putting forth supernatural power with which the Spirit of the Lord endowed him, the history too having a distinctly supernatural element which cannot be explained away."

In contrast with all this "simplicity," we are next favoured with some "conclusions, in respect of the interpretation of the Bible, which are well established;" viz., that "a very small portion of the Pentateuch was written by Moses,"-" the fifth book long after his time;" that "two documents at least have entered into its composition, both written subsequently to Moses, and at different times;" that the book of Daniel was a product of the Maccabæan period; that the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah were written long after the time of the Babylonish captivity, (though one of the Germans, Hengstenberg, has satisfactorily disproved the theory of a Deutero-Isaiah of the