him. We do not lightly use the word wade: it conveys exactly what we mean. The author has contrived to make his book heavy, though he was so careful not to give it "weight." Besides, a reverential mind cannot but be shocked at the almost profane way in which sacred things are often mentioned. Some instances of this have been incidentally brought in, where quotations were made for other purposes. He tells us in one place that Savonarola had "great partiality for the Old " Testament. In another place he ventures to characterise the heavenly visions, revealed by our blessed Lord Himself to the apostle St. John, as a "pro-Dantean argument." Again-"Thus it was that [S.] John was appointed the apostle of love, [S.] Paul of faith, and [S.] James of works. What wonder that an Augustin and a Whitfield were commissioned to teach predestination to holiness, and an Arminius and a Wesley prevision of holiness!" Again,-" In a word, Savonarola was an extempore preacher, deriving assistance from Scriptural phraseology and a finished elocution." One more we will give, if it is not too shocking: "Conversations with the young will educe the purest, the subtlest, and most oracular utterances of philosophical and religious truth. The experiment has been made even lately, on very little children, with remarkable success. Of these advantages Plato was sufficiently aware, and Jesus emphatically said, 'Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' The greatest poet of modern times expresses the same reverence for childhood." We almost fear to repeat the offence by making these quotations, and only do it to warn reverent persons of what they will meet with, if they read "popular works" on religious subjects written by low churchmen or dissenters. We have not (because we would not)

chosen the worst specimens.

The book abounds in contradictions. In one place we are told that Savonarola" is a prophet among priests and monks-an apostle in the midst of apostates-a champion of truth numbered among liars-a believer fallen into the camp of practical, if not theoretical, atheists." To say nothing of the extreme want of charity in this sweeping condemnation of men known now, if known at all, only in the aggregate, he informs us, only a few pages further on, that, in a charitable and self-denying work, Savonarola was "well seconded by the efforts of the monks." A few pages before, he had remarked that "religion in an Italian mind never loses its claims." And again, "In Italy. . . all was subservient to the religious spirit."

For historical accuracy, take this specimen :

"But it was written in heaven, that both Alexander VI. and his slaughterous son should themselves suffer in like kind. Purposing to take off by poison the rich cardinal, Cometo, the latter succeeded, by bribes, promises, and entreaties in gaining over the pope's chief cook, and thus both died of the draught intended for their guest."-p. 302.

It ought to have been known to the historian of those "times," that Cæsar Borgia, "the son," was, after this, twice imprisoned, and twice escaped; was in alliance with France, then with Spain, then visited Naples, fought in Navarre, and was killed in a skirmish before

the castle of Viana, four years after his father's death. The blunder may be excused; but surely he ought to have been certain of his fact before he introduced it with so solemn a reference to the purposes of Heaven.

There is one mistake, if it be not something worse, which we cannot pass over, because it involves the character of the living. He thus writes at p. 55 :—

"As very properly insisted on by some modern Tractarians, there is in the New Testament, as separately considered, 'no system of doctrine,'—no proposed intermediation between the believer and the Christ, such as sacraments, ministers, rites, and observances,'' nothing, indeed, of what may be called sacramental, ecclesiastical, or mysterious in its general tone, but much that is moral, rational, elevated, impassioned.'"

Will it be believed that these quotations, as far as they are in the tract referred to at all, occur within inverted commas following the sentence "the objection may be thus put"? In fact, they form part of an objection of an adversary, drawn out at length on purpose to be answered. We should be quite certain this was an oversight, if our author did not, in another place, show considerable acquaintance with the tract in question. Let it be noted that in this place he says, "As has been very properly insisted upon by some modern Tractarians;”—in a later page he says of the very same tract, that it was of a kind so virulent, that no professed infidel ever wrote so offensively on the topics treated of in it." This inconsistency would surprise any one who had not read to the 397th page of the life of Savonarola. We do not at all wonder at his being angry with a tract, in which the untenable nature of latitudinarian views is so powerfully proved; but we pity a person who can speak of the "virulence” of a work, which overflows with sympathy for the difficulties of those for whose benefit it was written.

66

We abstain from quotations to exhibit the wretched principles, despite of authority in doctrinal points, self-confidence, discovery of new "truths," modern inspiration, &c. which pervade this book: but we must protest against their being supported by the supposition that they were taught or held by Savonarola. We will give one instance in which this is done. It is constantly taken for granted, that Savonarola held the pope to be Antichrist, and the Roman see the Great Harlot; whereas, in fact, he held that

"The soul of every Christian is made the spouse of Jesus Christ in baptism, as it is written, Desponsabo te mihi in fide; but when of free will she allies herself to the devil, and to the love of the creature, she commits fornication, and becomes a harlot. Now all the wicked, and especially the great, and such as are prelates, who, by their prostitution, that is, by evil works and bad example, and malignant persuasion, and violence, have corrupted the earth and the holy Church, these are the great harlot, whom God has judged and punished in hell."

This is a very different doctrine to that which represents the Church of Rome specifically as the Harlot, and the pope as Anti

christ. If the individual pope is wicked, then he is antichristian, as any other wicked man is.

In short, our author takes all heretics and schismatics under his special protection; he maintains them to be all inspired, especially if they were bold enough to contradict openly the Church's teaching in all ages. With such persons Savonarola had no sympathies; though his conduct is indefensible, yet, with regard to his doctrine, we agree with the judgment of Tiraboschi-that we must not class him among heretics, because the Church did not denounce him as such. His works were often examined, but not pronounced heretical."Storia della Litteratura, vol. vi. p. 1162.

66

Parliamentary Papers. Correspondence relating to Affghanistan. Bombay Times, 1842, 1843.

"WE are now indebted for advice and censure to gentlemen, who, till our measures forced it upon their knowledge, had never heard the name of Herat, and did not know Cabool from Candahar."

To this effect spoke Lord Palmerston, when vindicating the Eastern policy of the late Government, in one of the earlier debates on the subject. Whatever, more or less, direct bearing this piece of satire may have upon the merits of Lord Palmerston and his colleagues, they are entitled to its full benefit; for it is true it would have been well for England, for India, for Affghanistan, and perhaps for Lord Palmerston himself, if the assertion had been less true.

Five or six years since, the degree of information possessed by the educated portion of society, generally, was little more than that above attributed to members of the House of Commons. We had a general idea that Affghanistan was a mountainous country, and that it lay somewhere between India and Persia; we had heard the names of Cabool, Candahar, and Ghuznee; and we attached some meaning, very slightly connected with latitude and longitude, to the mention of Herat. Our political conceptions were equally vague with our geographical. We had two or three names of persons, which we fitted with varying degrees of incorrectness to the two or three names of places above-mentioned; we believed that Dost Mahomed held in Affghanistan, some kind of supremacy from which Shah Soojah had been deposed, and stood in some relation or other, of friendship or hostility, towards Prince Hamram of Herat, whose name was at that time rather the most familiar of the three. We connected these names in different combinations with an indefinite fear of danger to our Indian empire. We

heard much of the influence of Russia at the Court of Persia, of her intrigues in Central Asia, of her emissaries and stirrers-up of discontent in India; and our most fixed was our most wellfounded idea, that Russia, whether dealing with Circassians, Persians, or Affghans, was neither moderate in her wishes nor scrupulous in her choice of means, that she cared less than nothing for our interests, nothing for those of general humanity, and much for her own. Such in the early part of 1837 was, upon these subjects, the amount of the public knowledge, and the disposition of the public mind.

At length there arrived intelligence of a definite and important event; the attack of the Persians upon Herat, with the countenance and aid of Russian officers, and in defiance of the remonstrances of the representative of England. The danger apprehended from the west, seemed to have taken the first step in advance towards our frontier; and we began to look with some interest at the map of Central Asia. The cause of the besiegers was the cause of Russia, the cause of the besieged was the cause of England; and we heard with satisfaction and pride, of the degree in which the skill and resolution of an English lieutenant had contributed to the determined and ultimately triumphant resistance of the besieged. It seemed not impossible that the two great powers, from the indirect struggle of diplomacy and encouragement of antagonist interests, might pass into direct collision. Suddenly we heard that we were at war-with Russia? No,-with the existing rulers of Affghanistan. An Anglo-Indian force of 20,000 men was about to cross the Indus, with the object of deposing Dost Mahomed and his brothers of Candahar, and reinstating Shah Soojah on the throne of Cabool. The declaration of October 1st, 1838, announced to the world at once the intention of the Governorgeneral, and the grounds on which he proceeded.

It was natural that most readers of this document should take for granted that this statement of facts, at least, was wellfounded; it was natural, too, though less excusable, to receive the announcement of such a step with some tendency towards acquiescence; to believe that no English minister would recommend, no Governor-general would adopt, a measure so extraordinary, involving possibilities so tremendous, without the existence of strong grounds both of justice and policy. The intelligence of the commencement of the Affghan war was received by the public in accordance with these feelings, by Parliament with that indifference to foreign affairs which characterizes the senate of the most commercial nation of the world. A few questions were asked and answered; papers were refused, produced, or to be produced hereafter; the foreign minister made bold assertions, the leader of opposition cautiously reserved his opinion, and the subject of Affghanistan

slept at least until the arrival of the next mail from India. Then came the fall of Ghuznee, the flight of Dost Mahomed, the unopposed entrance of Shah Soojah into Cabool. The Affghan expedition had all the vindication it could derive from success; and that, for the time, was all that it needed. We had successful generals to make into lords, successful diplomatists to make into baronets, a successful army to thank and praise; remonstrances on the score of impolicy were answered by the event; remonstrances on the score of injustice could get no hearing. The very ease with which Shah Soojah's restoration had been effected, proved that his rule was acceptable to the Affghans; in placing an effectual barrier between our own territories and Russian intrigue, we had bestowed upon them the inestimable benefit of a strong and settled, yet popular, government. We had replaced an oppressive and usurping ruler, by a legitimate and beloved monarch; we had opened a way to the extension of our commerce into vast and unknown regions. A war, undertaken on grounds, which had been, or should be proved, to be irrefragable, was over, in fact if not in name, and we had only to reap its benefits, and reward its instruments.

The latter was done forthwith, but it was soon apparent that the former might yet be delayed. Months passed on, and became years, and still every Indian mail brought intelligence of "disturbances" in Affghanistan. There were still "insurrections;" there were still "rebels" to put down; predatory tribes to be restrained, turbulent chieftains to be humbled. A war of detachments seemed to be spread over the country; there were no great battles; but there were "brilliant affairs," and "dashing exploits" without end, each of them costing many valuable lives; and our usual success was not unchequered with serious disasters. Even the surrender, in November 1840, of Dost Mahomed, did not restore tranquillity to the country. It appears from a summary, drawn up in the Bombay Times, that between January 1840 and August 1841, our troops in Scinde and Affghanistan, were engaged in thirty-four distinct conflicts. The Affghans and Beloochees were slow to learn the benefits of the state of things we had introduced among them.

In the meantime, as much attention was bestowed upon the subject at home as could be expected. Parliament did not neglect its duty, as far as that duty was to be inferred, from its ordinary practice. Masses of printed paper, bound in blue, vere distributed to the members of the House of Commons, d partly read by some of them. The general result of the rrespondence produced, was in favour of Lord Auckland's olicy. The invasion, if invasion it was to be called, of Affghanistan, appeared to have been recommended by some of the authorities, to whose opinions on all topics respecting these countries, most weight was attached; and the opinions of Sir