account of the estimation in which the new convert is held by the general mass of his fellow-citizens. It will have been seen that our estimate of the ex-Canon is not such as to lead us to consider the loss of him by one religious community or the acquisition of him by another as fitted to occasion much lamentation or much rejoicing. But it is nevertheless certain that his defection has been very bitterly felt at the Vatican. In those spheres it is inevitably not so much a question of the man, as of his social and ecclesiastical status. It is felt to be a very dreadful thing that a Roman noble and a canon of St. Peter's should fly into open revolt and cause a flagrant scandal, and afford a subject of mocking and of triumph to the enemies of the Church. When Curci's book was published, it was said by those who had the best means of forming a sound opinion upon the subject, that that wonderfully courageous raising of the standard of independent thought would be closely followed by other cases of revolt. And though there is no man in Rome, clerical or lay, who would not deem it an insult to the name of Curci to speak of him and of Count Henry Campello in any such sort as should suggest a comparison between the two men, yet Campello's defection is hailed by these prophets as the first earnest of the correctness of their prediction. And already it does not stand alone. After the interval of some months an answer' to Curci's book appeared, by A Father of the Company of Jesus.' The writer, consciously impar congressus Achilli, judiciously conceals his name. The book is absolutely worthless, a mere amalgam of coarsely spiteful abuse and attempts equally infelicitous and disingenuous to convict his antagonist of inconsistencies and contradictions, by transporting from their proper context and bringing together garbled passages, which in some cases the Father of the Company of Jesus seems not to have understood. It would really be a waste of valuable space and time to expend either on any detailed examination of so worthless a work. But the Jesuit's book, valueless as it is, has called into the field another champion of a very different calibre, Monsignore Savarese, one of the Pope's domestic prelates; and the publication of his 'Defence of Modern Civilization' is another fulfilment of the previsions of those who foretold that Curci's book would prove the herald of other manifestations of a similar character. Neither Curci, nor his disciple and defender, Monsignore Savarese, have left the Church. But in the eyes of the Vatican rulers of the Church, the position they have taken up is more dangerous and damaging than if they had done so. Briefly, the scope of Monsignore Savarese's book is to show historically that the true spirit of Christ's Church is such as to render it the natural and necessary ally of democratic ideas, and of that modern civilization towards which those ideas tend; that only the aberrations of the Church from that true spirit have caused it to ally itself transitorily and abnormally with the opponents of those ideas; and that, inasmuch as the nations of Europe, and the Italians as well as the rest, if they are not destined to return to barbarism will be civilized with the modern civilization and no other, the rulers of the Church, rejecting the stupid and sterile wishes of those who would destroy it, should undertake the wise and salutary task of baptizing it.' The appearance of books containing teaching of this kind by persons occupying the positions of Father Curci and Monsignore Savarese could not but be felt, and has been felt, as disastrous to the Church of Rome. But despite the latest intransigenti utterances and manifestations of Leo XIII., we have reason to believe that they have effected somewhat towards propelling the policy of the Vatican towards those measures which they recommend as the essential first step towards possible reconciliation with the civil Power in Italy; or the permitting, if not enjoining, Catholics to take part in the political elections. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be on our guard against illusion on this subject. It is but too certain that the men into whose hands Leo XIII. has now given himself have no intention of using whatever power or influence may be obtained by such a measure for the purposes of any reformation or any bringing of the Church nearer to the masses of the population. Their thoughts and their policy have reference solely to fondly imagined political possibilities which may, they delude themselves into thinking, work towards a restoration of some portion at least of temporal power. And on the other hand we fear that it is no less certain that Father Curci and Monsignore Savarese deceive themselves in thinking that such conduct on the part of the Church as should convince the Italians that they have nothing further to fear for the political unity and constitution of their country from papal pretensions, would suffice to bring back the nation in any notable degree to the fold of Christianity. Such conduct on the part of the Church would doubtless put to sleep the active and bitter hatred against the Church, and against religion, as being that on account of which the Church exists. But whether it be that the absolute severance of morality from religion as it exists in Italy, and the revoltingly patent superiority of professional interest over all other considerations in the minds of Churchmen, have in the course of many generations so ingrained into the national mind contempt for religion and its ministers, that the teaching is now indelible; or whether it be that the inherent and by no means extinguished paganism in the blood of the race renders them incapable of any truly spiritual form of faith and worship, the certain fact is, that those who best know the Italians have the least hope of witnessing such a reconciliation of the people to the Church as Father Curci and Monsignore Savarese hope for. T. A. TROLLOPE. POSTSCRIPT. Subsequently to the printing of the foregoing pages, the writer has had an opportunity of seeing a letter in The Guardian' newspaper, signed R. J. Nevin, on the subject of Count Campello's abandonment of the Roman Catholic Church. The present writer claims to have written with the most absolute Tros Tyriusve impartiality, and without any preconceived prejudice, bias, or partizanship whatever-without even the slightest wish that his examination of the subject should lead him to the conclusion that either opinion concerning it was more probable than the other. He never saw Count Henry Campello, and, previously to the circumstances above considered, had never heard of him. Dr. Nevin is the pastor of the American Episcopal congregation at Rome. And his position, as well as the high respect and consideration in which his character is held, not only by his own congregation, but by the English in Rome, and indeed by the Roman world in general, entitle his words and his opinion on the subject to every attention. Therefore, as a measure of fairness to Count Campello, I transcribe here from 'The Guardian 'that passage in Dr. Nevin's letter which records the personal testimony he is able to give in Campello's favour: I freely give my own testimony here, that through the nine years that I have known Campello, I have never heard a word from him which would justify such an accusation [the charge of loss of faith in Christianity]. Latterly I have seen but little of him, but at the beginning of the Old Catholic movement, and about the time that he himself was trying to found a society, whose aim was the recovery to the Roman clergy and people of their ancient power of electing their bishop, I saw him frequently, and had long conversations with him on theological and Church points, in which he always used a frankness of speech such as I have never found in any other Roman Catholic ecclesiastic. He always stood up strongly for the Catholic theology and order of the Church. Nor has he given up these views. He has renounced Romanism, but in favour simply of Christian reform, not of Methodism.' I thought it right also, on receiving Dr. Nevin's letter in The Guardian,' to have some conversation with him on the subject. And I have been strongly impressed by his evident sincerity and truthfulness, and his desire to deal kindly and charitably with the subject of our dis cussion. I have no wish to deal kindly- -or the reverse; but solely a wish to deal with it judicially. And I am compelled to demur to Dr. Nevin's appreciation of evidence. It would need, however, an amount of space fully equal to that occupied by the foregoing article to go into all the details of the evidence attainable, with a due examination of the worth of each fragment of it. And I am the less called upon to do so, in that I have in the foregoing article made no accusations against Count Campello. But I must repeat that my further examination and investigations confirm in me the conviction, that the generally unfavourable opinion expressed in the foregoing article is just, and is shared by the immense majority of Count Campello's countrymen, be they clericals or liberals. Rome, Dec. 9, 1881. ART. VI.-Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament. The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text revised by THE year A.D. 1881 will be memorable in the annals of New Testament study. It has seen the issue of the Revised English Version, sufficient in itself to make the year remarkable. It has also seen the publication of the latest, and in many respects the most important critical text of the Greek New Testament. The result of nearly thirty years' labour on the part of two accomplished, skilled and devoted textual critics is now at the service of all students. The text itself is noteworthy for the thorough-going consistency with which it adheres to the rules of evidence laid down in the introduction. Readings which hitherto have found acceptance with but few critical editors stand in the text, and are supported by evidence based upon weighty and far-reaching principles. Instances of this are the following:-érépots in Matt. xi. 17; the transposition of verses 29 and 30, with o vσTepos in verse 31 in Matt. xxi.; tŷs Ovyatpòs αὐτοῦ in Mark vi. 22; μονογενὴς θεὸς in John i. 18; τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου in Acts xx. 28; τοῦ μυστηρίου TOû OεOû XPIσTOû in Col. ii. 2. But interesting and allimportant as the text is, it is to the introduction that most readers will first turn, and it is around several positions therein maintained that controversy is most likely to rage. Its authorship is evidence that it is scholarly and comprehensive. It is not too much to say that by it much fresh light is thrown upon many of the great questions of New Testament textual criticism, and the views set forth are main tained with a thoroughness and breadth unsurpassed by any previous editors. As far as popularity goes, it is conceivable that some readers may regret that it does not come from the pen of Dr. Westcott. While both editors are responsible alike for its statements, the composition is Dr. Hort's work. His style can hardly be termed popular, and in some places the strain which the argument makes upon the attention is sufficient to cause regret that powerful reasoning is not always accompanied by the utmost literary perspicuity. Many readers will prefer to study Part II. in the reflected light of Part III., bringing illustrative facts to illuminate abstract reasoning. The work has long been promised, and the hope of its appearance often deferred. It was begun in 1855, nearly a generation ago. It has been a generation of great progress in textual criticism, and none can question the wisdom of the editors when they say— We cannot, on the whole, regret the lapse of time before publication. Though we have not found reason to change any of the leading views with which we began to prepare for the task, they have gained much in clearness and comprehensiveness through the long interval, especially as regards the importance which we have been led to attach to the history of transmission. It would indeed be to our shame if we had failed to learn continually. These two volumes bid fair to form an epoch in the study of the Greek New Testament, and are not likely to be surpassed by any similar publication of our day. The present article will be mainly occupied in pointing out the most prominent features of the work that afford justification for this statement. The place in the historical development of New Testament textual criticism taken by this work is a matter of great interest. While in the truest sense an advance on all previous editions of the Greek text, the work before us may not at first sight appear such to those who for years past have been regarding Tischendorf and Tregelles with a reverence at all commensurate with the labour of these great editors. The apparently slight reference to them and to their work, the more than apparent defence of some positions judged by them untenable, may at first give a shock of surprise; that it springs from any want of esteem for or indebtedness to them is disproved by positive statement Tischendorf and Tregelles both . . . have produced texts substantially free from later corruptions, but neither of them can be said to have dealt consistently, or on the whole successfully, with the difficulties presented |