drance rather than a help? It already prevents all progress, and binds its followers, amid all the enlightenment of modern times, to the defence of all that is puerile and absurd in the reveries of mediæval ignorance and superstition. The armor that was forged, and firmly riveted on, for defence in a former age, may it not be found a grievous burden, amid the rapid evolutions of modern warfare, and the cause of disastrous defeat, and the far-reaching and mighty engines of destruction which are now coming into the field? It would not be the first time that the wisdom of to-day has been shown to be folly to-morrow. Long ago, those that trusted in the living God could sing "The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth, the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands."

The refutation of such doctrines may seem to some who are not fully conversant with the power of the merest absurdities to becloud and enchain the mind, to be a vain and unprofitable task. Our author, however, knew, and few men better than he, how strong the hold which gross error has over the minds, not only of the masses, but of the more learned of the Roman Catholics. He therefore wrote in the hope that he might rouse their power of thought to sound and healthy action. He strove to dissipate the dim religious mist through which they had been taught to contemplate the doctrine, and to show it up in all its inherent absurdity. He wished moreover, if possible, to influence those who had not been trained up under the influence of the Church of Rome, and to lead them to a clear understanding of its character before seeking shelter in her embrace. The tide was already setting in that direction he wished, if possible, to check, and turn it back. One word he utters that might well be pondered by every Christian teacher in our own country as well as in Great Britain: "Were all Protestant teachers to go to the bottom of the subjects of controversy between Protestants and the Church of Rome, we should hear nothing of the growth of Popery."

After the miracles of Prince Hohenlohe began to attract public attention, Dr. Doyle, titular Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, commended them to public consideration as proofs of the claims of the Church of Rome. Dr. Carson published a

reply, which had a great popularity, running through several editions, in a short time. In looking back at the circumstances, after the lapse of nearly forty years, it seems as though "a masterly inactivity" might have served an important end. After all the eclat which his highness secured, no sooner did the magistrates of Bamberg stipulate that all exercise of his miraculous powers should be in the presence of a competent body of observers, than the wonders ceased. The Pope himself was, apparently, not much less sceptical in regard to his powers than some of the contumacious Protestants. He did not think it best to call the works miracles, and directed him to conform to the magisterial requisitions. So ended that chapter of Roman Catholic supernaturalism.

In his letter to Dr. Doyle, our author, instead of denying, as some, the evidence on which the reported miracles rested, took what he deemed a safer ground. He admitted the evidence of supernatural power, and traced it back directly to Satanic agency. He is prepared, by the repeated statements of Scripture, to expect the working of wonders by the power of Satan, in order to establish the claims and extend the influence of the Anti-Christian organization which he had devised.

In the main he coincides with Pascal in the rule by which we must test the origin of a miracle. Pascal says: "We must judge of miracles by doctrine." "There are miracles which are indubitable evidences of truth, and there are some which are not." "There is something reciprocally due between God

and man."

"Men owe it to God to receive the religion which he sends; God owes it to men not to lead them into error. Now, they would be led into error, if any worker of miracles set forth a false doctrine, which did not manifestly appear false to the apprehensions of common sense, and if a greater worker of miracles had not already enjoined upon them not to believe it." It cannot be "that God who knoweth the heart, should work miracles in favor of such a deceiver." The working of miracles, then, in support of false doctrine, must be by the power of the Evil One, and not by the power of God. In so far, Pascal and Dr. Carson fully agree. We infer that he was not familiar with the works of Pascal; for had he been, we see no reason why he did not use matter thus lying ready

to his hand; matter, too, which could have been employed with such damaging effect against one of the same infallible church. For with all of his outspeaking honesty, Pascal was a Roman Catholic still.

We must notice one or two instances in this work in which our author lacks his ordinary perspicacity. He quotes the language of the apostle, in which he describes the Man of Sin as "him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders," as also that of the Apocalypse in regard to the second beast: "And he worketh great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles that he had power to do in the sight of the beast." From these passages he draws the inference that as the Church of Rome alone pretends to miracles, she alone must be the Man of Sin, the antiChristian beast, that monstrous system of iniquity predicted in the Revelation.

In this case he argues as though the working of miracles by any church was a conclusive reason for branding it with the title of Anti-Christ. He gives to his major premiss an extension which is not warranted by any just interpretation of the passages of Scripture that he quotes. And none could have more readily detected the fallacy than he, had his attention been drawn especially to this point. Nor could he deduce this proof from any other passage. In fact, to prove it, would be to prove that no miracle can ever be looked for from the power of God. It is true that the great majority of Protestant theologians believe that the age of miracles has ceased; but we are not called upon to prove that God never will come forth, by his supernatural power, to serve or to further his own cause in any future emergency. We know not what crises may arise, and what displays of the power of God may precede the final triumph of that church which Christ has purchased with his own precious blood. According to the argument of Dr. Carson, however, to claim the performance of a miracle, and even actually to work one, are alike evidences. of a connection with the apostacy and with its dark author We are not prepared to admit, even as far as Dr. Bushnell

does, the continued power of working miracles, or of having them wrought in answer to the prayer of faith. Yet we should be unwilling to assume, as Dr. Carson has done, the onus probandi, when the thing to be proven is a negative, and the means of proof, if they exist at all, lie far beyond the reach of human logic.

Again, he assumes that the Church of Rome alone claims the power to work miracles. Here he introduces a limitation into his minor premiss that vitiates its truthfulness. He must have forgotten George Fox and his wonderful works; and the faith which the Friends, even to this day, accord to him; and the settled conviction which so many of them cherish, that the powers of the apostolic age have never yet been withdrawn. His premiss needs extension; and if it is extended, his conclusion will be found to be too narrow. It must needs be enlarged to embrace, not only the Roman Catholics, but also the Friends, the Irvingites, and we know not how many other sects that are yet to arise, as the passion for supernatural wonders increases.

These are inadvertencies to which even a clear logician is liable; and they show how necessary it is to have the powers of reasoning in constant training, and to keep them under continual and careful supervision. If Carson errs in logic, who may not sometimes blunder?

In all his writings upon these warmly controverted topics, Dr. Carson wrote as a man of the day. He came with a warm, living interest in the subjects that were, at that particular time, agitating the minds of men. He has written what has been read, and will continue to be read; what has exerted its influence, and will continue to exert its influence, for the furtherance of the truth in years to come. It were vain to attempt to trace the precise influence of his voice and pen upon the destiny of the country of his birth and of his love. It might be found, on a full development of the connection between causes and effects, that his voice and his pen have contributed in no small degree to prepare the way for that remarkable revival of religion which is now spreading over the region imme diately around the scenes of his labors in northern Ireland,

It certainly was no small honor to stand side by side with such men as were his colleagues in his work, and to aid

in any way the progress of so good a cause. In the great day of reckoning it will assuredly appear, that the yearning of his heart for his Roman Catholic countrymen, and the use of his voice and pen in this protracted controversy, have rendered invaluable aid in the disenthralment of his beloved Ireland.

G. W. A.

ARTICLE II.-THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.

BY ENOCH POND, D. D., PROF. IN BANGOR THEOL. SEMINARY.

THE transcendental view of the philosophy of history may be stated as follows: This living world, which is the proper subject of history, is one vast organism, in which everything is moving or developing, according to established laws. This organism is from a germ, like the animal or vegetable; and like them is replete with life. Prof. Schaff says, "It is a process of life, which springs from within, and which remains, in all its course, identical with itself; as man, through all the stages of his life, still continues man."* Prof. Shedd calls it "A living moral development." "It is, in its own sphere and kind, as much of the nature of a living principle as the breath of life in the nostrils." In this view history is not the detail of outward occurrences, connected together as cause and effect, but is a constant living growth, in one direction or another, each event springing organically out of that which precedes it, and giving birth to that which follows it, just as the man grows from the infant, or the oak from the acorn, or the leaves and flowers of spring from the opening buds.

This philosophy of history originated with the transcendentalists of Germany, and dates back only some fifty or sixty years. It was brought out, according to Prof. Schaff," with peculiar emphasis and freshness, by, the genial Herder." "The more mature and philosophical conception of it, how