mal magnetism, which happened, in all regularity, to be present then, and effected this result; it would destroy the significance of the miracle, in spite of ourselves and of him. It is the ground also, which the anti-supernaturalism of the age rests upon. Its argument is, a miracle is a wonder. Whatever is a wonder to the eye of the observer, produces the effect of a miracle. Christ and his disciples wrought miracles, by their knowledge of laws which were hid from the knowledge of those ages, but which were natural and fixed notwithstanding. The suggestion of this, as an interpreta tion of the past, destroys the significance of the act, and robs it of its power to attest to us the truth of God. We feel that if this is so, there was a pious jugglery unworthy of God; a jugglery in his deeds which destroys our confidence in his words. It makes no difference, that in the one case the miracle worker knew the law of which to avail himself, and in the other both the worker and the spectators were ignorant of both, except that in the one case it is God, and in the other it is his messenger that imposes on us. The same impression is produced by such an argument as this of Dr. Hopkins, though for other reasons not in the same degree, as is wrought by the explanations of the miracles of Christ in Paulus, or Furness' Life of Jesus. In this last book, the argument most frequent, is, that the sick were healed by the naturally curative power of faith, excited by the virtuous life and confident manner of Jesus.

We ought to say here, that Dr. Hopkins, in another place, takes precisely the view of the matter which we have done. When he asks, p. 34, "Do we believe in the existence of a personal God, intelligent and free?-not a God who is a part of nature, or a mere personification of the powers of nature, but one who is as distinct from nature

as the builder of the house is from the house? Then we can find no difficulty in believing, that such a God may, at any time, when the good of his creatures requires it, change the mode of his operations and suspend those laws." What is a little surprising to us is, that in the illustration designed to exhibit the other view, i. e. that of the possi bility of miracles being natural, he in fact abandons the ground, and illustrates the very opposite doctrine. The provision for the reversal of the action of the locomotive, is, in no sense, designed for "stated and uniform and natural" use; nor does it call itself into action, just when this action is needed. It does not hold back the engine by self-adjustment, when the train pushes too hard, down a descending grade; or suddenly hold it up, when a collis ion is at hand; but it supposes an engineer to use it in junctures "neither stated, nor uniform, nor natural." The illustration is fine, and it is a pity it was not put in the right place in the argument.

We are sorry not to see, in Dr. Hopkins' direct consideration of Hume's argument, what we conceive to be the real and the only sufficient answer to that argument. The argument is this "It is contrary to experience, that the laws of nature should be suspended or reversed. But it is not contrary to experience, that men should be deceived, and utter falsehood. Moreover, it is according to experience, that, in respect to religion, men are prone to be credulous, to be imposed upon and to deceive. When, therefore, a miracle is said to have been performed, we set our experience of the uniformity of nature-against our experience of the fallibility of human testimony, and the former must weigh down the latter; or if it do not in respect to prodigies in nature, it must in respect to prodigies in religion." The true answer to the argument, we think, to be this.

"The argument is good in all ordinary cases; and not only is it sound, but it is the one which mankind unconsciously employ. We use it ourselves, in respect to the miracles of Mahomet, and of Joseph Smith, and of the Holy coat of Treves.' But whenever it may be shown, that a miracle is demanded by the nature of the case, and that the doctrine revealed is worthy of the interposition, then not only may a miracle be believed, but not to be lieve it implies a spirit, not only unphilosophical but wicked. This is the case with the Christian miracles." We are sorry that Dr. Hopkins did not assert and expand this argument. It is at once adapted to a miscellaneous audience, as it commends itself to the conscience and common sense of all thinking men. It is capable of endless expansion and illustration, and is altogether coincident with the favorite line of argument of the lecturer. This would have been a gun worth firing, at a fortress by no means dismantled or nominal; least of all in Boston.

We observe farther, in respect to this argument of Hume's, that it was designed as an explanation of the practical rules of belief or disbelief, in regard to prodigies and miracles, or, in other words, the law of evidence, as employed by thinking men. It does not bear upon its face the finished assertion of ultimate and fundamental principles, in regard to the foundations of our confidence in the uniformity of nature, or in human testimony; but rather the law of actual procedure, for practical judgment, in specific cases. Taken in this view, it is a sound and useful canon, as it seems to us; and although we like not the sneer and heartlessness of the manner, there is great force in Hume's cautions, in respect to miracles, said to be wrought for religion, as especially suspicious.

Had it been answered as it should have been, as a practical canon,

rather than made a metaphysical puzzle, it would have been well. Had Hume's opponents conceded the truth of what he said, and then retorted upon him the complex argument, from the nature of the doctrine as worthy of God; as commended to the conscience of man, and as thus enforcing a belief, on the grounds both of our confidence in nature and in testimony; this spectered ghost of an argument would long since have ceased to haunt the dreams of theologians, and to provoke their passes at its metaphysic shadow, which has proved

"as the air invulnerable, And our vain blows malicious mockery." Had the fortress been thus attacked, it would have long ago been in a worse condition than that of Copenhagen, and would not have required the recognition of its former greatness, by the compliment even of a passing gun.

But this was not done, and for three reasons :-First, the doctrines were discussed metaphysically and not practically. Much learned dust was raised, to show what are the true grounds of our belief in the uniformity of nature; and extreme cases. were ingeniously supposed, to prove that we might in some cases withdraw our confidence from her. The force of human testimony was dwelt upon, as being, under certain circumstances never likely to occur, absolutely overwhelming. Whereas, however useful this discussion has been in indirectly casting light on the dark places of metaphysical inquiry, and however potent the ghost of Hume was seen to be, in leading to the invention, as Chalmers says, of two instinctive laws of nature, in order to lay it, the argument was a practical one and ought to have been so considered. Secondly, the friends of Christianity were less used to metaphysics than their adversaries. Then, as now, it was the fashion to decry metaphysics, as useless if not wick

ed, and so to discourage the study of them; and in the time of need to rush to their aid, and find the ally, which in the time of security had been reproached and scorned, was slow to come to the rescue. Third, the sneer of Hume in the words, "our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason, and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure," was but too completely justified by the current language of many divines of his day. When they complained of it, he could point them to too many passages in their own writings, to leave them ground for complaint. To rest religion on reason, was then, as now, deemed by many dangerous and profane; and when the scoffer retorted, that there was no occasion for complaint against him for showing that it had no reason on which to rest, for that on their own principles reason was not necessary, he had the better of them for the moment.

It is remarked with great justice by Mill, in a critique on Hume's argument, Logic, pp. 376, 7, Am. Ed., "It is now acknowledged, by nearly all the ablest writers on the subject, that natural religion is the necessary basis of revealed; that the proofs of Christianity presuppose the being and moral attributes of God; and that it is the conform ity of a religion to those attributes, which determines whether credence ought to be given to its external evidences; that (as the proposition is sometimes expressed) the doctrine must prove the miracles, not the miracles the doctrine."* After showing that these are the views of the New Testament, he adds, "There is no reason therefore that timid

We suppose the meaning of this last clause to be, that the doctrine must be such as to remove all presumption against the miracles, and thus fully to counteract all opposing evidence from the uniformity of nature's laws, against the divine authority of the teacher; and that thus, while VOL. IV.

52

Christians should shrink from accepting the logical canon of the grounds of disbelief. And it is not hazarding much to predict, that a school which peremptorily rejects all evidences of religion, except such as, when relied upon exclusively, the canon in question irreversibly condemns; which denies to mankind the right to judge of religious doctrine, and bids them depend on miracles as their sole guide; must, in the present state of the human mind, inevitably fail, in its attempt to put itself at the head of the religious feelings and convictions of this country," &c.

We had intended to offer strictures on certain other philosophical opinions of this volume particularly on those expressed, pp. 670, on the case of a conflict between science and the natural instincts and a miraculous command of God; and upon those, pp. 104-106, on the relation of natural and revealed religion. What we ought to say is hinted at in the remarks we have quoted from Mill, and others made by him in the same connection. Our limits forbid us to occupy more space. We only add, that there are doubtless many readers, who, as well as ourselves, were curious to know what Dr. Hopkins would say upon subjects of so great interest as these. Perhaps there are some who are disappointed and puzzled, that they can not discover more clearly from his words, what he meant to say. Dr. Hopkins owes it both to himself and to the cause of truth, never to seem not to know clearly what he thinks, or to be unwilling to commit himself by an open and distinct avowal of what his opinions are. The fact that good men differ on such points, or that suspicions are cast upon those who hold the views which Dr. Hopkins at times seems

the truth of the doctrine does not, in all cases at least, depend on the miracles, it derives from them, the fuller comfirmation of the divine sanction.

that the space allotted to each represents our comparative estimate of the two. We commend this book very heartily for its many and peculiar excellencies. We have not seen so able and interesting a work this many a day. Were it to fall into the hands of none but partial or unphilosophical readers, we should commend it altogether, and only commend it. But as this will not be the case, and as the publication of a book that treats of the philosophical grounds of Christianity, is a very grave matter in these days, we have endeavored to discharge the higher duty which we owe to the cause of truth.

THE attentive readers of missionary intelligence, especially of that conveyed through the Missionary Herald, will recollect that some fifteen years ago, a mission was commenced by the American Board among the Armenians residing in Constantinople and other cities of the Levant. Rev. H. G. O. Dwight, who in connection with Rev. Eli Smith, of the Syrian Mission, had visited Armenia proper, and the Armenian churches and communities scattered over the east, was appointed to labor among that interesting people in the metropolis of the Turkish empire.

"Armenia is an inland country at the eastern extremity of Asia Minor, lying at short distances from the Mediterranean on the southwest, the Black sea on the northwest, the Caspian on the northeast, and at a much greater distance from the Persian gulf on the southeast. Its western boundary is not far from six hundred miles east of Constantinople."*

It

* Researches of Smith and Dwight in Armenia. To these volumes we are in

adjoins Georgia and the Caucassian possessions to the north, Mesopotamia and Assyria on the south, and Pontus and Cappadocia on the west. In its centre is Mt. Ararat, from which this country has been appropriately called "the second cradle of the human race, whence were scattered over the face of the earth, the first progenitors of every nation."

The Armenians, after various political changes, have at length ceased to exist as a distinct nation. Their country has been divided among their more powerful neighbors. They are scattered in almost every part of Turkey and Persia, and are found also in India, and in Russia. Their number is estimated at about 3,000,000 in the Turkish empire. At least 150,000 are to be found in Constantinople and its suburbs. There are several thousands also at

debted for many of the facts stated in the following pages. See also Southgate's narrative, the Missionary Herald, and the occasional publications of Mr. Dwight and other missionaries in the Levant.

*

Broosa, Smyrna, Trebizond, and Erzeroom in ancient Armenia. At each of these points, the American Board now has a mission among the Armenians; the most important is that at Constantinople. The Armenians have been familiarly styled the Yankees of the east. Mr. Southgate says of them, "this singularly in dustrious and frugal people are to be found in all parts of the empire; from the Caucassus to the Nile, and from the Danube to the Persian gulf; and every where they are the same, with those variations only which differences of occupation, of climate, and of local government tend to produce. Simple and industrious; quietly bearing the yoke which the Greeks are so restive under; given to the honest and useful arts of life; seeking gain wherever they are, and, for the most part carefully preserving it; docile and sober-minded; they are much more akin to the Turks, both in character and manners, than any other of the Christian races. Driven out from their patrimony, or enticed from their ancient lands by the desire of gain, they are to be seen in almost every district and every city; in Asia Minor, in Kurdistan, in Mesopotamia, in Syria, in Egypt, in Turkey, in Europe, in the provinces north of the Danube, and beyond the boundaries of the empire, in Austria, Russia, Persia and Hindostan. Every where in Turkey they are the great producers, whether they till the soil or engage in traffick. They are the bone and sinew of the land-at once its most useful and most peaceful citizens. Were they removed from Turkey, the wealth and productive power of the country would be incalculably diminished."

In Constantinople the Armenians are engaged in the most lucrative trades. Many of them are men of wealth, the bankers and brokers not

* Visit to the Syrian church, pp. 44, 45.

only for the community at large, but also for the government. They are a trafficking people; and are often intelligent and influential.

According to tradition, the Gospel was first preached in Armenia by Thaddeus, one of the seventy, soon after the death of Christ; and towards the close of the third century, the whole nation became nominally Christian. In the fifth century, the country having been overrun by Persia, Christianity was well nigh exterminated by the bloody persecu tions instigated by the Magi. At the same time the Armenians, by rejecting, through their synod, the decisions of the council of Chalcedon, were separted from the communion of the Greek church. They are still regarded as heretics and schismatics by the Greek and Romish churches, though they would not suffer probably from a comparison with either. They have, however, the form of godliness without its power. The Bible is to them a dead letter. It is not indeed a prohibited book; it is read in the churches; but in what is now an almost unknown tongue, and with little exposition of its meaning. The people know nothing of it experimentally. Christianity, in its doctrines, spirit and ordinances, is completely perverted and degraded. The ceremony of the mass is celebrated in the churches, with much the same pomp and idolatry as in the Roman Catholic churches of Europe. Confession of sins is made to the priests before communion, though the practice is less odious in some respects than in the church of Rome.* Prayers are of

* There is no confessional in the Arme

nian churches; the priest sits cross-legged upon the floor, and the penitent lays his or her head upon his bosom or in his lap! Absolution is granted professedly without remuneration. The prescribed forms of confession, infamous as they are, are pure in comparison with those to be found in Roman Catholic manuals. Rome will never lose her preeminence among apostate churches, as the mother of harlots.