an eminent physician of Boston, has found it necessary to write a protest against criminal abortion, which he says is common in New England. There is wonderful wisdom in the revealed word of God'. The Tree of Knowledge opens the eyes to the knowledge of evil as well as of good.

That these people are cruel, can scarcely be denied. But they have the ingenuity so to color their acts, that they sugar o'er the devil himself. To strangers, ignorant of the real state of things, the acts of reconstruction seem founded on principles of justice and humanity. They have even been praised for the clemency with which they dealt with rebels. But what is the truth? In connection with the fact that they never dared trust the matter of the so-called rebellion to their own courts, they disfranchised intelligence and moral worth, and put over them ignorance and brute force. Pretending the highest regard for free institutions and insisting that education is the only efficient guardian of liberty, they turned over at least four States out of thirteen to the absolute rule of blacks recently emancipated; and, in the other States, so crippled the whole race by disfranchisements and disabilities, that even in them the numerical inferiority of the negroes might be made up by the large number of disfranchised whites. It is the glory of the most enlightened government under the sun, that they have deliberately elevated ignorance above knowledge, and put refinement and delicacy under the rule of brute force and passion. And this is done in the name of humanity, of liberty, of enlightened progress. The Nation, (a newspaper,) which, under the garb of moderation, advocated all these measures as consistent with the enlightened spirit of the times, has occasionally had its understanding penetrated by a ray of light; and, after two years of this modern political experiment in South Carolina, deliberately denounces its government as a disgrace to civilization.

Let us now go back over the ground which we have traversed, and examine how faithfully Mr. Schurz has repreresented the North and the South. For the truth of his position he appeals to the intimate knowledge of all who hear him. 'There is not one of us who do not know that these things are so'. 'The South is turbulent, and more apt to resort to force than to the peaceable friction of opinion'. We appeal to history, and we show that until the North made war upon us in 1863, it was never necessary to call out a military force for the preservation of order at the South; while at the North, in 1786, Governor Sullivan was obliged to call out a military force to release the legislature of New Hampshire from an armed mob which assumed to dictate its action; that in 17S7, Daniel Shays, with his rebellious troops, kept forcible possession of "Worcester, threatened the arsenal at Springfield, and could only be dispersed by force. That in the early part of Washington's administration, an excise tax on whisky occasioned a formidable insurrection in Western Pennsylvania, which could be repressed only by force; and that, in 1842, the malcontents of the Dorr faction involved Rhode Island in the terrors of civil war. It is true that, in 1812, the South did not take up arms to aid their common country in the war against Britain, while the people of the most enlightened States on the planet refused to give either their lives, or their money, to their country, and bought from the common enemy protection for their commerce at sea. If the South was quick to take up arms, it was not against their countrymen.

But' the South has a revolutionary tendency which lurks in the system like a chronic disease'. We know not where, or how this is shown. She was faithful to her constitutional engagements when the North was not to hers. If, after political power had passed decidedly over to the side of the North, her public men sometimes gave utterance to threats of discontent, these were only repetions of the threats made by Northern orators before they had clearly gained the ascendency. Josiah Quincy was much more of a revolutionist than John G. Calhoun. The State of Virginia has been dismembered by the North in palpable violation of the Constitution. The pure and free spirit of New England, that but for the opportune battle of New Orleans, she would have given a revolutionary sanction to treason. During the war with Mexico, it was with great difficulty that the quota of moral and enlightened Massachusetts could be raised. That enlightened republic regards all war as sinful, except that which is waged against the South.

We cannot undertake to be the apologist of the South. We only ask Mr. Schurz to read over again the history of the North and the South. If he will do so dispassionately, he will perhaps retract, or at least modify, some of his charges against the South. But alas! we forget. We were thinking of the South when it had an existence; when it had a moral power. That South exists no longer; and we fear that Mr. Schurz's vaticinations are well founded. But the South of 1860, Mr. Schurz did not know. His head at that time was too full of radicalism to permit him to study it. Here it is in a few words, uttered by Mr. Mason in the Senate of the United States, after the phials of Mr. Sumner's wrath had been poured out on the South. Why should the North so persistently hate the South? 'It is not', said Mr. Mason, ' the wealth of the South, for Mr. Sumner has boasted that the wealth of Massachusetts alone is three times greater than that of the whole cotton-growing industry of the South. It is not her numerical strength, for indisputably we are numerically in the minority. It is not in political power meted out to the States by the Constitution, for we are in a minority both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. There is but one power left; and that is a great and controlling power, not only in halls of legislature, but in the world. It is the moral power of truth and justice. It is the moral power which recognizes the obligation of the compact, and observes it as you observe the compacts of honor.' We are content to let Mr. Mason's character of the South stand without any addition of our own.

Whether Domenica should or should not be annexed to the United States, is a question which we could not discuss without presumption. It would be like a West Indian, or an Australian, discussing the policy of England towards Ireland. We have the form of a free government, but are continually reminded of our provincial character.• Mr. Schurz very plainly intimates that this is to last forever. We are content. For the present, the hand of power, urged by hatred, presses heavily upon us; but we are sanguine enough to hope, that nature will, after a time, reassert her rights, and that the instincts of race will at last rise superior to political hatred. Mr. Schurz is himself an illustration of the truth that prejudice cannot last forever. We remember him ten years ago, inspired with the bitterest political hatred towards us. "We now hail him as the advocate of that true peace which is founded in justice. He has yet to unlearn the lessons which clouded his more youthful mind. The film is dropping from his eyes. We accept his present position as the harbenger of a brighter day.

Akt. VII.—The Athenaum; a Journal of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts. London: John Francis. No. 1912, the Article on lA Theodicy; or, Vindication of the Divine Glory as manifested in the Constitution and Government of the Moral World. By A. T. Bledsoe, LL.D. London: Saunders, Otley & Co. 1864'.

It was in consequence of the high opinion expressed by Dean Mansel, the celebrated author of The Limits of Religious Thought, that the work above mentioned was republished in England. On its appearance, it was most favorably noticed by many of the leading Journals of London, as well as by some of those in Scotland. In Scotland, especially, the notices were far more favorable than the author had anticipated. Instead of the charges of' Pelagianism', ' Atheism', and so forth, which the Calvinists of this country had so freely, not to say so fiercely, hurled at his head, the Calvinistic Journals of Scotland were calm, considerate, and even candjd in their criticisms. In none of those notices, indeed, was there a line, or a word, of which any reasonable author could have the least right to complain. If the present writer had preserved any of those criticisms, he would be glad to lay extracts from them before his readers, in order to show how, and in what spirit, religious controvery

truths which, as he believed, had appeared to him, and'even to

write them down in a book and submit them to the judgment of others; then was the author in question guilty of presumption. But then how has any branch of human knowledge ever been delivered from its obscurities, or had its bounderies enlarged and lighted up, except by precisely that sort of presumption? Anaxagoras who, looking above and beyond the religious notions of his day, rose to the sublime conception of the supreme 1105:, by whom the universe was ‘ ordered and adorned ’, was guilty of precisely that sort of presumption, and paid the fearful penalty of his crime. But has not the world owed more to his presumption, than to the extreme modesty of all his persecutors? ‘ It is not I ’, said he, ‘ who have lost the Athenians; it is the Athenians who have lost me,’ But, in point of fact, the Athenians did not lose him; for Socrates rose out of his ashes. The torch kindled by him, was seized by his successors, and, in the hands of a Socrates, a Plato, and an Aristotle, made to illuminate the civilized world. \Vho, then, cares about the charge of presumption ? - The only question is, whether the author of A T/Leodicy has given a true, or a false, solution of the stupendous problem of the moral world? If it be false, it is no very great disgrace to fail in company with a Plato and a Leibnitz; and if it be true, he has still less reason to blush under the rebuke of those who, without even looking into his solution,have the ability to raise the cry of presumption. His solution was submitted, not to the critics of this class, but to those who possessed ‘ both the desire and the capacity to think for themselves ’, (p. 365); and having received, from so many eminent judges of this description, a verdict in his favor, he now leaves the charge of presumption to take care of itself He abandons it to the tender mercies of the facile and facetious critic of the London Athenaeum. This critic, in making himself and his readers merry over ‘ The Professor of Mathematics ’, calls to hisaid, as a matter of course, the devils of Milton. Having quoted, just as if it were something new, the hackneyed passage from Paradise Lost, the critic continues: ‘In this Milton showed himself more knowing than Michael Scott, who could think of nothing better