force on the south bank of the Oxus in the neighborhood of Afghanistan, if she saw fit. The Russian forces have been at Sherri Sebz, the birthplace of Timur. Strange reversion of history! Nearly five centuries ago the Tartars under Timur had been in Hungary and Poland, and the terrified Danes were kept back from their herring fisheries for a whole year, dreading the approach of the Asiatic conqueror. Now, the birthplace and royal cities of his great empire are ruled by the representatives of a European power. If the Hindoo Koosh are the natural limit of Russia from the north, the Suleiman and Himalaya Mountains are much more the natural limit of the English from the south. Yet there is an intervening belt of country before which there is doubtless some fate or fortune. Mr. Bellew makes a significant remark, which every historian will accept at once, to the effect that the belt of country lying between Russia and British India must in time yield to one or the other power. It cannot remain neutral, nor can it remain in barbarism. Civilization must advance. Let us suppose that Russia takes Merv, as it is reported that she has done, or is about to do. The nomad tribes, which live by robbing caravans and peaceful settlers, will rob the Russian settlers, and perhaps flee to Afghan territory for protection. Now who shall compel these robbers to keep the peace? This question is already being discussed between England and Russia. Russia wants England to guarantee the neutrality of Afghan, which England will not do, for she knows that she cannot compel those nomads to behave themselves. But suppose that England and Russia agree simply that Afghan shall be neutral territory. Afghan then must keep her nomads from robbing the Russians, or Russia will defend her own people as she has done in numberless cases before, which means the conquest of the territory whence the trouble arises. Afghan would probably crumble away.

We have no hesitation in saying, with Mr. Vambery, that Russia has her eye on Herat. This is the key of India on the north. Every great Asiatic conqueror has seen its importance, and struggled for the possession of it: and history records more than fifty sieges which it has had to endure on account of its importance, for the conquest of Asia. From Meshed to Herat

an army can march in eight days, and from Meshed to the Caspian in eight or ten days. English statesmen admit that it is impossible to prevent the establishment of Russian influence over Persia. A Russian fleet on the Caspian, and the Russian authority established at Herat, and Northern Persia would be little more than a dependency of Russia. And Russia will extend and consolidate her power in Central Asia, regardless of the hopes or fears of Englishmen. English writers raise a great many theoretical obstacles to Russia's advance. Meanwhile Russia marches on slow, but resistless, as the advance of an Atlantic tide; and in almost every English paper that appears upon this subject, there is evident an unexpressed conviction that England is powerless to dictate to Russia what the limit of her advance shall be. Russia is silent; studies geography, makes plans, and the world hears suddenly of some brilliant success which she has achieved. Months afterwards England succeeds in understanding what has been done.

At the risk of some repetition, we ask the reader to find on as good a map as may be at his command the following places: first, look at the Caucasus region, which belongs to Russia, and where she has an army of two hundred thousand men. Then, her communications with the Caspian are excellent. Upon the Caspian there is a fine Russian fleet. An army can march in from sixteen to twenty days from the Caspian to Herat. Northern Persia is practically in the power of Russia. Russia, we suppose, is already at Merv, and consequently controls the valley up to the foot of the hills, on the other side of which lies Herat. Herat is the key of India on the north. Candahar is about four hundred miles from Herat; and the military route to India is by Candahar, and not by Cabul. Then let the reader remember the influence of Russia in Eastern Turkestan, and that by the annexation of Kulja on the southern slopes of the Thian Shan Mountains, she controls the roads which lead to India through the dominions of Yakub Beg Russia's connection with Persia and Afghanistan will, no doubt, in the immediate future attract the most serious attention. It is said that if Russia occupies Herat, the English must advance to Candahar. But it is to be hoped that England will not attempt to control territory beyond the passes of the Suleiman Moun

tains. Let Russia advance to the Suleiman if she wishes to, and can do so; in that case wild tribes will be subdued, order and safety will prevail where now all is anarchy, and England and Russia can meet as merchants and not as armed enemies seeking each other's destruction.

But the more we study this subject, the more we are convinced of the absurdity of the fear that Russia has any serious designs on India. Suppose Russia were to absorb all the territory north of the Himalaya and Suleiman Mountains, England could defend the passes in such a way that all the world could not break through them. If one should say that Russia cherished the ultimate design of absorbing Persia, one would give thus a more probable guess. In that way she might to some extent cripple England. The day, however, for a collision between these two great powers in Asia is yet far off, unless, as we have said, Russia occupies Herat, and the English in their alarm occupy Candahar. The former is probable: the latter would be a very unwise act, and one which England would in the end have cause to regret.

But while we watch with interest the great game that is being played on that vast continent by England and Russia, there are questions of greater importance than who shall be the winner in this contest, to which we on this side the globe ought to give our earnest attention. Humanity, geographical knowledge, the development of material resources, the history of languages and religions, the advancement of Christianity, all the questions which pertain to science, all the interests of civilization, demand that some power which can do it, be it Russia or England, should knock at the gates of those citadels of fanaticism and cruelty which have so long resisted all progress, until they are wide open for the free admission of missionaries and teachers, of railroads and commerce, of the army of peaceful men, who will develop the surprising resources of those fertile valleys, and the vast mineral wealth of those many mountains and hills.

ARTICLE II-HERBERT SPENCER'S PROPOSED RECONCILIATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

*

Ir rarely happens that the publication of a philosophical treatise awakens an interest so general and cordial as that which greeted the appearance of Mr. Herbert Spencer's First Principles, constituting the opening volume of his grand system of philosophy. Much of the éclat which attended the publication of this volume was undoubtedly due to the announcement and exposition, which it contained, of a grand law of evolution, which claimed to bear sway in every department of change, from the infinitesimal scale of atoms and molecules to the measureless range of the planetary spaces-from the lowest forms of inorganic matter to the highest manifestations of life and mind. But the good-will of thoughtful persons was especially drawn to Mr. Spencer's proposed reconciliation between science and religion. He was hailed by the periodical press as a scientist "who does not treat the subject of religion with supercilious neglect," who "is not chargeable with excluding God from the universe, or denying all revelation of Him in His works." Says one reviewer: "Mr. Spencer comes in good faith from what has been so long a hostile camp, bringing a flag of truce and presenting terms of agreement, meant to be honorable to both parties." As regards the author's proposed basis of religion and terms of agreement be tween religion and science, another reviewer parries objections, and vindicates the view presented as pre-eminently the religious position, by alleging "that the doctrine itself is so profoundly, so intensely, so overwhelmingly religious, nay, so utterly and entirely CHRISTIAN, that its true meaning could not be seen for very glory." The reviewer goes on to say: "Like Moses when he came down from the Mount, this philosophy comes with a veil over its face, that its too divine radiance may be hidden for a time. This is Science, that has been con

*First Principles of a New System of Philosophy. By HERBERT SPENCER. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1866.

versing with GOD, and brings in her hand His law written on tables of stone." Such was the response of cordiality, at times rising to enthusiasm, which greeted Mr. Spencer's exposition of the relation between science and religion.

Holding the author responsible neither for the extravagant claims nor the confused rhetoric put forth by his eulogist last quoted, we may venture, undazzled by "the glory that excelleth," to come directly to the examination of his proposed basis of agreement between religion and science, --the "law written on tables of stone," which Science, having conversed with God, presents, through him, for our consideration. The brightness of the face of the revealer need not interfere, in the least, with the reading of the handwriting on the tables of stone, which he has brought with him from the mount of vision. In a word, we shall be treating the author with all due respect, if we meet him in candor and fairness as one who comes in good faith. . . . . presenting terms of agreement meant to be honorable to both parties." In this spirit we would proceed to inquire how far the proposed terms of agreement are, and ought to be satisfactory, to the parties in question.

Mr. Spencer sets out with a plea for religion, an argument to prove that there is a basis for religion in the reality of things. He assumes that there may be a class of honest doubters, "who, in contempt for its follies, and disgust at its corruptions, have contracted towards religion a repugnance which makes them overlook the fundamental verity contained in it." (p. 17.) Accordingly he enters into an elaborate discussion to make it apparent that there must be a fundamental verity at the basis of religion.

The author starts with the very plausible assumption, that wide-spread beliefs, however erroneous in their main features, must owe their prevalence to some elements of truth which they contain. And when two such beliefs are found in seeming conflict with each other, it is only another step in the same direction to assume that they embrace some common element of truth in which they may meet and agree. This is illustrated by the widely divergent views of human government, which have been held in different ages and countries. Thus all the conflicting theories of government, from that which deifies the