Earlier text: THE LORD’S HIGH WAY.THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.
By W. H. Littlejohn
2. Heretofore we have regarded the subject from a rationalistic standpoint, purely. It is with pleasure that we now turn to look upon it in the light of a “more sure word of prophecy.” We do so in the full confidence that it will neither speak in a doubtful tone, nor contradict the conclusions which we have already reached. It is our intention to present but a few of the texts which bear upon the question. The more competent and credible the witnesses, the fewer are required for the establishment of a given proposition. One single passage of Scripture standing in a suitable connection, clearly enunciating a given doctrine, and shown to be properly translated, is all that is necessary to prove that doctrine correct. For the Bible being the word of God, is necessarily harmonious in all its parts. The only object, therefore, to be gained by quoting even as many as we shall, will be that of removing from the mind of the reader, every doubt as to whether the translators have accurately expressed the sentiments of the sacred writers. Having promised thus much, we shall enter upon our task after calling attention to the fact that it is not our present purpose to show either that Christians are in duty bound to keep the law, or that they are violating one of its provisions. It is simply our design, now to show that it has never been repealed. For this purpose, we shall use the following quotations. 1. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. iii, 19. The above, written as it was in A. D. 58, had its origin so far this side of the crucifixion as to leave no doubt that when it was penned, this dispensation had been fully entered upon. It follows, that the doctrine which it teaches, is as true to-day as it was then. What then does it teach? We answer: The very principle which we are seeking to prove. That is, the law still lives. For Paul alluding to it as something familiar to the minds of the Romans, represents it as speaking to a certain class who were then under it, in order “that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.” But we submit: First. That it would be as incompatible with a proper use of terms, to represent a dead law as speaking, as it would to ascribe a living voice to a dead man. Second. That the apostle is here pointing forward to the judgment, and indicates the law of God as the rule by which the world are to become guilty. Any view therefore, that would represent him as entertaining the opinion that it had ceased to exist even before his day, is too absurd to admit of argument. For, should we ignore Paul’s inspiration, we would still be compelled to admit that he was a man of too much sagacity to fall into so gross an error as that of supposing that guilt could attach to an individual for the violation of a statute which had become obsolete long before the time of the alleged offense. But, should we concede to the advocates of no law that he was agreed with them in sentiment, it would simply have the effect to destroy the significance of the question before us without affording them any relief; since, while endorsing their view that the law was repealed, he would still make it the test of character in the last day. So that the only safe course to be pursued, would be that of perfect obedience to its requirements. Third. That it would be a contradiction of terms to say that any man was under a law which had no existence. Having said thus much respecting the passage before us, let us examine another of like import. 2. “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.” 1 Cor. ix, 20. The above is introduced for the purpose of showing that Rom. iii, 19, is neither an isolated, nor an incorrectly translated passage, and that its teachings were in perfect harmony with the sentiment of the same writer expressed elsewhere. The verse transcribed from Corinthians furnishes an explicit testimony of the existence of the law when written. The context shows this to have been during the present dispensation. For it represents Paul as endeavoring to win to Christ those who were under the law. Rather a difficult task, if there was no such class then in existence. And it will be unnecessary to remind the reader that there could not have been, unless there was a law to be under. Should any one, in their desire to escape the consequence of the conclusions reached above, indulge the fancy that the law here spoken of was that of Moses, and not the commandments, they will recollect: First. That in taking this position they assume that the Mosaic code was binding on some in A. D. 57, and as a consequence even down to the present time, because there has been no change of condition from that time to this. Second. That an admission that it was the law of Moses here spoken of would be virtually a surrender of the whole question. Because, having been added on account of the transgression of the commandments, it would necessarily become void the moment they were taken away. Again, should they, in their efforts to escape the difficulties alluded to above, assume that the law spoken was neither of the two which we have been considering, but something entirely different, and one which might more properly be denominated, the law of Christ, it will be sufficient to remind them that such a theory would represent the apostle as being engaged in the unnecessary and ridiculous labor of turning to Christ those who had turned to him already. 3. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Matt. v, 17. Such was the emphatic disclaimer of the Saviour to any intention to destroy the law. Now, as it was the Son of God, and not fallible man who uttered these words, we shall be safe in concluding that the results of his mission accorded perfectly with its object. In other words, that when he had accomplished that which he came to do, the law remained precisely as he intended it should, i. e. fulfilled, but not destroyed. All that remains to be done, therefore, in order that we may learn the exact import of the passage before us, is to ascertain the signification of the words, fulfill and destroy, when used in connection with law. That the first is not in common parlance, the synonym of abolish will appear upon a moment’s reflection. To illustrate; we think it will not be disputed, that should one say, “that every good citizen fulfills the law of his state” he would use it in its ordinary acceptation. But if we could with equal propriety, use the word abolish in this connection, or if the repeal of a law was a necessary consequence of its being fulfilled, then would we have presented the anomaly of a state whose statutes would require re-enactment every time they were complied with. An additional illustration must suffice. It will be found in Gal. vi, 2. “Bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” The remarks already made will apply with equal force to the passage last quoted. For, if the view we are combatting is correct, then the moment that the Galatians, in obedience to the apostle’s injunction, had made a successful effort to bear one another’s burdens, they thereby repealed the law of Christ, thus relieving themselves and their successors from the duty of paying any further heed to the new command left by the great Head of the church. What then, you ask, is the sense in which the word is used in the connection before us? We reply, It means to answer the requirements of. (Webster.) As the antithesis of this, the Saviour uses the word destroy, meaning to bring to naught, to put an end to, &c. Thus understood, the perpetual obligation of the69commandments is placed beyond a doubt. For as the Saviour did not, and as one less than he could not, destroy them, they must by virtue of their original enactment still exist. Not only so, but their authority with us should be increased rather than diminished, as the result of his mission. For he as our great exemplar, has by the perfect obedience which he accorded to them, set us a pattern which we ought to follow with scrupulous fidelity until we have an express command to deviate. That this has never been directly or indirectly given, will appear as we advance. 4. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Rom. iii, 31. Such were the words of one than whom there never has been among men, a more competent person to instruct in all the doctrines of the Christian religion. Their importance in this controversy can only be duly appreciated when we remember that the writings of the one who uttered them are quoted more than those of all others to prove that the law of God has been abrogated. The apostle as if conscious that he had, in performing the difficult and delicate task of drawing the line between the two dispensations, made use of language which might, under some circumstances, be construed into an approval of such sentiments, pauses, and in the most emphatic manner repudiates once and forever any such construction. “Do we then make void the law through faith?” he says, “God forbid.” To make void is according to Webster to make empty, to annul, to render of no validity or effect. It follows therefore, that he who entertains a theory which would result in this, must not rest it upon any language of Paul’s; for he asserts in the most solemn manner that this is not the doctrine which his writings were designed to inculcate. Nor was he satisfied with this. On the contrary he goes so far as to record, in the most impressive way, the fact that the faith which he entertained and which must have been that committed to the saints, established the law; i. e., “made it stable or firm: fixed or set unalterably.” But how was this to be accomplished? Certainly not by taking a course like that pursued by many at this day, who are exhausting every resource of logic, and every art of sophistry to bring it into contempt. Not by representing it as Jewish in its origin, and oppressive in its character. Not by instructing men that it has been abolished, and that they are not only at liberty to trample it under foot, but that it would be wicked to endeavor to carry out its requirements. No, this is the work of the destroyer. This is not the way in which any law whether human or divine, ever has been or can be established. How then shall it be done? The answer is obvious. It must be represented as possessing those properties and qualities that are inseparable from laws which are established. Its authority as a rule of action must be acknowledged and the fact be made clear that it proceeds from a competent authority and rests upon the principles of justice. Such are undeniably the teachings of one of whom the Saviour said, “He is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” Will you hear him, or will you give ear to those self-constituted teachers who preach another gospel unto us beside that which he preached, and ought therefore, though they were angels from Heaven, to be accursed. See Gal. i, 8. Tell me the meaning of Scriptures. One gem from that ocean is worth all the pebbles of earthly streams.—M'Cheyne. PARAPHRASE OF PSALM II.
By Editor
Why rise the heathen in tumultuous state?
Why do the people vain things meditate?
The kings of earth come forth in bold array,
And all the rulers rise as to the prey,
They counsel take against the Lord most high,
The work of his anointed they defy.
Let us, they say, asunder burst their bands,
And cast their cords from our unwilling hands.
But He who high in Heaven o'er all doth reign,
And from his throne beholds the ways of men,
Shall laugh to scorn the puny war they wage,
And in derision dire, thwart all their rage.
In wrath his voice from Heaven shall on them roar,
In holy anger shall he vex them sore. Know ye that Zion is my holy hill,
And there I've set my king; for thus I will.
And now will I declare the firm decree:
Thou art my Son, I have begotten thee,
On this auspicious day; thus said the Lord;
Yea, ask of me and thou shalt have reward;
The heathen are thy heritage from me,
And utmost earth shall thy possession be,
O'er them shalt thou an iron rule extend,
And they who would not to thy mercy bend,
Like potter's vessels frail, in anger broke,
Shall lie in shivers 'neath thine awful stroke. Then O ye kings, learn prudent wisdom now,
Be taught ye judges of the earth to bow,
The Lord your ruler serve with reverent fear,
And joined with trembling let your joy appear,
With fervent acts of homage meet the Son,
Lest he be angry at your deeds undone;
For should his flame of wrath but slightly burn,
How soon would all your steps to ruin turn. But never hope laid on the Lord shall fall;
And they are blest who trust to him their all. “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” BOTH what? There are three things mentioned in the first part of the text, but only two in the last. What explanation can be given of this language? “On Acts xxiii, 8,” says Parkhurst, “Chrysostom remarks, ‘Here are three things mentioned: why then does the historian say (ἀμφότερα) both? Either as reckoning angel and spirit for one, or because that word is catachrestically and improperly used, not only for two, but for three.’” The idea of an improper use of the word, will not, of course, be contended for, at least by believers in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. The conclusion therefore remains that the terms angel and spirit mean one and the same thing. This text therefore furnishes no support for the idea of a separate entity or spirit in man, capable of conscious existence independent of the body. WHAT RELATION DO WE SUSTAIN TO THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD?
Thus far, we have been engaged in an honest endeavor to prove the perpetuity of the law of God. As we believe that the arguments presented have been of such a nature that they should satisfy every unprejudiced mind, it now becomes in the highest degree important to understand the relation which we, as individuals, sustain to it. In order that we may do this satisfactorily, it will be necessary to remember that in the gospel age, there are but two classes, one of which is made up of those who practically reject Christ, and the other of those who receive him as their Saviour. They are usually denominated the believing and the unbelieving world. That at least one of them is under the law has already been shown. That the other is not in the fullest sense of the term, we propose to admit; and then show that such an admission is not equivalent to an acknowledgment of their right to transgress it. That there should be a necessity for this labor, is incomprehensible. Nothing but the fact that we have to meet it at every turn, could satisfy us that any considerable body of Christians would secretly indulge, much less openly avow, such a theory. It would naturally be expected, that they, being professedly the children of the Highest, would look upon any rule of conduct, emanating from him, as the object of their most profound regard and purest affection. And that we should hear from their lips, sentiments like the following, which abound in the writings of David, Paul and John. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the way of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” Ps. i, 1 and 2. “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. xi, 8. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” Ps. xix, 7. “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man.” Rom. vii, 22. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John v, 3. How sad then is our disappointment when instead of echoing the foregoing sentiments we hear learned ministers, in the presence of approving audiences, laboring with tireless energy to bring the commandments of God into contempt, by representing them as an imperfect code, adapted only to a barbarous age, and by applying to those who are conscientiously endeavoring to keep them, every opprobrious epithet. Leaving such in the hands of that God whose forbearance toward them furnishes us with an impressive lesson as to the manner in which we should treat one another, let us determine in the light of his word, if possible, the estimate which he puts upon those who are patiently laboring to vindicate his law. It may be after all, that he has provided for them in this emergency, a balm which will heal every wound thus inflicted. Perhaps they can, with propriety, appropriate to themselves the consolations of that sweet benediction of Christ: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” Matt. v, 11. 1. The first Scripture which we shall use for this purpose will be found in Matt. v, 19, and reads as follows: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.” By a careful reading of the context, we shall learn that the commandments here spoken of are those of the decalogue; for in the same chapter he refers to the two respecting murder and adultery, showing that instead of being relaxed, they were, by his teachings, made more comprehensive than ever before; or, at least, more so than they were in his time understood to be; since he plainly declares that they can be broken without the commission of the overt act; as they reach even to the intents of the heart. Again, it will be seen that the antecedent of “therefore,” as used above, was the statement which he had just made, that “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” In other words, “therefore,” as used in this connection, is equivalent to the expression, for this reason; i. e., the Saviour designed by this word to teach that whoever broke one of these least commandments and taught men so, should be considered least in the kingdom of Heaven, because of the fact, which he had just uttered, that “till heaven and earth should pass not one jot or one tittle should pass from the law until all be fulfilled.” We have in the above a plain declaration that the status of every individual in the kingdom of Heaven is, or will be, determined by the respect which he or she has shown, or has taught others to show, to the commandments of God. There has been, and is yet, a wide difference of opinion as to where the boundary lines of this kingdom are to be found. Fortunately it is not necessary for the purposes of this argument, that we should split hairs in this matter. Take whichever of the commonly-accepted views you please, and the result will be the same. No theory of the time or place of the setting up of this kingdom, can dull the point of this testimony. Locate it in Heaven if you wish and send the saint to glory at death—he will then find there, no room for the despiser of God’s law. Place it in the new earth, and make up its subjects from the resurrected dead and the changed living, and it will then be equally true. Let it have its rise on or before the day of Pentecost and reach as far as the time “when many shall come from the east and the west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven,” and it will then cover our day, and whether we are ready to acknowledge it or not, our relative position among its subjects depends upon whether we are ourselves breaking and teaching men to break one of these least commandments, or whether we are striving both to “do and teach them.” 2. “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Rom. vii, 12. Think you that the author of the above could consistently rise from the penning of such an unqualified endorsement of the holiness, justice and goodness, of the law of God, and proceed to a deliberate disregard of its requirements? Before giving an affirmative answer please bear in mind, First. That the words “holy, just and good” as here used, are expressive of the purity and equity of the law, and the fact that it is adapted to our necessities and the accomplishment of the end for which it was made. That end he had previously declared to be life. Second. That the encomium here pronounced, applies to the whole, and not merely a part of the law. So that the apostle, when judged by his own words, could not break any of its requirements, without violating every principle of right, and every dictate of interest. If you think that he was capable of doing this, you have greatly underrated his moral worth, and will do well to study it in the light of the following eloquent appeal to the Philippians, to be mindful of the very things which, according to your view, he himself set at naught. Hear him! “Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Phil. iv, 8. THERE is a charming tradition connected with the site on which the Temple of Solomon was erected. It is said to have been owned in common by two brothers, one of whom had a family; the other had none. On the spot was sown a field of wheat. On the evening succeeding the harvest, the wheat having been gathered in separate shocks, the elder brother said unto his wife: “My younger brother is unable to bear the burden and heat of the day; I will arise, take of my shocks and place them with his, without his knowledge.” The younger brother, being actuated by the same benevolent motives, said within himself: “My elder brother has a family, and I have none; I will contribute to their support; I will arise, take of my shocks, and place them with his, without his knowledge.” Judge of their mutual astonishment, when, on the following morning, they found their shocks undiminished. This course of events transpired for several nights, when each resolved in his own mind, to stand guard and solve this mystery. They did so, when, on the following night, they met each other, half-way between their respective shocks, with arms full. Upon ground hallowed with such associations as these was the Temple of Solomon erected—so spacious and magnificent, the admiration and wonder of the world! Alas! in these days how many would sooner steal their brother’s whole shock than add to it a single sheaf! HATH any wronged thee? Be bravely revenged: slight it, and the work's begun; forgive it, and 'tis finished. He is below himself that is not above an injury.—Quarles. Prophecy is History in Advance. [The following paragraphs are from an article published in an English monthly entitled, “The Last Vial.” They contain a vivid description of the present state of the world, and a frank admission concerning the character and position of apostate Protestantism, the harlot daughter of a corrupt mother, in which our readers will be interested.—Ed.] We have entered on a year that, above all the years that are past, fulfils the words of our Lord, “Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.” There has, perhaps, never, either in ancient or modern times, been a moment so perplexing, so uncertain, and so threatening. Many a year has opened with more certainty of evil; many a year has suspended a heavier judgment over some particular nation; but no year that ever yet was written down on the rolls of eternity, can be compared with the year 1867, in the gloomy mystery of its threats, or in the wide-extended range of its forebodings. One takes up the subject almost with terror, lost in the immensity of the questions and the interests that are brought before the mind. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was held out by some very foolish writers as an era of universal peace. We all know that, from that day to this, there has not been one year without war, mutiny, bloodshed and revenge. From East to West, from India to Jamaica, this Protestant country has been gorged with slaughter and steeped in human blood. Step by step it has waded across the crimson tide, until every bad passion of the heart has been stirred into activity, and our old slumbering furies had awakened, like giants refreshed with blood. They are awakened now, and will not sleep again until they have fulfilled their task, and have proved, what might have been seen before, that Protestantism, when tempted, is just as guilty and as bloodthirsty as Romanism, and that both are equally liable to all the judgments of the Last Days. It is well that this should be manifest. It is well that the flatteries and false prophecies of such men as Dr. Cumming should be brought to trial, and condemned in open court, before those judgments fall which they have attempted to fix wholly upon the Church of Rome. Look on the ERA OF PEACE which was to have begun at the Exhibition of 1851! Look at the false prophecies of those times, and contrast them with the realities of the present. After eighteen hundred years of Christianity, and at least eighteen Great Exhibitions, in what condition is Christendom? Engaged in nothing else but preparation for WAR. New implements of destruction have been sent forth by Protestant Germany. Protestant Germany has led the way in violence, robbery, and bloodshed; and Roman Catholic Europe, do what it may, will only be treading in the steps of holy Protestantism. Worse it cannot be; and better it ought not to be in common decency; for has it not been told for three hundred years that Protestantism is the “woman ruling in heaven,” and the “man child” caught up to the throne of God? and it would be presumptuous indeed to be more scrupulous than such heavenly models. ALL Christendom this day is getting under arms. The armies of Europe, which once were counted by thousands, and then by tens of thousands, are henceforth to be reckoned up by millions. Every man is to be a soldier, if capable of bearing arms. The whole ingenuity and science of the age are exhausted in the invention of deadly weapons—destructive powders and iron fortresses, not by land only, but floating on the deep. Day by day some new and hideous engine appears—frowning over the land or gliding on the sea, like some revived antediluvian monster. There were giants in those days, and their strength was in their right hand; there are giants in these days, and their strength is in their machinery of war. Both are equally gigantic in wickedness, and differ only in the weapons which they employ; and both will be alike in their destination. A deluge of wrath destroyed the giants of old, and a deluge will destroy the giants of modern military science; and be assured that Protestants will feel that deluge as heavily as Romanists. It is most just in God thus to rebuke the hypocrisy of Protestantism and the pride of the world at large. The word of God says that this dispensation is to end in wars and calamities of the most fearful kind—war that “shall take peace from the earth.” Philosophers and infidels say, “No! we will regenerate society by the march of intellect, and render war impossible.” The trial has been made, and eternal truth has triumphed over perishable falsehood. The Great Exhibition of peace has been followed by almost uninterrupted war! Again, “All the judgments of the book of Revelations are levelled against Popery, and we are the ‘called, and chosen, and faithful;’ we wait with folded arms to see the reward of the ungodly.” So say Protestants, as ignorant of God’s truth as they are of their own hearts. Unfold your arms, throw off your attitude of expectation; there is work for you to do. In all the wars, the spoliations, the butcheries, and the sorceries of the age, you Protestants have taken the lead, from India, China, and Japan, to Jamaica, New Zealand, and the United States. In Protestant America began that sorcery which is now said to be received among twenty millions of mankind, and which is spreading day by day till it has enveloped Christendom. The Church of Rome stands with folded arms and a sardonic smile, to see Protestants taking the lead in all the crimes which it audaciously charged upon Romanism alone—to see the ungodly taken in the pit which he made for others, and enveloped as much as Romanism by all the clouds and terrors of the book of Revelation. In all this we see the perfection of divine retribution upon hypocrisy and pride of mind. * Europe at large is dividing itself into two great camps—the camps of the North and of the South—of Protestantism and of Popery. Both those religions have long become thoroughly corrupt, alienated from God, and sunk in the world. The love of pleasure is the ruling passion of both; pleasure as pleasure in the South, and pleasure as power and riches in the North. In one respect they agree with that perfect agreement which befits the daughter and the mother; Rome the mother of harlots, and Protestantism the harlot daughter. How perfectly do they agree in one essential point—in the negation of a God. The harlot daughter, Protestantism, as befits her youthful alacrity, has far outstripped the mother. Atheism is by far more common, or more avowed, among Protestants, than among Romanists: and it is the worst feature, perhaps, of all, that even the religious world has almost abandoned the love of God, and has set up man as its favorite deity. The human soul has for years been made the only object of the religious world, and our Lord and his glory have been reduced to the position of a servant—a mere convenience to work out the salvation of the human soul. The selfishness of the religious world approaches to the very verge of idolatry; for it makes the human soul every thing, and the Redeemer only a convenience; while, in the sight of God, the glory and the kingdom of his own Son are of more value than all the souls that ever rose or fell. Such is Protestantism, the harlot daughter of a harlot mother; and what will be its end? Ah! what will be its end? It is possible that, for the present, the vast preparations may lead to no result; yet no one who sees the immensity of preparation can expect any other issue than a universal conflict; Romanism, with Napoleon at its head, arrayed against Protestantism without a head; a policy of system against a policy of confusion; a policy with an aim against an aimless ambition. The French Emperor, last year, had a clear and determined policy before him. That policy was to get Sardinia for himself by assisting Italy against Austria, and then to weaken Austria so far as to bring her into subjection to himself. In the former half of his scheme he has been defeated—not from want of sagacity, but by inevitable events. In the latter half of his scheme he has been completely successful. Austria, from henceforth, will become a vassal of France. Many persons have absurdly blamed the Emperor for not having long ago interfered. The “Times” newspaper, which sets up for an oracle of blunders, tells us that the Emperor should at the first moment have placed an army on the Rhine, and forbidden Prussia to advance. A wise policy, in truth, when he knew only half the strength of his antagonist. He himself was wiser, for he waited to see the effect of the Prussian guns. If he had attacked Prussia without needle-guns of his own, he would have been ignominiously defeated, or perhaps destroyed. He most wisely looked on, and bought all his experience at the expense of Austria, not at his own. He has thus both saved himself and gained Austria as an ally. Austria, Italy, and France, with all the chivalry of Poland to fill up the intervals of their ranks, and to flank their operations. What will be the end, and who will triumph? Hitherto, the French Emperor has never been defeated, but only kept back by circumstances; and we may therefore expect that this vast combination, the work of his own brain, will prove finally triumphant, and that the South will beat back the North. But the South is Romanist, and Poland, the new ally of the South, is equally Roman Catholic, so that the victory of the South would be the triumph of Romanism. The demands which France has made as to Germany, are now before the public; and, what is of far greater importance, it is said, as a positive fact, that these demands have never been withdrawn, but have only been postponed to a future day. The Great Exhibition must not be disturbed; the new guns must be got ready; and then the demands will be renewed. By that time the league between France, Austria, Italy and Poland, will have been completed. Austria will have had time to re-organize her army, and the Poles will have been thoroughly aroused up. After the Great Exhibition we may expect a new development, both of French aggression and of the Napoleonic mind; and the pacific declarations which we hear of every day, are only intended to keep matters smooth until the new military arrangements have been finished. Our public press, with the “Times” at its head, is at its old trade again, promising peace at one time—at another, warning the Emperor, and exaggerating the strength of Germany and the force of Germanic patriotism. As we have said before, all may end peaceably. Diplomatic dust, which is another name for “discretion,” may disperse the “bees,” but it seems almost impossible to believe that either France or the French Emperor will acquiesce in the reduction of the French nation to a secondary position in Europe. Hence it is that we hear of alliances between Southern powers; of increase of military force; of new implements of destruction multiplied without end. Such a war as we may consider almost inevitable, will have a decidedly prophetic result. Let us suppose it to have begun; let us suppose that France and her allies are triumphant. Germany is nominally Protestant, but really infidel—further from God even than Rome itself. France and her allies are nominally Romanist, but really infidel, like Germany. England is one discordant heap of sects and parties, of democrats and aristocrats, which can only be compared to Milton’s chaos—all elements shaken together in such confusion that no one can tell what ultimate form they will assume—whether this or that; but certainly some form that will be hateful in the sight of God. In short, the year 1867 is the beginning of a new era, or promises to be such. It finds at its opening, all nations of Christendom preparing for action, and watching each other’s movements with a jealousy and suspicion that we believe have never been equaled, not even in the age of the First Napoleon. It finds the Third Napoleon driven to desperation by apparent ill success, but controlling his desperation into calm, indomitable resolution. It finds France throwing off its love of peace, and putting on its ancient71war dress, that it may avenge its humiliation. Both France and the French Emperor driven out, as if by main force, to the battle field, by circumstances which no human eye could have seen. It finds Romanism gathering up its strength, and banding together all its forces, for an attack upon the Protestant states of Christendom; while England, the chief Protestant state is driven to her wits’ end to find an army and a navy. Nor is even all this enough! for it finds the dread Eastern question opening out before it, as if to swallow up all peace in its insatiable jaws. And all the while, Great Babylon is building up her gilded domes and spreading out her purple canopies to receive the nations of the earth, and to display before them all the luxury, the splendor, the art, and the invention, which human genius can devise. The Exhibition of Paris and the preparations of war—the splendor and blood—the dark red cloud above and the glittering pageantry below—what a contrast do they afford? what a scene of horrible splendor and of ghastly festivity! All is Babylon from first to last, whether Protestant or Roman; and Protestant and Roman are rushing to one scene of overwhelming destruction, while decked out in all the ornaments of superhuman voluptuousness; for “pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”