we need not dwell on the various modes by which he manifested his power, since others have done such ample justice to this part of his character.

We do not think it worth while to discuss the question, whether Napoleon was or was not a usurper. That he was the pride of France, that she bowed her neck willingly to his yoke, that he ruled by her consent, seems, at this day, hardly to admit of a question. She was proud of the lustre which he shed on the empire; she received him with acclamations when he returned penniless from Elba; she clung to him manfully in his misfortunes; she sent to St. Helena to recover and sepulchre his unhonoured bones, and she delights still to cherish the memory of his brilliant reign.

But all this does not, by any means, sanctify the great error of his despotic rule. The master of the plantation might as well boast that his slaves served him from choice and not from fear. If it is really so, what does it prove? Only this: that the manhood of the slave has been corrupted by his servitude; that the master has imbued him with such servile tastes that he clings to his bondage instead of aspiring after the noble independence of freedom. The mistake in the case of Napoleon was still more momentous. His power corrupted a whole people and retarded their growth toward independence and virtue.

Despotism is the greatest of all crimes, and its fruit is "evil and only evil, and that continually." Behind it lies oppression, and murder, and every conceivable form of woe. This was the great, master error of Napoleon's life. His grasp for dominion neutralized all his fine qualities, and made him the scourge of mankind. Admitting that, in all the relations of life not interfering directly with his master motive, he was, as Mr. Abbott maintains, all that was generous, kind-hearted, and noble, still how little will that do to square his accounts with the world! For what great purpose were all these desolating wars? What was the compensating good for this ocean of human blood, and the harrowing lamentations of that vast army of widows and fatherless children? What great end justified the slaughter of so many millions of people, and the despotic rule by which alone it could be accomplished?

A strong government always implies a weak people. A wise father only governs his children during the weakness of infancy, and trains them gradually to self-reliance as the parental government is to be withdrawn. So nations that are governed are always feeble, and what strength they have is not really in the, nation, but in the ruling mind. It is easy to see, therefore, that political power, by which the world is so dazzled, is, after all, but a very weak engine

compared with individual intelligence, enterprise, and virtue. He, therefore, that would "bless and elevate mankind," must do it by developing in them the principle of self-reliance and self-government, and not by domineering over them. There was a time when governments seemed to think a nation would go to ruin unless its social, economical, and commercial operations were shaped by the ruling power. They undertook to control everything from the centre. They prescribed the prices of every commodity that was bought or sold, established the value of labor, and treated their subjects as mere machines. But the example of our own country shows that, to a certain extent, a nation which is governed least is governed best; that the ruling power is a clog to individual development, in proportion to its governing force; and that the true source of a nation's prosperity is to be found in the virtue, intelligence, and independence of its people.

The policy of Napoleon was not a policy to develop and build up a strong people. His object was not to do good to mankind, to develop the race to which he belonged, or to make men wiser or better. He sought only to dazzle and to fix attention on himself. In war he blazed through a campaign like a sparkling meteor: in peace he startled and amazed by his great conceptions of public works. In all his conduct he gloried in being able to do what others could not; and, feeling that he was superior to the rest of mankind, he deemed that he had a right to rule over them. This self-exaltation led him to take great risks and run fearful hazards, because the glory of the achievement and the renown which it brought to his willing ears, were great in proportion to the danger to be encountered and the inadequacy of the means employed. It also urged him on to the great error of absolute dominion. Such dominion concentrated the glory of the empire wholly in himself; and he delighted to be its sole and palpable bond of union, and to hold it together by his own power rather than by the ordinary means of prejudices, local attachments, principles, and institutions.

The court of Napoleon was patterned on this same idea of dominion and self-exaltation. His practical mind at once discarded a useless aristocracy; but still he must have a court as much more splendid than those of the surrounding nations, as the empire was more powerful. He must out-dazzle the kings of Europe, as well as out-fight them. This would be a means of illustrating his glory and the glory of France. Hence the old aristocracy of family was discarded, and a new aristocracy of merit instituted in its place. Services were his patent of nobility. The veterans of his army, the men of activity and energy who had sustained his throne, the

savans of science and the arts, were the stars in the brilliant court circle that thronged his palaces. The principle on which he acted is set forth in his advice to Joseph when he first ascended the throne of Naples. "In my opinion," writes this man of the world, "your throne will have no solidity unless you surround it with a hundred generals, colonels, and others attached to your house, possessing great fiefs of the kingdom of Naples and Sicily. Bernadotte and Massena should, I think, be fixed in Naples, with the title of Princes and with large revenues. Enable them to found great families. In a few years they will marry into the principal families of the country, and you will then be strong enough to do without an army."

This was the wisdom of a tactician, exercised on the policy of building up a throne in a conquered country. In that policy there was no thought of the welfare or development of the people. They were utterly forgotten in the more important business of exalting a house. Nor is this a solitary instance. The same spirit pervades all these letters of instruction. Joseph was an amiable and just man, and sought to rule mainly through the affections of his people. Napoleon, who held a tighter rein, wrote to him that "his conduct lacked decision." "It is not," said he, "by being civil to people that you get a hold on them." "If you do not begin by making yourself feared, you will suffer for it." "Disarm the population; send away all strangers; make your army rich." "I do not hear that you have shot any of the lazaroni, although I know that they have used their daggers." "The mere force of opinion will not maintain you in Naples. Take care that there are mortars in the forts and troops in reserve to punish insurrection." Do as I did in Cairo: prepare three or four batteries, whose shells shall reach every part of Naples."

This was the wisdom of Napoleon. It was a wisdom that was quite consistent with the founding of despotic thrones and the arbitrary sway of a powerful chief; but quite inconsistent with the idea of Mr. Abbott, that Napoleon was a champion of popular rights, and the great benefactor of the masses of the people. He was, in fact, a great and glorious despot, ruling with an iron sway, and making everything bend to his mighty will. Under the peculiar influences of his education and the remarkable events that accompanied his rapid rise to power, he grew up into a spirit of despotism as stern and absolute as ever seized the human heart.

"With the talents of an angel," says Young, "a man may be a fool. If he judges amiss in the supreme point, judging right in all else only aggravates his folly." Napoleon missed "the supreme point." He failed just where it was most important that he should

succeed. With endowments vastly superior to those of our own Washington, how immeasurably he sinks below him! The great American drew his sword only in defence of the rights of man, and when the object was gained returned it to his scabbard. The fruit of his wisdom, how it looms up amid the desolations of Europe's great battle-fields! It is written in every valley and on every hill-top throughout this vast domain. It lives in the heart of every freeman, and is to be a fountain of joy to millions yet unborn. It is a ray from the invisible, and its steady lustre forever illumes our firmament. Napoleon, on the contrary, swept the heavens with his brilliant train, and then left the world in darkness. In summing up his character, we are tempted to say of him, in imitation of the remarkable words of Pope, applied to the great Bacon, that he was the wisest, greatest, most brilliant, and most useless of mankind.

ART. V.-THE NEW TESTAMENT VIEW OF THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.

IF what we said in a former paper* upon the history of the "ten tribes" proves that they were not lost, but contrariwise that they did return, and became incorporated with Judah, so that the history of the Jews subsequent to the time of their reunion becomes one, it will relieve those Scriptures which are supposed to refer to the restoration of the Jews, and which have been embarrassed by the alleged loss of the ten tribes. For, if they are not lost, then it is not necessary to defer the fulfilment of those prophecies which are believed to relate to their recovery, to some remarkable, but future, civil and political revolution in the history of the Jews. Indeed, admitting the known existence of Israel, it will not be hazardous to believe that all those prophecies which refer to the secular condition of the Jews, have been fulfilled in the manner and at the time which has been specified. And we hope our readers will not startle at this suggestion; at least, that they will not prejudge us, but wait until they comprehend the grounds upon which we have felt ourselves justified in making it. We hope, in the course of the following brief discussion, to place before our readers some means by which they may be enabled to distinguish between those prophecies which relate to the secular affairs of the Jews, and those which are to ⚫ July, 1855.

have a complete, and possibly an exclusive fulfilment in spiritual and religious benefactions. This ability to discriminate between the nature of the objects of prophecy, is very important to a satisfactory and just exposition of this part of Sacred Scripture; and, failing in this, many have been led into the extremes of fancy and

error.

If, then, we would gain correct and satisfactory views of the purposes of God, as indicated in prophetic promises, we must first of all obtain a clear understanding of the condition of those who are to be benefited by his interposition, as the nature of the benefit is correspondent to the circumstances of those who are to be relieved. An inquiry, therefore, into the spiritual relations of the Jews, is of fundamental importance as a means of settling the sense of those scriptures which relate, or which are alleged to relate, to the subject of the restoration of the Jews.

What, then, is the doctrine of the Bible in relation to this point? The clearest and fullest account of their present religious state is that contained in the eleventh chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. We need only allude to the following verses, to bring up to the view of our readers all that is material to the present state of the question. In verse 11, it is called a "fall;" in verse 12, a "diminishing;" in verse 15, a "casting away;" and in verse 17, they are said to be "broken off;" and in verse 25, it is declared that "blindness in part hath happened unto Israel." It will not be doubted, we think, that these terms and phrases, severally, are used to denote the same thing; namely, the lapsed condition, the degra dation, or the excision of the Jews from the covenant of redemption, and their consequent loss of the blessings accruing from the Messiah.

But, then, this "fall," this "breaking off" of the Jews must be understood of them in a collective sense, for individually they have had, and still have, the offers of life and salvation made to them. This is asserted, impliedly at least, by the apostle, he affirming his own experience in the faith of the Gospel in proof of it. See verses 1-5, inclusive. Notwithstanding that many of the Jews did receive the Saviour, the leaders, the great body of the nation, rejected Christ, and in return were rejected by him. This is clearly stated in verses 7-10. "Israel," the apostle says, "hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election [believers] hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God gave them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day." By this quotation it is shown that their spiritual state is not the effect of their conduct merely,