"The hero sunk into the king; Then he fell. So perish all Who would men by man enthral."* Many persons, viewing the past history of France in connexion with its present state, have been led to the conclusion that an attempted invasion of England is at least probable, and that our government ought to take every necessary precaution against it. Others have taken another view of the subject, and have arrived at an opposite conclusion. Our public papers have had articles and letters almost innumerable on the subject. The Peace Society has embraced the opportunity of announcing its principles; and Cobden, its grandiloquent prophet, at one of the late meetings at Manchester, tarnished his fame by a sweeping bet of £15,000 to 1s. per week for a charitable purpose in futurum that the anticipated invasion will never happen! Were we convinced that betting is just and honourable, we should feel no hesitation in doing the same. But why? Is not the present Emperor (!) the very man to desire such an event? Does not the past history of France present one terrible scene at which his despotic spirit is troubled within him? True it is that England has everything to fear from the Emperer, but nothing from any other quarter. The man who would dare to violate his republican oath, though it were to save his life, we dare not trust with firearms at our doors. He is a traitor. If he gain power he will abuse it. The man who dare to trample on the genius of a nation, exile its great characters, change its government in one night from a republic into a complete despotism, limit the rights of the people, and destroy the independence of the ballot and press, is but a modern Nero. He who, on his tour through the country over which he was to reign to promote its highest interests, hesitated not to speak thus at one of its largest towns, "If I were to die to-morrow, the only military feat which history would have to record of me is that I shot a sergeant at Strasburg-that would never do;" such an one we can easily imagine, under favourable circumstances, joining a Catalinarian conspiracy. Military glory is now, doubtless, the ambition of his life. But he knows that military glory would ruin him, • Byron. for it ruined a mightier than be, in whose devoted army he would never have reached the position of the poor fellow he shot at Strasburg. To such a man the transactions of 1815 must be most humbling and exciting, and the contemplation of the overthrow of his uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, by the allied forces of England, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, must arouse in his bosom envy and revenge, ruthless as death and unfeeling as despair. Admitting all this, we still question the probability of an attempted invasion by Napoleon. He is not the only dependant and powerless despot on the earth. The ground on which he stands, and the circumstances in which he is placed, render him, in point of actual independence, inferior to many an Egyptian pacha or Persian satrap. Supposing, then, for the sake of argument, the Emperor had resolved on invading England, with what obstacles would he meet in carrying out his military design? First. He has not the sympathy of the great men of France. The genius of the nation stands aloof from the Emperor; and when he rose, it avowed its righteous indignation, and retired to work unseen in the heart of its fallen nation, in the hope of its future restoration to republican glory. Where are Lamartine, Thiers, Cavaignac, Changarnier, and all the leading and noble characters which adorned the republican society of the French? They are not to be found among the sycophants, priests, or soldiers, who surround the Emperor. No; they have found a home and a kingdom in the hearts of those who agonize over their country's degradation. There they cherish the democratic element, which must hereafter rise and rule, though despot, priest, and soldier oppose. Secondly. His position as it regards the people. The nation over which he is the recognised emperor is not a united one. It is divided, and must necessarily be so as long as he is at its head. The Bourbon and Orleans families are his avowed enemies, and the latter not without great cause. The true democracy are as much opposed to Napoleon as they were to a corrupt monarchy. The labouring classes have but little sympathy with the priestly or military power, on which the Emperor stands. The deep silence which prevails over the popular mind is not indica tive of repose and satisfaction, but intensely prophetic of the moment in which it shall be broken, and despotism and priestcraft vanish as a midnight dream. This being the condition of the nation, any military expedition would but hasten the event of his certain downfall, especially if in that expedition military glory were his chief motive, and was not the object of national desire, which would be the case in invading England. Thirdly. His position as it regards the army and priests. Those who have studied the late change of government in France must have observed how much the Emperor owes his present position to the army on the one hand, and to the priests on the other. The relation which exists between the Emperor and these two classes, and that which existed between Napoleon Bonaparte, his army, and the priests of his day, form a most striking contrast. The late emperor was the master aud commander of his army; the present Emperor is the slave, the tool, and flatterer of his. The army of the one obeyed implicitly, while the army of the other commands, and only obeys when it is to obtain its own ends. The former followed the impulse of one mind in all his actions, while the latter yields to the caprice of a vast army. Napoleon Bonaparte's army was united to do his will attached and affectionate to their generalready to pass the Alps or traverse the snowclad steppes of Russia at his command, and back again to the terrible scene of Waterloo. Well hath Byron put words into the mouth of the Polish officer who "clung to his master's knees" on his departure for exile, expressing the bond of unity and affection between the general and his army "My chief, my king, my friend, adieu!" But this is not the character of the present Emperor's army. Like the nation, it is a divided body. Notwithstanding the base system of intimidation to which the army was subject during the period in which its votes were given, many thousand negative votes were cast in a brave and noble spirit. In them we have great faith, and, rejoicing, behold the manifestation of that nobility and heroism which shall one day redeem France. The priests. Here the contrast is greater still. The destruction of the priestly power and spell was one of the objects of the former Napoleon's ambition. He swept away the infernal fragments of the inquisition, and bade the priest cease to deceive and begin to teach. He shook the throne of papacy, as well as monarchy, to its centre. How different the conduct of "Napoleon the Little"! His next step, after alluring the army to his standard, was to gather round him the sycophantic priests of a corrupt religion. He did not try long, for they soon rolled their legions round him. But he has to serve both, with the loss of independence, the army and priests. Power thus gained would forsake him on the frowning Alps, on the Russian steppes, and on Albion's plains, too, where many a Cromwell dwells. Power thus gained must be retained with difficulty, and only by the constant exercise of the most consummate subtlety. This would be impossible were the Emperor engaged in military expeditions. Power thus gained must ultimately prove his ruin. All history attests it. Lastly. There is the common cause of liberty, not to speak of national and commercial interests. Although the Emperor would not regard the cause of liberty, his people would. The battle of Waterloo was not fought to secure the liberty of England only, but of all the nations of Europe; and France herself was no loser by the event, though it overthrew her proud emperor. The most eloquent orator of modern times thus addressed a British audience on the threatened invasion by Napoleon I.:-" It remains with you, then, to decide whether that freedom, at whose voice the kingdoms of Europe awoke from the sleep of ages, to run a career of virtuous emulation in everything great and good-the freedom which dispelled the mists of superstition, and invited the nations to behold their God-whose magic touch kindled the rays of genius, the enthusiasm of poetry, and the flame of eloquence-the freedom which poured into our laps opulence and arts, and embellished life with innumerable institutions and improvements, till it became a theatre of wondersit is for you to decide whether this freedom shall yet survive, or be covered with a funeral pall and wrapt in eternal gloom." In the attempt to invade England the common cause of liberty would be involved, for within her bosom is the palladium of the rights and liberty of universal humanity. Against this To hear some people talk one would sup- | first, because an invasion has always been pose that the millennium had arrived that an object of desire and anticipation to the men had already begun to beat "their swords French soldier. into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks," and that they would never learn war any more." But this passage of scripture, which the members of the so-called Peace Society triumphantly emblazon on the front of all their publications, is itself a refutation of their absurd theories; for, if they would carefully study its context, they would perceive that it was an intimation of what would occur during the millennium itself, and not before that epoch. It is, therefore, equivalent to an assertion that until that period there will be a necessity for material weapons, and for learning the art of war. Since, therefore, the millennium has not commenced, war is always possible never improbable. If we look at the present time to the continent of Europe, and seek for the nation most distinguished for its military propensities, where does our eye finally settle, as having found the object of its search? Undoubtedly on France-France under any form of government, but especially under that peculiar form the only tradition of which is war and conquest. When, therefore, a war does break out, we may naturally expect France, and especially France as an empire, to take at least a prominent part therein. And if it be true in the political as in the physical world, that before a storm comes a calm, we may expect, from the long duration of peace, that when the war does break out it will be very severe. The question, then, for us to consider is, whether it is probable that Britain will be the object of the war? That it will, and that an attempted invasion is probable, we shall proceed to prove. We shall only adduce two reasons in support of our position; but to every impartial and unprejudiced mind we think they must be conclusive. We say, then, that an attempted invasion of England is probable, France is pre-eminently a nation of soldiers. It would seem as though the military despotism which ruined the Roman empire was resuscitated in the French. The French soldiers can never be at rest: they must have something to do; and therefore, when they have no foreign enemy to contend with, they turn their arms against each other, and indulge their military propensities in the streets of Paris with as much energy as on the plains of Waterloo. But of this they soon tire: they must have some foreign foe to contend with. History informs us what military projects have filled them with the greatest ardour and enthusiasm. In the events which succeeded the first French Revolution we see the intense desire of humbling the power of Britain animating the actions of the French army, republican and imperial. Several attempts were made to invade the shores of England, but without success. One such attempt has been thus described:"The next point to which Bonaparte directed his attention was a scheme for the invasion of England, to accomplish which he made gigantic efforts. The whole of France responded eagerly to Napoleon's call, and there was hardly a city or district of any conse quence which did not immediately vote funds for the construction of vessels, in which to transport the invading army to the shores of England. In the harbour of Boulogne these vessels were gradually accumulated in immense numbers, notwithstanding all the efforts of the British fleet to intercept them. An army of one hundred and forty-six thousand men was also collected; and, flushed with former victories, it waited with impatience the moment when the signal for embarkation should be given. As a means of testing the alacrity of his troops, Napoleon on one occasion made the signal which they so much desired. At the sound of the cannon the troops embarked with great precision and celerity. Shouts of joy rent the air, which were changed into murmurs of dissatisfaction when they learned that the whole had been a false alarm."* And if it be alleged by any that times are changed-that the disposition of the French is altered-we would remind such that in one feature of their character they are not a whit altered, viz., in fickleness. And hence we ought not to depend upon their hollow professions of a pacific character. The fickle have no principle, and do not know themselves what will be their next deed. Consider the man who now wears the imperial purple in France. In the Edinburgh Witness we find the following statement:-"When Napoleon created the second child of Hortense, then a boy of four years, Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves, he took him on his knee, and, looking him in the face, addressed him in the following remarkable speech:-Come, my son, I will be your father; you shall lose nothing. This conduct of your father grieves me to the heart; but it is to be explained, perhaps, by his infirmities. When you become great you must add his debt to your own; and never forget, that in whatever situation you are placed by my politics, and the interests of my empire, your first duty is towards me, your second towards France; all your other duties, even those towards the people I shall confide to you, will rank after these.' And now the child created Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves by Napoleon I. is Napoleon III., and placed in circumstances fully to discharge the debt laid upon him by his uncle, as due both by himself and his father." Thus we see that Hannibal, in ancient Punic story, was not more truly set apart for hostility to the people of Rome, than Louis Napoleon is for hostility to the people of England; and, from what we know of his character, we may expect that he will take the earliest opportunity of fulfilling his "destiny." On the 1st of December, 1851, the city of Paris sank to rest in all the calmness of conscious security. On the 2nd they awoke to find the National Assembly dissolved, the laws suppressed, and the streets swept with grape-shot. Since then "he has procsribed "Life of Napoleon "-Monthly Volume II. Religious Tract Society. eighty-four representatives of the people; confiscated the property of Louis Philippe, to whom he owed his life; decreed despotism; garotted the republic; gagged liberty; pawned the railways; picked the pockets of the people; regulated the budget by ukase; transported 10,000 democrats; banished 40,000 republicans; filled all souls with sorrow; covered all foreheads with a blush." Such a monster of ingratitude and villainy scarcely ever existed on the face of the earth! And this is the person, forsooth, to whom our London merchants pay court, and on whom the Peace Congress would bave us rely, as if his word was infallible and his faith unimpeachable! Look, too, at the Emperor's marriage. Were not even the French nation taken by surprise at this? Verily, no man knows to-day what Louis will do to-morrow. And think you he has no reckoning to settle with England for defeating his uncle at Waterloo, and condemning him to die far from the land of his birth and the arena of his crimes? He has; and rest assured he will take the earliest opportunity of paying it, for " Brutus is such an honourable man!" In the second place, we think that a French invasion is probable from the present aspect of POPERY on the Continent. The whole of the Roman Catholic powers of Europe are anxious to put down the Protestantism of Britain. Separated from them by the rolling waves, Britain nobly rears her head as the refuge of God's truth from the assaults of the enemy, and the asylum of all that is free, noble, and pure. Her Protestantism marks her for the hatred of Popish powers; her liberty exposes her to the wrath of despotism. And where is there at this moment a country so Popish as France, or a tyranny so despotic as Napoleon's? Other nations may hate England for one of these causes, but France hates her for both. We have reason to believe that Popery is about to make a final struggle, a last attempt, to crush the truth and liberty of Britam. We know that one pope laid England under interdict, another excommunicated Henry VIII., another excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and encouraged Philip of Spain to attempt to subdue our country by the terrible armada; and, for ourselves, we little know how soon the prediction of a inodern poet may be fulfilled. "Woe to the watery regions of the west! Woe to the lands once Islands of the Blest'! Lo! when the minds of men are locked in sleep, A dread armada, ready charged to pour High o'er their heads the GOLDEN EAGLE flies, Like an avenging Fury from the dead, Drunk with the martyrs' blood, unsated still, The land is deluged with the crimson flood, state of parties in England greatly encourages the Continent. Ultra-Protestant Dissenters on the one hand, and the High Popery, while infidelity is spreading; and so Church party on the other, fraternizing with the real church of Christ is reduced to a very small minority. But surely there remains in England the elements of the flame of our ancient glory-that flame which is "No flickering flash that a breath may extinguish, That one scarce in the darkness around ean distinguish; But a quenchless fire that is lit at their birth. To consume every tyrant and despot on earth.” If so, may we soon see that glorious flame rising in splendour to the sky, and by its dazzling effulgence illuming the world! J. C. MC., Jun. Yes; let it never be forgotten, that if there be a war in Europe it will probably be a war of religion; and if an attempt be made to invade England, it will be to destroy the Independents actually received a letter of thanks established religion of the country, and to rear the Tower of Babel on its ruins. The * One of the most eminent ministers of the from Cardinal Wiseman for preaching a sermon in favour of the Papal aggression! Sorial Eronomy. IS THE USE OF OATHS FOR CIVIL PURPOSES RIGHT AND EXPEDIENT? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I. cating the truth of the statement to which they were attached, also the earnestness of the speaker, when used by the Romans and Greeks. THE custom of confirming important statements by oath-that is, by appeal to the recognised deities or Deity in the presence of others-appears to have been common among all civilized nations, and enters It would have been considered by them largely into every ramification of our civil impious in the extreme to use such terms on and ecclesiastical polity. Most countries trifling subjects, or with the frivolity of many have their peculiar forms in the administra- of our university students. The Jews extion of oaths. The Athenians, Romans, and pressed their oaths by an appeal to the God Jews, were accustomed to perform it by of their fathers; and we in civil matters use stretching out their hand towards the hea-a no less significant term, "So help me, vens, or by placing them under the thigh of the person to whom the oath was made. Thus does Virgil represent the treacherous Sinon in the former of these attitudes, when by his subtlety he would beguile the Tro ans: "Ye lamps of heaven! Thou venerable sky! "By Jove!" "By Hercules!" and all such terms, were deeply religious phrases, indi God!" That this practice was in harmony with the religion of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, we doubt not. Our endeavour will be to show that the use of oaths, for civil purposes, is not in harmony with scripture, and consequently with the spirit of Christianity. We shall first inquire, What purpose is this custom intended to answer in civil matters? Secondly, Does it answer the purpose intended? Thirdly, Is it in harmony with scripture and the spirit of Christianity? In conclusion, What is the general tendency of |