Earlier text: OUR FAITH AND HOPE;Russia’s War Preparations.
COL. GOWEN, an American engineer, who has recently returned from a stay of many years in Russia, gives some interesting facts in regard to the armament of that country. In relation to the defenses of the Black Sea, he states that Fort Nicolai, at the Sea of Azov, near Kirtch, is now one of the strongest forts in the world. It is so constructed that 100 guns can be brought to bear at the same time upon vessels approaching from any point. The fort is supplied with 15-inch steel Krupp guns, the heaviest made in the world prior to the Franco-Prussian war. A long artificial bar stretches out from the opposite shore, a distance of seven miles, to within half a mile of the fort. This bar, built of stone, at an expense of $20,000,000, virtually closes up the entrance to the Sea of Azov. At Sevastopol, the fortifications on the northern side are intact; but those on the southern side have never been rebuilt. During the last five years, no less than three engineering parties have been sent to Sevastopol by the Government, to commence the work of rebuilding; but in each case the attempt was abandoned. On the Baltic Sea, Cronstadt, and Helsingfors, and Revel, commanding the entrance to the Neva, have been so strengthened as to be considered impregnable. The fleet of the Czar on the Black Sea, the cause of the present controversy, includes no iron-clads. It contains 90 small steamers of the gun-boat class, not plated, although intended for transformation into iron-clads. The Government has evaded the provision of the Treaty of Paris, which forbade them to have more than six vessels in the Black Sea larger than corvettes, by constructing what are called transports. These are large frigates, pierced for guns, which can be made available for war purposes in a very short time. This illicit navy is still further increased by the 80 steamers of the Russian Steam Navigation and Trading Company, which was formed by permission of the Russian Government, immediately after the termination of the Crimean war, the royal family owning the greater part of the stock. A subsidy of $2,000,000 a year has put the Company on such a footing that it is now paying 2535 per cent on its stock. These steamers, 12 of them over 3,000 tons’ burden, and all of them fast vessels, are now running to Constantinople, Cairo, Marseilles, and London. They are all commanded by former officers of the Russian navy, who have been placed upon the retired list, and manned by sailors formerly of the same navy. These fleets can, it is estimated, transport 300,000 men at one time. The French and English Governments are represented in the Black Sea by small gun-boats stationed at Galatz, at the mouth of the Danube. The naval force of the Baltic consists of a fleet of iron-clad frigates, built in England, 28 iron-clad monitors on the American plan, 43 line of battle ships of the first class, including the Grand Admiral, built by W. H. Webb, and 90 small gun-boats, carrying from four to six guns. On the Caspian Sea, there are 30 or 40 steamers, hardly available, however, for warlike purposes. The country seems provided with all facilities for the manufacture of munitions of war. Nature supplies of niter and sulphur prevent any scarcity of powder that might otherwise result from the discontinuance of friendly relations between Russia and other powers. There are large stores of powder at different points throughout the country, Fort Constantine alone having 5,000 tons within its walls. At Nicolaief, the chief depot of the Black Sea Department, situated on the River Bog, about 60 miles from its mouth, all the line-of-battle ships and frigates are built. It has large ship-yards, foundries, rolling-mills, planing machines, and all the necessary adjuncts of a complete arsenal. At T’oula there is a large manufactory which has been turning out 1,000 breech-loaders a day for the last two years. A large establishment for the manufacture of plates for iron-clads, the machinery of which cost $1,500,000, is situated on the river Don. Colt’s revolvers are manufactured in large quantities at T’oula by machinery, purchased in America from Col. Colt himself. The arsenals of the empire contain, it is estimated, about 2,500,000 stand of arms. The Russian Government, as is well known, has been an eager buyer of large quantities of machinery used by the United States Government in manufacturing war material. The army of Russia available at the present time numbers 850,000 men. The army of the Caucasus, under the command of the Grand Duke Michael, numbers 250,000, and can be mustered in a very short time. Besides all these, there are 1,200,000 reserves who, having served a certain period in the army, resume their usual vocations, subject, however, to the call to military duty. By the aid of the 6,000 miles of railroad recently constructed, large bodies of men could be quickly massed at St. Petersburg, at Taganrog, at the mouth of the Don, at Kirtch, Sevastopol, or Odessa. The finances of the country are in such a state, it is said, as to seriously embarrass the necessary operations of the Government if war should be declared. The currency has been depreciated 25 per cent by the expenditures attendant upon the construction of railroads through many parts of the country almost destitute of inhabitants. Col. Gowen regards the popular misunderstanding of the question at issue as something marvelous. Russian merchant-ships pass through the Dardanelles, and no one fears for the Sultan’s tenure of authority; but when it is proposed that Russian gun-boats shall exercise the same privilege, this is immediately assumed to imply the deposition of the Ottoman sovereign. A long residence both in Russia and in England, and an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of both peoples, convince Col. Gowen that a Conference can only delay the final catastrophe. The Russian people are strenuous in their demands, and the English are emphatic in their refusal. There can be, he claims, but one result, namely, war.—N. Y. Tribune. The Withering of the Fig-Tree.
By H. W. Beecher
On the morrow, in the morning, when they were come from Bethany (which was two or three miles east of Jerusalem, just over the top of the hill—the Mount of Olives), as he returned into the city, he was hungry; and seeing a fig-tree afar off in the way, having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing thereon but leaves only; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, Let no man eat fruit of thee, and let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever. And his disciples heard it. And presently the fig-tree withered away. AND then He goes into Jerusalem, and spends a day in the temple, teaching; then returns to Bethany; and on the day following he goes back to Jerusalem again. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig-tree dried up from the roots. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled. And Peter, calling to remembrance, saith unto him, Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away; and how soon is it withered away! This was an event which took place during very nearly the last part, in the last days, of the life of our Saviour. A great many have stumbled at this narrative, because it seemed so unreasonable that the Saviour should be angry at a tree for not bearing figs, when, as it is explicitly stated, the time was not yet for figs. It was out of season. And it has been alleged by skeptical writers as an instance of the fallibility of Christ. It has been said that he was subject to human infirmities, and that he lost his temper, as other men lose theirs, and therefore cursed the fig-tree. Now the term to curse in our use almost always conveys the sense of passion; but in the old and official sense, to curse was to condemn, simply. In this narrative, the word is not used, except by Peter; and he unquestionably speaks, not of Christ's cursing in any sense as to show passion, or irritation, or vindictiveness, but simply in the sense of his condemning the tree. Whatever was condemned, was cursed, according to Peter's use of the word translated curse. Then, as to his condemning the tree, it was not a judicial sentence. We are not to suppose that our Saviour summoned the tree into judgment, and argued upon it as if it were a moral being under condemnation, or under penalty. No; the whole plot and plan of the ancient mode of teaching forbids this interpretation of it. It is but an acted parable. And this is an important thought, because in many instances in Christ's life the same mode of teaching was resorted to. For example, when he cleansed the temple, undoubtedly the whole act was a parabolic act. He drove out the cattle; he overturned the money-changers' tables; he commanded those that had doves to take them thence. And the whole was not a mere formal attempt at the reformation of the administration of the temple, but a series of acts which indicated the purification of religion—the change that was going on. And as usual, it was a kind of parabolic action, as a parable is a picture in words, conveying a moral lesson—not a truth narrated, but simply an artificial picture drawn for the sake of certain moral results which were to flow from it. So, certain of Christ's actions were dramatic. They were, as it were, a momentary drama, enacted for the sake of the truth that they would convey. The most impressive one of all these is the transfiguration, in which, with Peter, James, and John, he went to the mountain, where, while he was praying, they fell asleep. When they awoke, they saw two angelic, two celestial personages, standing and talking with him. And his countenance was changed. Then they communed with him concerning his coming death. The whole was to those disciples a picture of the event. It was not so much a prophetic representation to interpret it to them, as a pictorial representation to fortify their minds, so that when their earthly hopes which were centered in him should be dashed, they would be bold, and maintain faith in him. It was a kind of enacted celestial parable, or picture, or tableau. So here, when going in the morning to Jerusalem, Jesus saw the fig-tree, and observed that it was in full leaf. Evidently it was a prematurely early one. And why should he go to see if there were figs upon it? Because sometimes a tree bore winter figs, which became ripe in early spring; and perhaps he might have expected that there would be some on that one which he might glean. But when he came to it, and found that there were no figs, but leaves only, he said, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward forever, and let no man eat fruit of thee.” That this was said in a very impressive manner, is evident by the fact that when, the day after, the disciples returned that way, they remembered the occurrence, and called his attention to the tree. Doubtless he designed that this should be a very solemn instruction to them. But what was the instruction? They were every day going backward and forward, to and from Jerusalem. There he went into the sacred precinct, or into that part of it which was Herod's great porch—the Basilica, as it was called. There he used to teach the people. All around about him were the insignia of Jewish worship. And his very business was to expose the superficialities of life in these things. He was, from day to day, attempting to carry men back to the reality of a religious life; to a deeper moral tone; to a more earnest conscientiousness. It was his business to reprehend the self-conceit and moral complacency which passed itself off upon mere superficial observers. And here was an opportunity. Here happened to be, of all the trees that stood in the road on that early spring day, one that had come into full leaf. But when he went up to it, he found no fruit on it, but leaves only—nothing but leaves. It was just exactly like those over the other side. All of them were full of leaves; but not one of them—neither priest, nor scribe, nor Pharisee, nor Sadducee—bore any fruit. All of them were clothed with leaves; but none of them were fruitful. Here was a symbol. Here was an opportunity of illustrating a fact by a parabolic action. By destroying that tree with a word, he could impress upon his disciples that which would be a benefit to them in their teaching of men forever after. And he did it. This, then, is the explanation; and the application is not far to find. If our Saviour were himself here, and could make the application, going from one of us to another, how many he would find that had a sound trunk and branches (which may be considered as the secular establishment of a man's life); how many he would find that had morality,—ordinary, society morality (which may be considered as the leaves); but how few would he find that had fruit (which may be considered as the special spiritual development of a man's life)! How many there are who stand on good ground; who are grown to large stature, and who bring forth decencies, and proprieties, and regularities, and moralities, according to the ordinary acceptation of that term; who are faithful in their industry, faithful in their ordinary social callings, faithful in their neighborhood duties; but who lack the higher Christian graces! All these lower elements are estimable; but they are only leaves—nothing more. And yet many persons of this stamp profess to be Christians. Many of them are the heads of families, and are attempting to lead their children in Christian ways. And yet, though there are abundant leaves upon their branches, on how many of them would Christ, if he were here, be able to see fruit—real prayer, which is the communion of a man's spirit with God's spirit; real fervor of love to God; real sympathy, disinterested and continuous, with men; real kindness and benevolence shown to those around about them; real self-denial, for their own sake, and for the sake of other people; real patience and gentleness under provocation; real meekness and humility? On how many of us would Christ find these genuine fruits of love? And yet, if he did not, would he not have occasion to say of us, “I found leaves only.” He would find very much that was valuable; but he would find that it stopped short of that very thing which is the test and the peculiar value of every truth—its quantity and quality of fruit. Of a great many it may be said, just as Christ said of this fig-tree, “afar off in the way” (that is, in the thoroughfare, standing out from the gardens, unprotected), on which, when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves only. Christian brethren, a leaf-bearing Christian, who bears nothing but leaves, is in a very dangerous situation. This acted parable, this solemn symbolic warning of Christ, should go to the heart of every one who outwardly is alive, but inwardly is dead; who is maintaining respectability, who is maintaining an ordinary good report, but whose conscience bears witness that there is nothing of him beyond the leaves—no real distinguishing, special, Christian life.—H. W. Beecher. The Eastern War-Cloud.
By Editor
As we write, the fate of the proposed Conference at London on the Eastern question seems in doubt. The telegraph announces in vague terms that it has been postponed; but whether there is to be but a brief delay or the entire abandonment of the Conference, does not appear. The rock on which it threatened to split was a formidable one. France declined to participate unless her present government was first recognized by the other powers. We do not see how she could, with any self-respect, do otherwise. As her demand was not conceded, one of the parties to the original treaty of 1856 would have been unrepresented; so that it could not have been reconstructed with justice, or with security for the permanence of the new arrangement. The diplomats may have found a way out of the difficulty before this reaches our readers. But in any case, the situation is a delicate and dangerous one. The English press comments with great dissatisfaction on the attitude of Russia toward the Conference. Gortschakoff’s first note, announcing in effect that Russia held herself free from the obnoxious stipulation, has never been withdrawn or substantially modified. Though agreeing to a conference, Russia seems to have asserted beforehand as a right, the release which she was bound to ask as a concession. To negotiate over a treaty which one party in advance declines to comply with, is not a very dignified business, to say the least. The gain to the cause of public order by laying the matter before a conference, seems more a show than a reality. We think that Russia’s conduct thus far indicates a very deliberate and settled purpose to gain her ends, and a very small regard for good faith. She has chosen her time well, and seems likely to carry off her prize with little difficulty, unless England is willing to fight. But is England bound by honor or duty to fight? It is one thing to say that Russia is in the wrong, and quite another to assert that it is England’s business to resist her by force. The fact that a compact has been violated, and wrongfully, stands by itself. Then comes the wholly separate question, whether the injured parties, or any of them, shall try to enforce it. If the real interest of England and of Europe be likely to suffer more from an Eastern war than it gained, we see nothing dishonorable in England’s remaining at peace. Why should a nation any more than a man, feel obliged to fight whenever it has received a wrong? If the matter is not in itself worth going to war about, and it is hard to believe that a second Crimean war would be of any use to the world—let England record her solemn protest against Russia’s infraction of justice, and leave the righting of it to time. In point of fact, circumstances combine most unfortunately, to irritate English feeling. On the one hand, the nation feels itself snubbed by Russia, and very unfairly. Then, the sudden growth of German power evidently excites great uneasiness in England. The feeling may not be altogether honorable; but it finds a good deal of excuse in an arrogance which is unpleasantly manifest on the part of Germany. The menace to Luxembourg is one instance of this, and the sinking of the English ships at Rouen is another. The whole tone of the German press has been one of suspicion and dislike toward England from the beginning of the war. In addition to these things, is the exasperating consciousness that either a general inertness or the parsimony of recent administrations, has made the military resources of the country quite inadequate to the necessities of a sudden war. To these provocations must unfortunately be added a pretty general tendency on the part of the foreign press to taunt England with a want of spirit. This business of provoking wholly needless war by jeers and taunts is simply diabolical, and thoughtlessness is a wholly insufficient excuse for it. We trust that England will show herself brave enough not to go to war till there appears the gravest reason for it. That she is brave enough to fight, and to fight heroically, when she does see occasion for it, no sane man can doubt.—The Christian Union. English and American Influence in the World.
The Americans, though pursuing a policy of economy and disarmament far more unhesitatingly than we have done, contrive, nevertheless, to command as much respect as if they were armed to the teeth, whereas we, with armaments far more extensive, are told that we have lost our title to the consideration of the world. It is worth while inquiring how such facts, if facts they are, can be accounted for or explained. The first and most obvious reflection is that a nation of 40,000,000 of people, rich, industrious, energetic, and intrepid, must comprise resources which no enemy could venture to despise. The Americans had no army in 1860, but in 1862 they had hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the field. They had no navy, and yet in a few months' time they produced a powerful fleet of new and formidable fighting-ships. In the course of five years they raised and spent upward of £600,000,000; and such is the magnitude of their national resources that what they did in the civil war they could certainly, on a similar impulse, do over again. All this is true; but we, also, are a people of 30,000,000; our wealth and credit are practically inexhaustible, and the most inveterate alarmist would not scruple to admit that our national spirit, once roused, would be capable of any efforts or sacrifices. One advantage, it must be owned, the Americans do certainly enjoy—they are a long way off. It is a “far cry” to Washington, and the Prussians observed as much to our correspondent in explanation of their patience under American offendings. But this consideration does not touch American commerce, or the liabilities of the navy, which, as the President remarks, is the only instrument at the command of the Union either for national defense or the enforcement of any foreign policy. We must look elsewhere, therefore, for the explanation we are seeking; and it will be found, we believe, so far as it is applicable at all, in the known readiness as well as ability of the Americans to fight, notwithstanding their practical appreciation of the benefits of peace. Their exposed points are comparatively few, their resources are unbounded; and though they do not desire war, they would not be slow to accept a challenge. We, on the other hand, have many points exposed, we make no secret of our aversion to war, and it is alleged that almost any provocation might be offered with impunity. In these considerations there is a certain force; but we must now say that, in our opinion, the contrast itself from beginning to end is more apparent than real. We do not believe that what is sometimes said of us is actually thought either in America or elsewhere. The people who taunt us with reluctance to fight, are mostly those who, for purposes of their own, desire to see us fighting. As a matter of fact, we may take it for granted that foreign States have not the mean opinion of us which we are occasionally pleased to suppose. That we are not sudden or quick in quarrel, they know very well; but power is truly formidable, and that when we begin a war we are not in a hurry to leave off. To a certain extent, they may presume, no doubt, on our love of peace; but at the bottom they take a juster measure of our temper and resources than might be inferred from their occasional sneers and our own candid comments. When it was declared that England, by the mere expression of her will, could have prevented a war between the two most powerful nations of Europe, the belief itself might have been false; but the state of opinion which it implied was far nearer the truth than that which has been since represented for our warning.—London Times. A Season of Destructive Fires
By Editor
The list of fires which have occurred during the past ten days is remarkably large, involving great loss of property, almost from Maine to Florida. The destruction of the Spotswood Hotel in Richmond, we noted last week. This news was followed by accounts of a very extensive fire in Jacksonville, Florida, whereby a large part of the town was destroyed; of the destruction of the United States Hotel, and many other valuable buildings at Valatie, New York; of incendiary fires at Poughkeepsie; of heavy losses by fires in Rochester; and of less notable conflagrations in Newburgh, Hudson, and Glen’s Falls, New York; in Springfield and North Adams, Mass.; in Hartford, Conn.; in Providence, R. I.; Baltimore, Md.; Lynchburg, Va.; Memphis, Tenn.; in Chicago, and elsewhere. Some of these were doubtless the work of incendiaries; and it is to be feared that such a succession of fires will serve to incite further outrages of the same sort. That terrible monomania which sometimes seizes upon individuals and impels them to arson, is very apt to be developed by a series of fires such as has marked the holiday season, and owners of buildings, everywhere, will do well to take extra precautions, or they may find insurance rates rising to an uncomfortable figure. A Quiet Yet Effective Rebuke
A QUIET yet effective rebuke was given by Bishop Wilson to a clergyman who was anxious to have him preach against the Wesleyan doctrine of “perfection.” “Are we in much danger of that?” asked the bishop. THE World’s Crisis undertakes to perpetrate the latest sensation of the season. Read the following:— “In Alaska, California, the people keep Saturday for the first day of the week. This territory was formerly a part of Russia, and the people received their first day from those who went east to Alaska. When others came west to the same point, they had lost a day, and found themselves keeping for Sunday the Alaskans’ Monday. On one occasion, a ship’s crew arrived at Alaska, which had carefully kept the first day during their voyage, but found on their arrival that the Alaskans’ Sunday came a day earlier. The captain required his men to keep the same day as the Alaskans. The crew prosecuted the captain for requiring them to work on their Sabbath; and the case was tried in the California court, and decision was given against the captain. “QUERY. If a particular day is to be kept as the Sabbath, which one should be observed at Alaska by those who reach that place from opposite directions? Who knows?” There are some particulars on which the writer of the foregoing seems to have been particularly muddled. In the first place, there is no such territory as Alaska in California. Secondly, think of California’s ever having been a part of Russia! Thirdly, who ever heard of a sea-captain who was so exceedingly scrupulous as to think he must conform in practice to the customs of every country he visited, and must compel his crew to do the same? Fortunate for that captain, or rather for his crew, that he did not visit the islands inhabited by cannibals. If he had, they would doubtless have found themselves served up from time to time to be devoured by their voracious commander! Fourthly, who ever heard of a sea-captain who cared particularly which day of the week his crew kept? especially one who would take it upon him to control the consciences of his men in this respect? and, stranger still, who would attempt to make them change their life-long practice to conform to the views and practice of a strange people, of a different church on a foreign shore? That sea-captain is a myth. He was probably commander of that ship, the old hulk of which is said now to be bleaching on the sand in the middle of a desert, away in the interior of California, many hundred feet above the level of the sea! Fifthly, it is said that the people of Alaska received their first day from those who went east. Who were these people who went “east,” and when did they go? When was this work of evangelization accomplished? Sixthly, the writer says, “When others came west.” Who were these “others,” and when did they come west? We want to know about this. Seventhly, “On one occasion, a ship’s crew arrived,” &c. When was this occasion? As it is, we are left to search for it anywhere this side the discovery of America. Can’t we have it a little more definite? And, Eighthly, that crew were such incarnations of conscientiousness that they prosecuted the captain for being compelled to work on their Sabbath; and the case was tried in the court of California (California, we suppose, has but one!) and was decided against the captain. By what law? We wonder if it was that by which California now allows the opening of the theater upon Sunday. And all this strange transaction has just come to light; the world has just heard of it! The whole narrative gives prima facie evidence of being a canard and a fraud. And it is too late in the day for attempted jokes of this kind. There are too many railroads and telegraphs to give them any chance of success. The fact is, a class of persons, zealously interested in the Sabbath controversy, have for years been longing for a reliable narrative of this kind; and somebody has been trifling with their agony. This is too bad. And it is unfortunate for them that, after waiting so long and anxiously for an actual occurrence of this kind, an attempt to manufacture one to suit their purpose, should have been so bungling. But, seriously, if the minds of the people are ever to be unsettled on the great principles of the Sabbath, it must be by facts, not by any such transparent fiction. And lastly, it will be noticed that all the trouble above narrated, occurred among Sunday-keepers. All parties believed they must keep the definite first day of the week, but, if we may credit the statements, found themselves in difficulty. We have never heard of any who kept the seventh day getting into any such trouble. And to say that we are liable to as much trouble with our Sabbath as Sunday-keepers have with theirs, is a very poor excuse for not keeping it. When we hear of any such instance, it will be time to consider it further. Meanwhile we leave Sunday-keepers to get out of the difficulty, as best they can, in which they have involved themselves for the sake of involving their neighbors. Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
Verse 14. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Antiochus was not the only one who rose up against the infant Ptolemy. Agathocles, his prime minister, having possession of the king’s person, and conducting the affairs of the kingdom in his stead, was so dissolute and proud in the exercise of his power, that the provinces which before were subject to Egypt, rebelled; Egypt itself was disturbed by seditions; and the people of Alexandria rose up against him, causing him, his sister, his mother, and their associates to be put to death. At the same time, Philip, king of Macedon, entered into a league with Antiochus, to divide the dominions of Ptolemy between them, each proposing to take the parts which lay nearest and most convenient to him. Here was a rising up against the king of the south, sufficient to fulfill the prophecy, and the very events beyond doubt which the prophecy intended. A new power is now introduced—“the robbers of thy people,” literally, says Bp. Newton, “the breakers of thy people.” Far away on the banks of the Tiber, a kingdom has been nourishing itself with ambitious projects and dark designs. Small and weak at first, it grew with marvelous rapidity in strength and vigor, reaching out cautiously here and there to try its prowess, and test the vigor of its warlike arm, till, conscious of its power, it boldly reared its head among the nations of the earth, and seized with invincible hand the helm of their affairs. Henceforth the name of Rome stands upon the historic page, destined for long ages to control the affairs of the world, and exert a mighty influence among the nations, even to the end of time. Rome spoke; and Syria and Macedonia soon found a change coming over the aspect of their dream. The Romans interfered in behalf of the young king of Egypt, determined that he should be protected from the ruin devised by Antiochus and Philip. This was B. C. 200, and was one of the first important interferences of the Romans in the affairs of Syria and Egypt. Rollin furnishes the following succinct account of this matter: “Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedonia, during the reign of Ptolemy Philopater, had discovered the strongest zeal for the interest of that monarch, and were ready to assist him on all occasions. Yet, no sooner was he dead leaving behind him an infant, whom the laws of humanity and justice enjoined them not to disturb in the possession of his father’s kingdom, than they immediately joined in a criminal alliance, and excited each other to shake off the lawful heir, and divide his dominions between them. Philip was to have Caria, Libya, Cyrenaica and Egypt; and Antiochus all the rest. With this view, the latter entered Coele-Syria and Palestine, and, in less than two campaigns, made an entire conquest of the two provinces, with all their cities and dependencies. Their guilt, says Polybius, would not have been quite so glaring, had they, like tyrants, endeavored to gloss over their crimes with some specious pretence; but so far from doing this, their injustice and cruelty were so barefaced, that to them was applied what is generally said of fishes, that the larger ones, though of the same species, prey on the lesser. One would be tempted, continues the same author, at seeing the most sacred laws of society so openly violated, to accuse Providence of being indifferent and insensible to most horrid crimes; but it fully justified his conduct, by punishing those two kings according to their deserts; and made such an example of them as ought, in all succeeding ages, to deter others from following their conduct. For while they are meditating to dispossess a weak and helpless infant of his kingdom, by piecemeal, Providence raised up the Romans against them, who entirely subverted the kingdoms of Philip and Antiochus, and reduced their successors to almost as great calamities as those with which they intended to crush the infant king.” “To establish the vision.” The Romans being more prominently than any other people, the subject of Daniel’s prophecy, their first interference in the affairs of these kingdoms is here referred to as being the establishment or demonstration of the truth of the vision which predicted the existence of such a power. “But they shall fall.” Some refer this to those mentioned in the first part of the verse who should stand up against the king of the south; others to the robbers of Daniel’s people, the Romans. It is true in either case. If those who combined against Ptolemy, are referred to, all that need be said is that they did speedily fall; and if it applies to the Romans, the prophecy simply looked forward to the period of their overthrow. Verse 15. So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. The tuition of the young king of Egypt was intrusted by the Roman Senate to M. Æmilius Lepidus, who appointed Aristomenes, an old and experienced minister of that court, his guardian. His first act was to provide against the threatened invasion of the two confederated kings, Philip and Antiochus. To this end he dispatched Scopas, a famous general of Ætolia, then in the service of the Egyptians, into his native country to raise reinforcements for the army. Having equipped an army, he marched into Palestine and Coele-Syria (Antiochus being engaged in a war with Attalus in lesser Asia), and reduced all Judea into subjection to the authority of Egypt. Thus affairs were brought into a posture for the fulfillment of the verse before us. For Antiochus, desisting from his war with Attalus at the dictation of the Romans, took speedy steps for the recovery of Palestine and Coele-Syria from the hands of the Egyptians. Scopas was sent to oppose him. Near the sources of the Jordan, the two armies met. Scopas was defeated, pursued to Sidon, and there closely besieged. Three of the ablest generals of Egypt, with their best forces, were sent to raise the siege, but without success. At length Scopas, meeting in the gaunt and intangible specter of famine, a foe with whom he was unable to cope, was forced to surrender on the dishonorable terms of life only; whereupon he and his ten thousand men were suffered to depart, stripped and naked. Here was the taking of the most fenced cities by the king of the north, for Sidon was, both in its situation, and its defenses, one of the strongest cities of those times. Here was the failure of the arms of the south to withstand, and the failure also of the people which the king of the south had chosen, namely, Scopas and his Ætolian forces. Verse 16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed. Although Egypt could not stand before Antiochus, the king of the north, Antiochus could not stand before the Romans who now came against him. No kingdoms were longer able to resist this rising power. Syria was conquered and added to the Roman Empire, when Pompey, B. C. 65, deprived Antiochus Asiaticus of his possessions, and reduced Syria to a Roman province. The same power was also to stand in the holy land and consume it. Rome became connected with the people of God, the Jews, by alliance, B. C. 161, from which date it holds a prominent place in the prophetic calendar. It did not, however, acquire jurisdiction over Judea by actual conquest till B. C. 63; and then in the following manner: On Pompey’s return from his expedition against Mithridates, king of Pontus, two competitors,37 Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, were struggling for the crown of Judea. Their cause came before Pompey, who soon perceived the injustice of the claims of Aristobulus, but wished to defer decision in the matter till after his long-coveted expedition into Arabia, promising then to return and settle their affairs, as should seem just and proper. Aristobulus, fathoming Pompey’s real sentiments, hastened back to Judea, armed his subjects, and prepared for a vigorous defense, determined, at all hazards, to keep that crown which he foresaw would be adjudicated to another. Pompey closely followed the fugitive. As he approached Jerusalem, Aristobulus, beginning to repent of his course, came out to meet him, and endeavored to accommodate matters by promising entire submission, and large sums of money. Pompey, accepting this offer, sent Gabinius at the head of a detachment of soldiers, to receive the money. But when that lieutenant-general arrived at Jerusalem, he found the gates shut against him, and was told from the top of the walls that the city would not stand to the agreement. Pompey, not to be deceived in this way with impunity, put Aristobulus, whom he had retained with him, in irons, and immediately marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. The partisans of Aristobulus were for defending the place; those of Hyrcanus for opening the gates. The latter being in the majority, and prevailing, Pompey was given free entrance into the city. Whereupon the adherents of Aristobulus retired to the mountain of the temple as fully determined to defend that place, as Pompey was to reduce it. At the end of three months, a breach was made in the wall sufficient for an assault, and the place was carried at the point of the sword. In the terrible slaughter that ensued, twelve thousand persons were slain. It was an affecting sight, observes the historian, to see the priests, engaged at the time in divine service, pursue with calm hand and steady purpose, their accustomed work, apparently unconscious of the wild tumult, though all around them their friends were being given to the slaughter, and though often their own blood mingled with that of their sacrifices. Having put an end to the war, Pompey demolished the walls of Jerusalem, transferred several cities from the jurisdiction of Judea to that of Syria, and imposed tribute on the Jews. Thus for the first time was Jerusalem placed by conquest in the hands of that power which was to hold the “glorious land” in its iron grasp till utterly consumed.