1.  First, as anticipated from the nature of the case.  If man is formed to own allegiance to his Maker, and to spend this life as preparatory and introductory to a coming existence, then, till these conditions are fulfilled, he must be expected, not to fill worthily his place, as possessor of the present life; but must, in important points, compare disadvantageously with the beasts that perish.  If, like the inferior races, ours attained to a life which should be the full flourish of its demonstrable capacities, while immortality entered not into account, then would fail one argument to prove us destined to an hereafter.  If the philosopher, from the examination of the chick eaglet in the shell, knowing naught else of the animal, could make out for it, within its narrow walls, a life answering to the indications of its organization; he might fitly question, whether it were destined to burst its prison, and soar aloft.  And such embryo eaglet is man, considered only as to what this life realizes.

2.  Historically, we are in little danger of being confounded on this argument.  The evidence from fact is very plain and positive, that men have never become wise for the life that now is, but as they have first become wise for the life that is to come; that self-love never becomes a just prudence, till informed by the faith, hope, and charity of Jesus; in a word, that in Him is life, and only through the light derived from him is life realized to men.

Seeking the lowest form of worldly wisdom—­political science applied as the agent for promoting general welfare—­we may look in vain for a beginning thus to apply such science, in any nation unblest by revelation.

They on whom the light has shone, have generally so imperfectly comprehended it, that they have only attained to that vulgar love of liberty, which Guizot defines to be removed but a step from the love of power.  Rather, we might say, that step is not—­the two are but the same thing.  Viewed on one side, it is the hatred of being domineered over; on the other, it is the love of domineering.

Only where the Christian account of human character has been taken for a sober reality, has been taken for a sober reality, has been practically understood the rule of dividing power equally, because so universal is the tendency to grasp it inordinately.  Only (we may add) where, better still, some good deference has been paid to the charge, “Call no man master on earth, for one is your Master in heaven.”  If this is the instruction, after which one becomes a republican, and shapes his love liberty; the conclusion is equally obvious and inevitable-call no man slave or vassal on earth, for One in heaven is the common Master of all.

Mistaking here, France has gone through a series of signal failures.  Her Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, still prove empty names; while want and oppression stare millions in the face, despite the promises of more than half a century’s experimenting with revolutions.  A vision of political blessedness mocks her sight, which, like fabled enchanted island, ever and anon seeming just within the grasp, still escapes, and flies the faster, the faster it is pursued.  O my country! mercy spare thee from thus mistaking Heaven’s high decree!