Lastly, the little horn is to continue in power three years and a half-These years Mr. Galloway decides to be natural years, and pronounces them to be the three years and a half, during which atheism was established by law in France. Upon this point, I cannot see, that the argument, which he brings from the term of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, is at all conclusive. Because the word time, when it occurs in a prophecy relative to a single individual, manifestly signifies a natural year; it does not therefore follow, that the same word, when it occurs in a prophecy relative to a state or kingdom, must necessarily signify a natural year in that case also.

means the persecuting church of Rome, and at other times the French Republic which in its turn persecuted the members of that persecuting Church. Or, to state the matter somewhat differently, the little born in its ultimate sense, persecutes the little born, in its primary sense; while the saints, in their ultimate sense, are the very set of men who persecuted the saints, in their primary sense; in other words, the saints, in their ultimate sense, and the little born, in its primary sense, equally symbolize the Church of Rome and ber members. Such is the strange confusion that results from Mr. Kett's scheme of primary and secondary interpretations of the same prophecy.

Dr. Zouch's sentiments on this point so perfectly accord with my own, that I cannot resist the pleasure of transcribing them. Speaking of those interpretations which apply the character of the little born to the French Republic and the character of the saints worn out by it to the Popish clergy, he observes: "An indiscriminate massacre of more than two millions of the human race sufficiently indicates a most savage and relentless power, but by no means attaches to it the peculiar attribute of wearing out the saints of the Most High: a character this strongly expressive of spiritual tyranny, of persecution exercised upon others merely for their religious opinions, and truly appropriate to the Church of Rome which punishes good men as being heretics; professing enmity against them as such; regardless of the atrocity of guilt, however notorious, in her own followers, while those, who dissent from her, become the victims of her inexorable rage. A serious protestant, conversant in those inspired writings in which the portrait of Antichrist" (bad as the Papacy is, I can see no just warrant by the way for applying this title to it) " is delineated as with a pencil of light, will hesitate to pronounce the members of the church of Rome the saints of the Most High. Without violating the law of Christian charity, he must consider them as professors of a religion perfectly abhorrent from the purity of the Gospel, as involved in idolatrous and superstitious practices, as men who have not repented of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood, which neither can see nor bear nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. The blood of such men has been prodigally shed: and it is very remarkable, that the French anarchists have introduced the horrors of war principally into popish countries, as if those nations, which profess the purity of the protestant religion, were providentially preserved from danger." (Zouch on Prophecy, p. 61.) The unerring voice of prophecy many ages ago predicted this last circumstance, which Dr. Zouch justly styles a remarkable one. The vials of God's wrath were to be poured out, not upon the mystic witnesses, but upon those "which had the mark of the beast and worshipped his image," upon those "who had shed the blood of saints and prophets," and along with them upon those daring infidels, whether apostate protestants or renegado papists," who blasphemed the name of God and repented not to give him glory." As for those who harkened to the gracious invitation," Come out of Babylon, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues;" they have not received of her plagues, they have been " providentially preserved from danger."

The probability rather lies on the contrary side; more especially when we consider the context both of Daniel and St. John. Daniel speaks of a power, that was to persecute the saints during the space of three years and a half: St. John represents the Church, under the symbol of a woman, as being persecuted 1260 days* by the devil acting through the instrumentality of the Roman beast; and he afterwards adds, in the very same chapter, that she was nourished from the face of the persecuting serpent for a time, times, and half a time, or three years and a half. Now, when we find, that three years and a half precisely contain 1260 days at the rate of 360 days to the year; that Daniel limits a persecution of the saints to three years and a half, that St. John, apparently at least, uses the two expressions of twelve hundred and sixty days and three years and a half as synonymous, for in one place he says that the woman is fed in the wilderness 1260 days, and in another place that she is nournished in the wilderness three years and a half: it is surely only reasonable to conclude, that the two expressions mean one and the same period of time, whatever that period may be. But that the 1260 days mean years, no one doubts: consequently the three years and a half must mean years of years; or, in other words, prophetic years, not natural ones, as Mr. Galloway supposes-Again: Daniel, in his last chapter, speaks of three different periods: the time times and a half, which he had already mentioned when treating of the little horn; twelve hundred and ninety days; and thirteen hundred and thirty five days. Now, if these days be the three years and a half must be years of years otherwise Daniel uses two different modes of computation in the same passage, and thus involves his meaning in needless uncertainty-Further we may fairly conclude, that, as a prophet expresses a given period of time in one place; so he would express the same period in another place, if he should have occasion to notice it again. But St. John, when really speaking of three natural years and a half, terms them three days and a half consequently, if he had wished to inform us that the woman was to be nourished in the wilderness three natural years and a half, he would surely have

years,

* Rev. xii. 6.

+ Ver. 14.

Rev. xi. 9.

called that period three days and a half, not a time times and half a time-Once more, and the subject shall be dismissed Daniel has given us a special mark, whereby we may know when the three years and a half, during which the little horn was to wear out the saints of the Most High, shall have expired. "And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, Until how long shall be the end of the wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever, that it shall be until a time, times, and a half; and, when he shall have finished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."* It appears then, that the three years and a half were to expire, when God should have ceased to scatter the Jews, whose restoration Daniel had predicted at the beginning of the chapter, and when the period of the wonders should be finished in other words, when the three years and a half, whether natural or prophetic, shall have expired, the restoration of the Jews will commence, and all the wonders comprehended within the period of the 1260 years will be accomplished. Now, from the termination of the three years and a half, during which religion was put down by law in France (that is to say, from the latter end of March 1796, when those three years and a half expired) full eight years have elapsed at the moment that I am now writing: consequently, if those three years and a half were the three years and a half intended by Daniel, the restoration of the Jews would have commenced, and the series of events, predicted under the seventh vial and at the close of the 11th chapter of Daniel,† as leading to the destruction of the two little horns (one of them upon Mr. Galloway's scheme revolutionary France) and of some kingdom notorious for magnifying itself above every god, would have begun to be accomplished, exactly when those three years and a half expired. None of

* Dan. xii. 6, 7.

Dan. xi. 40-45.

That the seventh vial did not then begin to be poured out, is manifest indeed from this circumstance. The sixth vial, which will produce the downfall of the Ottoman empire, remains even yet to be poured out: consequently the seventh vial, which succeeds it, cannot have begun to be emptied in the year 1796.

these great events however took place in March 1796: it follows therefore, as a necessary consequence, that the three years and a half of legalized French atheism, horrible as were the enormities of the then miscreant rulers of the infidel republic, cannot be the time, times, and a half, during which the little horn was to wear out the saints of the Most High.

Having now sufficiently pointed out what I conceive to be the errors of Mr. Kett and Mr. Galloway, I shall endeavour to ascertain the true interpretation of the history of the little persecuting horn, which was to spring up out of the fourth or Roman beast.

Upon this subject I heartily agree in the general with Sir Isaac Newton, Mr. Mede, and Bp. Newton; though I cannot entirely assent to their precise mode of exposition. The points, wherein I differ from them, are these: their supposition, that the little horn means the temporal kingdom of the Papacy: and their respective interpretations of that part of the prophecy which relates to the eradication of the three horns before the little horn.

In the figurative language of Scripture, the same symbol, as I have already abundantly shewn, represents both temporal and spiritual things, provided only those things are connected with each other by a common leading idea. Thus a star typifies either a prince or a minister of religion, the one being in the state what the other is in the church: whence we are accustomed familiarly to style both a king and a priest, in their different capacities, a shepherd of the people. In a similar manner, a beast means an empire, either secular or ecclesiastical: and a mountain denotes a kingdom either temporal or spiritual.* By a parity of reasoning therefore the present symbol, horn, signifies either a temporal or an ecclesiastical kingdom. Those three eminent commentators Sir Isaac Newton, Mr. Mede, and Bp. Newton, adopt the former of the two significations; and suppose the little horn of the Roman beast to mean the temporal kingdom of the Papacy, that Italian principality which bears the general name of The States of the Church or St. Peter's Patrimony. They further conceive, that the Papacy was not

Compare Jeremiah li, 25. with Dan. ii, 35.

a little horn till it acquired this principality; and that it became a horn by the subversion of the three horns which were destined to fall before it.

To this scheme there appear to me to be insuperable objections it will not accord with the prophecy itself; and therefore, as we might naturally expect, it will not accord with the events.

1. The actions, ascribed to the little horn, were never performed by the Pope, as a temporal horn, as the sovereign of his Italian principality, but as an ecclesiastical power.

2. The little horn is represented by the prophet as being already in existence previous to the eradication of the three horns: but the scheme at present under consideration supposes, that the Papacy became a horn by such eradication. Now, if the Papacy only became a horn by the eradication of the three horns, how can it be said that those three horns, were plucked up before it, or that the power typified by the little horn should subdue the three powers typified by the three horns, when at that very period, according to the scheme, the papal horn was not as yet in existence? The prophecy places the rise of the little horn before the eradication of the three horns : the scheme supposes it to rise in consequence of that eradication. Hence it is manifest, that the scheme makes the horn both to exist and to act, previous to the supposed date of its existence.

3. The contradiction becomes more glaring and the difficulties increase, when we begin to consider the period of three times and a half or 1260 years. Daniel teaches us, that the saints should be given into the hand of the little horn during that space of time: whence we may naturally conclude, that they were given into his hand both by some formal deed, and by some specific person. Now Mr. Mede supposes (with what propriety we shall hereafter consider), that the first of the three horns was plucked up in the year 727, when the Pope caused the Italians to revolt from the Emperor Leo: yet he hesitates whether to date the 1260 years from the year 365, when the Goths began to invade the Empire; from the year 410, when Alarac sacked Rome; or from the