It appears then, that the king's disregard of the desire of women, so far from proving him to be the Pope or the Constantinopolitan Emperor, decidedly shews, that he cannot possibly be either of them: for, amidst all the abominations of the Papacy, the fundamental article of the proper divinity of our Lord was faithfully preserved; and, although it was impugned in the East by the turbulent and political disciples of Arius, God was pleased to raise up then, as he has since done in these our days, able and resolute defenders of it. Some indeed of the Eastern Emperors were infected with Arianism: yet I know not how they can be said on that account to have disregarded the desire of women. They doubtless held heretical notions respecting him; but they never entirely blotted the very name of Christ from their religious creed.

It may perhaps nevertheless be said, that that part of the king's character, which respects his paying honour to a strange God and to Mahuzzim or tutelary deities, accords very exactly with the papal worship of saints and angels: and Mr. Mede will add, that the strange or foreign god is certainly Christ, whom the Romans adored, when they had begun to disregard the false gods of their fathers. Such an interpretation as this, if we adopt the scheme as proposed by Mr. Mede, is much too vague to be satisfactory. Supposing the king to mean the Roman empire from the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the worship of a foreign god and tutelary deities will be no less characteristic of pagan, than of papal, Rome. The Roman custom of naturalizing the gods of all the countries which they subdued is well known how are we to decide then, upon Mr. Mede's scheme, whether the worship of the foreign god ought to be explained as relating to Rome pagan, or to Rome papal? The scheme, as pro

and insulated title of the Messiah: I readily answer, that the very same objection applies to the universally received interpretation of the phrase the desire of all nations. This phrase, like its parallel phrase in the book of Daniel, occurs only once in the whole Bible but its single occurrence was never thought to be any reason, why it should not be descriptive of the Saviour. Haggai speaks of the desire of all nations as being a person: Daniel also speaks of the desire of women as being a person mentioning him among various objects of worship, true and false, all of whom the king was alike to disregard. The self-same word non is used in both passages, and pointed precisely in the same manner. Whence we may naturally suppose, that it is used in the same sense. In short, the two passages appear to me to be perfectly parallel to each

other.

posed by Bp. Newton, is not indeed liable to this uncertainty, because he makes the prophecy of the king com. mence with the age of Constantine. Nevertheless the coincidence of the king's character with that of the Pope in this point is not sufficient to establish their identity, when so many objections present themselves to such an opinion. The word Mahuzzim means tutelary deities; or, as Bp. Newton translates it, "protectors, defenders, and guardians." The term therefore may be used properly enough to describe saints and angels, when considered in the light that the Papists consider them in: but there is no reason why it should be confined exclusively to them it may equally signify tutelary demi-gods of any other description.

I know, that both Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton have maintained, that the man of sin is the exact transcript of the king predicted by Daniel; and even that St. Paul, when he wrote to the Thessalonians, had this very prophecy in his eye. I can discover however no sort of resemblance between them, either chronological or circumstantial. It is said indeed, that the king should speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and should magnify himself above every god; and it is likewise said, that the man of sin should oppose and exalt himself above every one that is called god, or that is worshipped: whence it might appear at the first sight, that in this particular at least there was a strong resemblance between their characters. But the resemblance is altogether imaginary, and not real. The king was to magnify himself above all gods, both true and false: whereas the man of sin was only to exalt himself above every one that is called god or august, in other words (as Bp. Newton justly observes), those mere earthly gods (as they are frequently termed in Scripture), kings and emperors.* Both the man of sin indeed and the king were to be notorious enemies of the true God and his religion, a point in which all the wicked agree; but they were to be his

"He opposeth and exalteth himself above all, ixi warîa, above every one, that is called god or that is worshipped, n σeßacua alluding to the title of the Roman emperors, ceßarlos august or venerable. He shall oppose and exalt himself, not only above inferior magistrates, who are sometimes called gods in holy writ, but even above the greatest emperors." Bp. Newton's Dissert. xxii

enemies in two modes as different from each other, as it is almost possible to conceive. The king was to speak marvellous things against the God of gods; to magnify himself above every god; to regard neither the god of his fathers, nor the Desire of women, nor any other god. These expressions, than which nothing can be at once more definite and more comprehensive, plainly intimate, that the king should make an open and undisguised profession of atheism. He should neither regard the true God, nor any false god; neither the god of his fathers (whoever his fathers were), nor Messiah the Desire of women, nor any other god: but he should at once speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and magnify himself above all the vanities of the Gentiles. Now it is utterly impossible to conceive, how such strong, such varied, and yet such determinate, language could ever have been intended to describe the conduct of the Popes. They doubtless, in strict harmony with the prophecy of the man of sin, " did exalt themselves above all laws divine and human, dispense with the most solemn and sacred obligations, and in many respects enjoin what God had forbidden, and forbid what God had commanded." They have moreover, still in harmony with the prophecy, advanced a step further; have blasphemously assumed the divine titles and attributes; and have sat as God in the very temple of God. But, when we consider the manner in which they thus conducted themselves, we shall discover no great resemblance between their behaviour and that of the king predicted by Daniel. Instead of speaking marvellous things against the God of gods; they professed to do all to his honour and glory. Instead of disowning his authority; they affected, with much importunity, to act in his name. Instead of throwing off their allegiance to the Desire of women, and totally

The papal little born is said in our translation to speak great words against the Most High: but, as I have already observed, the passage when rendered literally imports, that the little born shall speak great words by the side of the Most High, placing his decrees upon an equality with Scripture, and shewing himself in the temple of God that he is God. The king, on the contrary, is represented by Daniel as speaking marvellous things by against, or above, the God of gods. Thus accurately has Daniel drawn the line of distinction between these two powers, by the use of two entirely different expressions, which our translators have injudiciously confounded together by rendering them as if they were in the original one and the same expression.

disregarding him; they delighted to style themselves the Vicar of Christ, the husband of the Church, the representative of God upon earth, the immediate delegate of heaven. Highly tyrannical as their actions were, and utterly offensive in the eyes of God; still they were not done professedly to affront him to his face. The thin garb of piety with which they were clothed, but ill concealed their native deformity; yet, throughout all the papal persecutions, the saints of God were never put to death as the saints of God, but as his enemies. The preaching of the bloody crusades against the Waldenses was termed, in a perverted sense indeed, the preaching of the cross of Christ: Pope Martin the fifth exhorted the Emperor, and the other European sovereigns, to extirpate heretics, by the wounds of Christ and by the salvation of Christ: and even the diabolical murders of the Inquisition are dignified with the Christian appellation of acts of faith.*

Let us however compare the character of the man of sin with that of the king, and we shall find that their imagined resemblance will rapidly fade away, till there be scarcely any similarity between the two portraits.

The man of sin was to be revealed, when he that letted, by which the general tradition of the Church has always understood the imperial authority in Rome, was taken out of the way: the king was not to make his appearance till after the second or papal persecution of the men of understanding at the time of the Reformation. The man of sin was to cause himself to be worshipped in the temple of God: the king was to venerate a foreign god and along with him certain tutelary deities; no mention is made of his causing himself to be worshipped. The man of sin was to work pretended miracles: no hint is given, that the king should so much as even lay claim to supernatural powers. So again: it is said, that the king should divide the land among the champions of his tutelary deities for a price: no similar action is ascribed to the man of sin, nor was ever performed by the Pope.†

Auto da Fe.

Mr. Mede explains this dividing of the land by the king to mean, that bis tutelary gods should bave different kingdoms assigned to them to preside over. "St. George shall have England; St. Andrew, Scotland; St. Denis, France; St. James, Spain; St.

The king was to be engaged in wars with the kings of the South and the North: here the parallel entirely fails; no similar exploits of the man of sin are predicted. Bp. Newton therefore is obliged to have recourse to the expedient of making the king, not only the Western Pope, but likewise the Eastern Emperor. Still however even this sudden transition is insufficient: for the predicted wars, which he applies to the Saracenic and Turkish invasions of the Empire, are to take place at the time of the end, or at the close of the 1260 years; and that time is not yet come. Surely then, with so great a discrepance of character both chronological and circumstantial, the man of sin can scarcely have been designed to represent the same power as the king. The man of sin however has, I think, been amply shewn by the Bishop himself to be the Pope. The natural conclusion therefore is, that the king cannot have any connection with the Pope, but must prefigure some entirely different power.

Mr. Kett's mode of interpreting this prophecy is liable to the very same objection, as his method of explaining

Mark, Venice; and bear rule as presidents and patrons of their several countries." (Apost. of the latter times Part I. Chap. xvii.) Bp. Newton rejects this explanation; and supposes (very justly, I think,) that the land was to be divided not among the Mabuzzim, but among the champions of the Mabuzzim. Conceiving however, agreeably to his general plan of exposition, that the Mabuzzim mean the tutelary saints and angels of Popery, he of course understands their champions to be the Romish Hierarchy. Hence he conjectures, that the dividing of the land among the champions of the Mabuzzim means, "that they have been honoured, and reverenced, and almost adored, in former ages; that their authority and jurisdiction have extended over the purses and consciences of men; that they have been enriched with noble buildings and large endowments, and have had‍ the choicest of the lands appropriated for church-lands." (Dissert. xvii.) Both Mr. Mede and Bishop Newton seem to have forgotten a very material word in this part of the prophecy. The land was not only to be divided, but it was to be divided for a price. Our translation reads for gain, but in the margin it retains the proper import of the original for a price. Now, in whatever manner the Pope might contrive to divide the land among his adherents, he certainly did not divide it among them for a price that is to say, baving an equivalent paid for value received. Fe induced the laity to make large grants of their lands to the Church, and thus in some sort may perhaps be said to have divided the land among the champions of Mabuzzim; but I much doubt whether it can be shewn, that he ever received any price from those supposed champions of Mabuzzim for thus dividing the land among them. The word, here used, denotes something given in exchange, the price or value of a thing. Hence it is not enough for the king merely to have divided the land, if that king mean the Pope; it must be shewn that he has divided the land for value received. "And the king said unto Araunah, Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." (2 Sam. xxiv. 24.) The word, here used to express a price, is