1

that England does such a thing, or that the government of England does it, the meaning will be the same: whereas, if the British monarchy were divided into the four borns or sovereignties of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales; no one, I presume, would say, that the little born of Wales was the same as the whole British lion. Hence Mr. Mede, though I think him mistaken in his interpretation of the last bead of the beast, very justly, so far as phraseology goes, uses as convertible terms the beast under bis last bead and the last head of the beast: for it is plain that the head cannot act without the body, and therefore the actions of the one are the actions of the other. Now, if I ever had had it proved to me, that the Papacy was really the last bead of the secular Roman beast, I should in that sense very readily have allowed it was the beast under bis last bead; just as in a former period of his existence I should style him the beast under bis sixth bead, or under his fifth head. But so far from this being proved to me, history proves the very reverse. Mr. Whitaker merely assumes, that the Pope must be a head of the beast and the beast bimself, because he has claimed all power both in temporals and spirituals. On the contrary, I shewed that Charlemagne actually exercised the temporal power which the Pope only ineffectually claimed: and, since I found a curious circumstance in his history which shewed how he was in one sense the seventh and in another the eighth head of the beast, I scrupled not to conclude that his empire was the last bead of the beast; which thus has really only seven heads, though apparently eight. In this part of his painphlet, Mr. Whitaker has the following

following passage, which to me at least is not very intelligible. "It should be observed, that, though "the beast in Daniel and that in the Revelation

represent the same power, they are not accurately "the same beast; but two different representations "of the same object with different adjuncts. The beast in Daniel is not represented as having "more than one bead, whereas that in the Revelation has seven: the beast in the Revelation is "not represented with any little born, whereas that "in Daniel has one. The identity therefore of "these representations is not such as to support "the objection; for the little born in Daniel does "in fact form no part of the beast in the Revela"tion, and consequently the power it represents 66 may without contradiction be characterized by "the whole". Confusion of conception ordinarily produces confusion of expression. Does he mean to say, that the apocalyptic ten-borned beast is the same or not the same as the ten-borned beast in Daniel? To me they appear to be the very same*, both equally symbolizing the Roman empire from beginning to end. That this is the case with Daniel's beast, Mr. Whitaker allows; that it is likewise the case with the apocalyptic beast, is plain from St. John's description of him. He tells us,

that, when he wrote, five of the beast's heads were fallen, one was then in existence, and the last was

* Mr. Whitaker might just as well have stated, that I maintained Daniel's ten-horned beast to be the Carlovingian empire, as that I maintained St. John's to be it; for I had asserted as unequivocally as I could express myself, that the two beasts were the very same. See my Dissert. Vol. II.

148-151.

P.

future.

future. What then can the beast be but the Roman empire? And, if it be the Roman empire, then it is the same as Daniel's beast. And, if it be the same as Daniel's beast, how can it be the same as its own little born. The only difference I can discover between the character of the beast as exhibited by Daniel, and his character as exhibited in Rev. xiii, is this: in the one case, chronologically speaking, the beast is the empire from beginning to end just as he appears in Rev. xvii. 9-12; in the other case, the beast is the same empire during bis existence (after his revival) of 1260 years, under his sixth bead and under his last head. Why he did not appear to Daniel with seven beads, I presume not to determine? But, does Mr. Whitaker mean to say, that that circumstance proves the non-identity of Daniel's beast and the apocalyptic beast? So thought not either Mede or Newton. As for the little born, I have very fully stated the reason why it is not mentioned in the Revelation. The second beast occupies its place, and performs exactly the same functions to the first beast as the little born does to Daniel's beast. Hence, as the one is not mentioned in the Apocalypse, so neither is the other by Daniel. Mr. Whitaker seems afraid of denying the identity of the two ten-horned beasts, and yet afraid of allowing it, lest such an acknowledgment should at once destroy his assumption that the little born is the same as the ten-borned apocalyptic beast. I still continue to deny, on the authority of history, that the Pope was ever a bead of the secular Roman beast; and equally to deny, on the score of symbolical propriety, that the horn of a beast as such can denote the beast himself. As

for

for the kings giving their strength to the beast, I explained it to mean, what I believe it does mean, not resigning their crowns to Charlemagne, but upholding the principles whereby the empire once more became a beast. This indeed they began to do before Charlemagne was born, even when the beast revived under his sixth head in the year 606.

The last charge that Mr. Whitaker brings against me under the present division of the subject is, that I speak of an eighth head, and a septimooctave head (which last he believes to be one entirely of my own discovery); whereas the angel does not speak of an eighth head, but of an eighth king*. I am not so ignorant of the very first rudiments of Greek, as to require to be gravely told by Mr. Whitaker, that in the original the eighth agrees with the masculine king and not with the feminine bead: nor was my phraseology adopted in consequence of the ridiculous blunder which he seems to ascribe to me; but purposely, and for the sake of preserving uniformity. The seven heads are seven kings, and the seven kings are seven beads. The terms are convertible: they only differ in this; that the one is literal, and the other symbolical. Hence I thought myself perfectly justified in following the example of Mede and Lowman; both of whom (like myself) style the eighth king the eighth head, and both of whom (like myself) attempt to reduce these eight kings or beads to sevent. Our modes indeed

* Letter, p. 57.

+ "The last head of the beast is indeed but the seventh (for the "beast, we see, hath no more heads than seven in the vision),

"yet

T

indeed of reducing them to seven are essentially different, and we by no means agree respecting what power is intended by the eighth bead; but our phraseology, so far as denominating the eighth king the eighth bead is concerned (which was the matter censured by Mr. Whitaker), is undoubtedly the same. If they then may style their supposed eighth king the eighth bead, why may not I style my supposed eighth king the eighth bead, without being called to account for my misnomer by Mr. Whitaker? However I am not disposed to quarrel with him on this point: if he prefer the phrase eighth king to eighth bead, be it so; I contend not for words, but for facts. But, what difference this alteration of phraseology can make in my system, I confess I see not. As for the word septimo-octave, which so grievously offends Mr. Whitaker, I believe

"yet for some respects is an eighth; namely because the sixth "Lead, the sovereignty of Cesars (that head which in St. John's "time was) declined at length to a demi-Cesar confined to "the west,-which being in some sort diverse from the "former takes the seventh place, and makes the false prophet "the eighth. But, being as in name so in substance the same "Cesar with the former, the false prophet is still in order the ❝ seventh. The false prophet, beginning his dominion as soon "almost (if not altogether) as the demi-Cesar, is therefore in "order of time the seventh as well as he. But, the demi-Cesar "being soon gone, the false prophet, still surviving and there. "fore succeeding him, is, in respect of that time wherein he "outlasteth him, as it were an eighth. But, whether eighth or "seventh, he is the last head this beast shall ever wear”. (Mede's Works, B. v. p. 912)—"in that reckoning, the "beast spoken of would be the eighth head or form of govern. "ment". (Preface to Lowman's Paraphrase, p. 17.)—“ the temporal power of the Bishops of Rome; which was, in some sense, the seventh, or, in another sense, the eighth head "of the Roman government". Paraph, p. 97.