both might and did pronounce that the little horn was to spring up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns p. 239.

(4.) Whatever then may be the power intended by the little horn, the fathers and Bp. Walmesley, when viewed conjointly, require us to seek its rise in the course of that period during which the Roman Empire was parcelled out into ten kingdoms. For the fathers declare, that the little horn was to spring up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns: and Bp. Walmesley declares, that the ten horns are those ten Gothic kingdoms,, into which the Roman Empire was divided during the fifth and sixth centuries. Hence, if we admit BOTH their opinions, which we protestants are quite ready to do, the little horn must have sprung up during the fifth or sixth centuries SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten primary Gothic kingdóms. p. 241.

(5.) Such then being the premises alike stated by each

party, the event itself will plainly determine the right mode of computing the 1260 days. If a power, cor. responding with the character of the little horn, sprang up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten Gothic kingdoms; and exercised a remarkable tyranny over the saints of God, during the precise term of 1260 natural days: then the prophetic 1260 days are no doubt 1260 natural days. But, if a power, corresponding with the character of the little horn, then actually indeed sprang up; while yet the tyranny, which it soon began to exercise over the saints, lasted much longer than 1260 natural days: then the prophetic 1260 days must inevitably be 1260 solar years, be cause the days in question can only be either natural days or natural years; otherwise Daniel stands convicted of being a false prophet. p. 242.

(6.) From this conclusion it is impossible for a Romanist to escape: unless he either denies the rise of the

VOL. III.

a

little

little horn to be SYNCHRONICAL with the rise of the ten horns, in which case he contradicts both the exposition of the fathers and the manifest sense of the prophecy itself; or rejects Bp. Walmesley's interpretation of the ten horns, in which case he runs directly counter to history. For, if (as the fathers declare) the little horn rises SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns, and if (as Bp. Walmesley has proved) the ten horns are the ten primary Gothic kingdoms: it will inevitably follow, that the rise of the little horn and the rise of the ten Gothic kingdoms are SYNCHRONICAL. p. 242.

3. How then, it will naturally be asked, do Bp. Walmesley and Mr. Rutter contrive to arrange the rise of the little horn, consistently with their own principles, and yet so as to avoid the protestant application of it? They inform us, that this little horn, whose rise is made even by their own principles SYNCHRONICAL with the rise of the ten Góthic kingdoms during the fifth and sixth centuries, has NOT YET appeared; but that it will HEREAFTER appear as the seventh head of the Roman beast, when, in the character of Antichrist, it will reign exactly 1260 natural days. p. 243.

(1.) The gross inconsistency of this arrangement, both with chronology, and with analogical homogeneity. p. 244.

(2.) The impossibility that the acknowledged SYNCHRONICAL prophesying of the two witnesses can be fu ture: because, from the very premises admitted both by Romanists and by Protestants, the 1260 days, during which the little horn reigns and during which the two witnesses prophesy in sackcloth, however they are to be computed, must have commenced soon after the fifth and sixth centuries; during which, as we have seen, the little horn itself must have sprung up in its quality of a kingdom. p. 246.

4. St. John's construction of his bestial hieroglyphic, with

respect to its succession of heads, is built upon the physical economy of animals; which forbids the living existence of any animal in a headless state. p. 248. (1.) But Bp. Walmesley's interpretation of the seven Roman heads produces the extraordinary zoological result, that an animal may live and thrive and discharge all his natural functions without the least apparent inconvenience, even when he has no head at all. p. 248.

(2.) Yet the bishop's own familiar use of the term head, when speaking of the pretended head of the Church, might have taught him, that a head, in the language of prophecy, denotes not an individual governor but a form of government administered by any given number of successive individuals. p. 252.

5. Remarks on the wonderful accuracy, with which the symbol of the Roman wild beast has been constructed. p. 254.

II. The second objection, brought by Mr. Rutter against the protestant mode of computation, is that we must have some more direct proof that the 1260 days mean 1260 years, than the mere possibility of such a computation deduced from two texts in Numbers and Ezekiel. p. 256.

1. A direct proof, from the Apocalypse itself, that St. John employs days to denote years. p. 257.

2. A second proof, from the necessity of the case, as exemplified in the short period of three days and a half during which the witnesses lie dead. p. 259.

3. A third proof, deduced from the practice of Bp. Walmesley himself in his computation of the twice mentioned apocalyptic five months, and therefore plainly unobjectionable in the eyes of an orthodox Romanist. p. 260.

III. The third objection against the protestant mode of computation is built upon, what Mr. Rutter deems, an abso

lute proof that the 1260 days CAN NOT denote the same number of literal years. These days, he asserts, relate primarily to the tyranny of a single individual, Antiochus Epiphanes. But, when they primarily relate to a single individual, they MUST BE literal days. Therefore, when they ultimately relate to a future expected Antichrist, they мUST in that case be literal days also. p. 267.

1. Mr. Rutter's conclusion does not follow from his premises, even if those premises be admitted. p. 267. (1.) The brief continuance of the alleged type does not prove the brief continuance of the alleged antitype. p. 267.

(2.) Mr. Rutter violates the principle of analogical homogeneity, in pronouncing the little horn to be a single individual, while yet he acknowledges the ten horns of the Roman beast and the four horns of the Macedonian beast to be ten kingdoms and four kingdoms. p. 267.

2. But his premises cannot be admitted. Where did Mr. Rutter ever find the 1260 days applied by the prophet to the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes ? p. 270. 3. His principle moreover is erroneous: for chronological prophecies are, from their very nature, INCAPABLE of a twofold application. p. 272.

IV. The last objection against the protestant mode of computation is built upon Christ's promise of perpetuity to the Catholic Church. p. 272.

1. Errors in Mr. Rutter's statement of this objection. p. 274. (1.) He calls my system a new one, as if I were the first who ever thought of applying the prophecies of Daniel and St. John to the Papacy. p. 274.

(2.) He represents me, as denominating the Papacy an Antichristian kingdom, and as pronouncing the Pope no better than Antichrist: whereas the application of such a character to the bishop and Church of Rome stands in direct opposition to my declared sentiments respecting

respecting the great Antichrist foretold by St. John and Daniel. p. 275.

2. The best mode of ascertaining the force of Mr. Rutter's present objection is to throw it into the form of a regular syllogism. p. 276.

(1.) It rests wholly upon the gratuitous assumption, that the Church of Rome is EXCLUSIVELY the Catholic Church of Christ. p. 276.

(2.) Mr. Rutter's attempt to perplex the question by the case of the Romish missionaries. p. 284.

(3.) He does not perceive that his objection recoils upon his own system of interpreting the tyranny of the little horn. p. 290.

DISSERT. V.

Respecting various points at issue between the Romanists and the Protestants, which bear upon the interpretation of prophecy. p. 294.

THERE

HERE are several points at issue between the Romanists and the Protestants, besides the proper mode of computing the 1260 days. p. 294.

1. Romish objection against protestant commentators drawn from their mutual discrepancy. p. 294.

1. They differ not with regard to the great outlines of prophetic interpretation. p. 295.

2. The objection, such as it is, manifestly recoils against popish commentators. p. 298.

3. Its obvious utility to the Jews against Christians in gene

ral. p. 299.

4. Were the real fact stated to the Popish laity, no argument could have been framed upon it p. 302.

II. A