the hard sayings which must be received before we can embrace it, would weary both myself and my readers; because they must for the most part be treated of separately and in detail. Of this, however, I shall give a specimen, in some remarks on the common interpretation of the seven heads of the beast; but, for the sake of clearness, I shall throw them into a separate section.

In the mean time I beg the reader to weigh the points already adduced in this section, viz. the unprecedented nature of the required interpretation-its having been totally unknown to the Church of God, who were most deeply interested in it, from the days of Daniel to those of Wickliffe-the total inability of expositors, even when they assumed the period, to make any thing of it in which they can agree among themselves the actual want of real conviction, and faith in these fulfilments of prophecy, which is found in the Christian Church-the absence of appeal to them in controversy with infidels -and the difficulties which must be got over with respect to historical facts,—and I ask, whether these matters, impartially considered, do not form a strong body of direct evidence against the mystical interpretation of the 1260 days?

NOTE ON BISHOP NEWTON.

In justification of what I have already said respecting Bishop Newton, I wish to bring before the notice of the reader two specimens of what I consider as dishonest artifice. They are not all that might be adduced, but they are perhaps sufficient; and I feel it a duty to promote an examination of the authorities on which the system of the 1260 years rests, because, as I have already said, they were collected by writers less scrupulous than I believe the present race of expositors to be, who nevertheless use the authorities collected by their predecessors, without sufficient examination. The authorities quoted by Bishop Newton are particularly liable to be used in this way, because, in all editions that I have seen, the original of all passages quoted, is printed at full length in the notes, and seems to give a sort of security for correctness. That it is not so, may however appear from the following instance. The Bishop says

"Sulpicius Severus having given an account of Nebu"chadnezzar's dream, and of all the particulars relating to

T

"it, subjoins an exposition of it agreeable to Daniel's inter"pretation. The image is an emblem of the world. The golden head is the empire of the Chaldæans: forasmuch

66

as that was the first and most wealthy. The breast and "arms of silver signify the second kingdom: for Cyrus, "the Chaldeans and Medes being overcome, transferred "the empire to the Persians. In the brazen belly, the "third kingdom is declared to be portended; and that we "see fulfilled: forasmuch as the empire taken from the "Persians Alexander vindicated to Macedonia. The iron "legs are the fourth kingdom: and that is the Roman, the strongest of all the kingdoms before it. But the feet,

66

66

part of iron and part of clay, prefigure the Roman empire "to be so divided as that it should never unite again: which " is equally fulfilled forasmuch as the Roman terri"tory is occupied by foreign nations or rebels: and we see "(saith he, and he lived at the beginning of the fifth cen"tury) barbarous nations mixed with our armies, cities, "and provinces. But in the stone cut out without hands, "which brake in pieces the gold, the silver, the brass, the "iron, and the clay, we have a figure of Christ. For he "shall reduce this world, in which are the kingdoms of the "earth, to nothing; and shall establish another everlasting

66

kingdom. Of which alone the faith of some is still dubious, and they will not credit future things, when they are "convinced of the past.""

Of this quotation the original is given in a note; but with what fairness the reader who compares it with what was actually written by Sulpicius Severus, may judge. I subjoin for that purpose the whole passage, placing between brackets and in italics those parts which the Bishop has omitted.

66

"Igitur secundum prophetæ interpretationem, imago visa, figuram mundi gerit. Caput aureum, Chaldæorum impe"rium est: siquidem id primum et opulentissimum fuisse "accepimus. Pectus et brachia argentea, secundum reg"num annunciant. Cyrus enim victis Chaldæis atque "Medis, imperium ad Persas contulit. In ventre æreo, "tertium regnum portendi pronunciatur : idque impletum "videmus. Siquidem Alexander ereptum Persis impe"rium, Macedoniæ vindicavit. Crura ferrea, imperium " quartum, idque Romanum intelligitur, omnibus ante reg"nis validissimum. Pedes vero partim ferrei, partim fic❝tiles, dividendum esse Romanum regnum, ita ut nunquam "inter se coeat, præfigurant: quod æque impletum est.

66

66

Siquidem [jam non ab uno Imperatore, sed etiam a pluri"bus, semperque inter se armis aut studiis dissentientibus, res "Romana administratur. Denique commisceri testum atque ferrum nunquam inter se coëuntem materiam: commistiones "humani generis, futuræ a se invicem dissidentes, significan"tur. Siquidem] Romanum solum ab exteris gentibus, aut "rebellibus occupatum, [aut dedentibus semper pacis specie "traditum constat :] exercitibusque nostris, urbibus atque provinciis permixtas barbaras nationes [et præcipue Ju"dæos, inter nos degere, nec tamen in mores nostros transire] "videamus. [Atque hæc esse postrema tempora prophetæ "annunciant.] In lapide vero sine manibus abscisso, qui "aurum, argentum, et ferrum testumque comminuit, Christi figuram esse. Is enim [non conditione humana editus (siquidem non ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo natus est)] mun"dum istum, in quo sunt regna terrarum, in nihilum rediget "regnumque aliud incorruptum [atque perpetuum, id est 'futurum in seculum, quod sanctis paratum est,] confirmabit. "De quo uno adhuc quorundam fides in ambiguo est: non "credendum de futuris, cum de præteritis convincantur."

Now, would not any reader, who learned the opinions of Sulpicius Severus only from Bishop

Newton's quotation, suppose that he thought he saw the predicted division of the Roman empire, in "the barbarous nations mixed" with the older inhabitants of the Roman empire? Would it not bring to his mind-and was it not meant to bring to his mind-the hostile irruptions of barbarians, and "the division" of the Roman empire among them? And is not the hint that he "lived in the beginning of the fifth century," " artfully dropped for the same purpose?

66

On the contrary, taking the whole passage as it really stands, it appears that Sulpicius Severus considered himself as living in the last days; and believed that he had seen the division of the empire predicted by Daniel, not in the multitude of foreigners (principally Jews) who came to settle in it, but in a fact which the Bishop has totally sunk, and which he did not believe to have any thing to do with the prophecy-namely, the government of the Roman empire by more than one Emperor."

which are,

"This is true as to the letter. The Bishop refers to Cave, but does not give his words, "Claruit anno "401.”—Hist, Lit. I. 284. Dupin says that he "lived till "towards the year 420."-Eccl. Writers, III. p. 112.

• There is another reason why Bishop Newton could not recognize this fact as operating any division of the Roman empire, or any change in its constitution, and why it was better to pass it over altogether. It would make another head of the beast, as Whiston contends that it did.