We have now to turn for a few moments to the views propounded by certain writers of the historical school about Louis Napoleon, as the revived seventh head of the apocalyptic beast; and the solemn expectations hence urged by them with reference to the imminently coming future. So the author of Armageddon, who here follows Mr. Faber; and so also Mr. Frere; and, though with ideas, and on grounds, quite peculiar, Mr. Trevillian. But a very short answer, we conceive, will suffice to refute this idea. It is as the successor of his uncle that Louis Napoleon is made to be what the author of Armageddon terms the septimo-octave head of the beast;-his uncle, the great Napoleon, having, they say, been the previous seventh head. Now, in order to prove this of the first Napoleon, it needs to show the continuance till his emperorship of that sixth, or imperial head, which they agree was the one meant by the revealing angel, when he said to St. John, with reference apparently to the time of his seeing the visions in Patmos, "Five have fallen; one is " the five fallen being the heads previously invested by law with the supreme executive power in the Roman state,-kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes; and which, in a very remarkable manner, are so noted by St. John's famous contemporary the historian Tacitus, at the commencement of his Annals. But how can it be said that this was continued onward to the nineteenth century? Mr. Faber expounds that it was continued, after the extinction of the Western empire under Augustulus A.D. 476, first, in the emperors of the eastern Roman empire at Constantinople; then, after Charlemagne's revival of the Western empire, in himself, his successors, and the Eastern emperors conjointly; then, when the Carlovingian race failed, in Otho and the Austrian house of Hapsburg, conjointly with the Greek emperors till the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, A. D. 1453, afterwards alone; which house of Hapsburg continued onward as the Kaisers till the emperor Francis' abdication of the title in 1804.† A strange idea surely of continuity in the Roman imperial headship through so many different changes!-But we have always felt that an objection even yet more decisive lies against the whole hypothesis, in the primary signification attached by the angel to the seven heads apparent on the beast in vision; viz., as symbolizing Rome's seven hills as the site on which those heads would successively rule. Consequently neither could the Greek emperors who ruled at Constantinople answer to the symbol, nor Charlemagne with his seat of government at Aix-la-Chapelle, nor the house of Hapsburg at Vienna, nor the Napoleons, uncle or nephew, at Paris. One only solution of the symbol can we rest on with satisfaction; and that one we be * With all respect to Mr. T. personally, we must confess that his reasonings and discoveries about the number of the Beast, as fulfilled in Louis Napoleon, are much more mysterious than the Apocalyptic mystery itself. So too, substantially, Mr. Frere; pp. 89, 130. lieve to be, in every point of view, most satisfactory: (it is the same that was first proposed in Mr. Elliott's Horæ Apocalypticæ:) namely, that the seventh head, which the angel said was to come, and to last only for a short time, figured the Diocletianic head of two Augusti and two Cæsars, established A.D. 484, and which is prominently noted by Gibbon as “a new form of government.” * This, after some thirty years, was cut down by the sword of Constantine. And thus Rome's seven hills were left vacant for a while of ruling power; till the popes, with a temporal sovereignty small like Daniel's little horn, but a mouth speaking great things, proclaimed themselves, by virtue of their Roman bishopric, Peter's successors, and so Christ's vicars, and vicegerents of God on earth:-a spiritual dominion, so soon as the claim was allowed, involving secular dominion; and that mightier by far than any secular dominion ever seen in the world before. In conclusion, though we have to put aside all inferences on the warrant of prophecy respecting the imminently coming future, such as the writers above mentioned would draw from their Napoleonic hypothesis, yet have we not remaining strong probable prophetic reasons leading to the expectation (to use the earl of Carlisle's language) that "we are even now on the threshold of great events, and of the close of our present economy?" Most certainly we think we have; cautious, most cautious, though the very solemnity of such an opinion ought to make us, both in forming and in propounding it. There cannot, surely, be any fairer or more judicious mode of reasoning on such a question, than by comparing the chronological evidence which led, and was intended to lead, the old Jewish church in the times of Augustus and Tiberius, to be then expectant of Messiah's first coming, with that which may seem at the present time to offer data whereby to guide ourselves to a conclusion respecting the probable nearness, or distance, of his second coming. We mean that coming spoken of in 2 Thess. ii. (whether providential only, or, as we prefer to think, personal)† by the brightness of which * In Mr. Faber's book, entitled, "The Revival of the French Emperorship," it is argued by him that the Diocletianic hypothesis is open to a similar objection on this head with that which he advocated, because, says he, (p. 62,) "the capital of Diocletian was Nicomedia, and subordinately Milan." A strange mistake; and which is refuted by the quotation which he makes in the very next sentence from Gibbon; "Shortly after the time of Diocletian Rome ceased to be the capital of the empire;" viz., by Constantine's transfer of the seat of empire to Constantinople. This was after his cutting down the seventh or Diocletianic head with the sword. Nicomedia was previously Diocletian's pecu liar capital; Milan, Maximian's: but Rome still the one common capital of the whole Roman empire. We have pleasure in stating, with reference to the bitterness of spirit manifested in this and other of Mr. Faber's later books against Mr. Elliott, that shortly before his death, in a letter to that author, he expressed with much christian feeling his deep regret for it. For Christ's coming in verse 8 of that chapter is surely the same as that in verse 1; with which latter the "gathering of the saints unto him" is connected; the same apparently that St. Paul had spoken of, 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. Antichrist is to be destroyed for ever. Before Christ's first advent it seems to have been the fact of the expiry, or near expiry, at that time of Daniel's famous period of 70 hebdomads to Messiah, combined with that of the various signs of the times, which caused the general expectation. Each of these accordingly was appealed to by Christ himself when he had entered on his ministry: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:" (Mark i. 15:)" Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the signs of the times ?" And this though, in two ways, doubt might attach to the measure of the hebdomadal period. First, it was doubtful from which of the Persian kings' decrees in favour of the Jews to date it; whether that of Cyrus, that of Darius, or the first or second of Artaxerxes :-secondly, the term of time used was simply hebdomads, without specification of the unit intended, whether of days or years. And if day was the unit, so as in all other cases in the Hebrew scriptures where no unit of time was specified, then it could only be by applying the year-day principle to it that a period could be brought out bearing to the effect supposed on the great question of the time of Messiah's appearance.† A similar combination of evidence exists now, all tending to support the opinion, that the days of the papal Antichrist are nearly fulfilled, and the time consequently of his destruction by the brightness of Christ's coming near at hand. Of the signs of the times we have spoken before. They are most numerous, most remarkable. As to the famous prophetic period respecting Antichrist of the 1260 days, (or its equivalents,) if it is the year-day principle, to which some object, that we apply to bring out what supports our impressions, and moreover the terminus à quo from which to date the period, whether Justinian's decree, A.D. 533, or Phocas', A.D. 607, or some other, is also a matter on which question may be raised, still the evidence is quite consistent, and by many thoughtful and learned Christian men thought to be strong. And its strength is vastly increased, in our judgment, because in the extended apocalyptic prophecy, as shown very strikingly to have been fulfilled in the events of history between St. John's time and our own, we seem to have had way-marks already past, one after another, which tell that little yet remains to be fulfilled ere the last great predicted war between Christ's cause and Antichrist's, called Armageddon, and the immediately following time of consummation.§ This is Mede's argument. See the other cases all drawn out in the Hora Apocalypticæ, vol. iii. p. 251. + It is well to remember that the learned Greek Father Theodoret so applied to it the year-day principle; ήμερας εκαστης εις ενιαυτον λογιζομενης. Alluded to in the article in the Times, as drawn out in the Hora Apoc. The additional 75 years specified in Daniel xii., as following after the 1260 years' expiry ere the completed consummation, is of course a fresh and important element for consideration with an inquirer into the prophetic chronology of the time of the end. § On the Futurist principle, we see not how there can be any strong ground The thought is solemn, very solemn ! When he comes may he find us watching! OUR PILE OF PAMPHLETS. IN general we do not undertake to review pamphlets. Not that we affect to despise them; for we have learned that the wisest men put their thoughts into the smallest compass. Not because we feel in any way ashamed of being supposed to dabble in easy literature; remembering the Frenchman's maxim, that "" none but little minds are ashamed of little books." Our reasons must be obvious. On every subject of ephemeral as well as upon some of lasting interest, not streams but deluges of pamphlets issue from the press; and the mere work of making a selection would be a very serious addition to our labours; and our readers even then would complain, and perhaps with justice, that we had singled out but one or two from a number on the same subject quite as worthy of attention. Then, again, the price of a pamphlet brings it within the reach of most; and if not, the author, anxious to spread his opinions, gives it away by scores. Still, at the year's end, we find a formidable pile upon our table; some of which we feel a certain reluctance in consigning to oblivion. They treat on subjects which interest us, and which, at the same time, our readers would scarcely thank us for drawing out into an extended paper or review. For example, the first that comes to hand is a fourth edition. of Archbishop Whately's Thoughts on the Proposed Evangelical Alliance, just reprinted. The broad ground which our Magazine is meant to occupy disinclines us to express any strong opinion upon a point on which so many of our best friends differ. But we regret that the Archbishop of Dublin should have permitted the reprinting of his pamphlet, now that experience has shewn that many of his apprehensions, for he is an opponent of the Alliance, are quite unfounded. On the whole, then, the Archbishop considers "the Evangelical Alliance as a movement which can effect no good, and which cannot fail to defeat its own ob for anticipating the near close of this present dispensation; because of the want of these way-marks, marking how far we have arrived in the scheme of divine prophecy, and want also of the determining chronological period of the 1260 years. The same remark applies to Mr. M'Causland, whose book, from want of space, we have been obliged to leave unnoticed. Though but three parts futurist, as regards Jerusalem and the Jews, but not mainly as regards Rome, yet, as he construes the great prophetic period of 1260 days indefinitely to mean the time of the present dispensation, no argument, he considers, can be drawn from it as to the near approach of the time of the end. See his work, p. 466. jects." This sentence might have been written without any want of charity in 1846, but surely his Grace cannot mean to re-utter it as his deliberate opinion now? And if not, does he mean still to burden the consciences of his clergy by his closing appeal to every one of them, "who has a conscientious regard for his ordination vows, and interprets them rationally and candidly," to abstain from joining the Alliance? Does he now intend to repeat the injunction with which he concludes ?-"To my own mind those reasons appear so strong, and the case so important, that I feel it to be no less than my duty to admonish the clergy placed under my charge, not to join or countenance any such association as the one in question." Does not his Grace perceive that, in the first place, he proceeds not upon the ordination vow, but upon his own private exposition of it; and that, in the second, he would thus lay the consciences of the clergy, by this admonition, under an obligation to submit to whatever the bishop may impose? A note appended, which is an extract from one of his Grace's Charges, is not less open to exception. "Those," he says, "who draw a distinction, and insist on it as an important one-though certainly none such is recognised in Scripture, between Christianity and Evangelical religion, lay themselves open to the suspicion of putting forth, as a gospel, some devices of their own which are distinct from Christianity, and form no part of what was originally taught us the 'good tidings' -or gospel-of Christ himself." This needs some explanation; but that which his Grace affords is unsatisfactory. "By a Christian is understood, not merely any one who believes that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth existed, but one who receives the gospelevangelium-of Jesus Christ. A man may indeed hold more or less of error intermixed with gospel-truth; he may, more or less, have corrupted, or imperfectly embraced, the truth, and may accordingly be more or less imperfectly evangelical — imperfectly Christian: but to whatever extent he is Christian, to the same extent he must be evangelical. To ask whether all Christians are evangelical, seems like asking whether all men are human." If the Archbishop meant only to allege that there ought to be no difference between a nominal Christian and a real one, we quite agree with him. But the difference exists, and always has existed; and hence the necessity for some further epithet than the mere word Christian; unless we choose to restrict it to those who maintain the doctrines, and exhibit in their lives the influence of real Christianity. Such a limited use of the term is, indeed, growing up amongst us; but we doubt whether the old-fashioned expressions pious Christian, or Evangelical Christian, are not preferable. The Archbishop's illustration is not a happy one. No doubt, all men are human; but what is it that makes up a man? You may chop off his fingers, and still admit his humanity. You would hardly think him entitled to the same designation, if you had cut off his head. And we maintain there is precisely this |