Is this consistent with the Word of God? If the prophet had said, " And I beheld, and there grew up another horn, and it supplanted one of the first horns; and another horn grew up and supplanted that which had thrust out the first horn; and a third grew up and expelled the second horn; and then there arose a little horn which thrust out the third horn, and took the place which the three former horns had, in succession, held before him," then Mr Elliott's interpretation would have been the literal and natural exposition of the words. Had this been the real nature of the vision, surely the inspired prophet would thus have described it; but, on the contrary, he expressly declares that when he saw the beast it had ten horns. Let me ask Mr Elliott a simple question. Every stag sheds his horns, and has them replaced. Would Mr Elliott, on that account, describe him as a four-horned beast? Yet, as, when the Turingi entered the Roman Empire, there were neither Heruli nor Lombards, and, after their extirpation by the Ostrogoths, neither Heruli, Turingi, nor Lombards remained, it is clear the beast, according to his view, never had ten horns at the same time, and the Pope could not have sprung up amongst the horns.

The prophet expressly declares that the little horn does not arise till after the three horns, and that it arises amongst them. How Antichrist could arise amongst three sovereigns, who did not exist at the same period, but who successively ruled over the same territories, and who had ceased to exist before his rise, I know not.*

Again, because King Pepin conquered the Ostrogoths, and gave away a small portion of his territories to Pope Stephen, are we entitled to say that Pope Stephen subdued the Ostrogoths, and that, as subduer of the Ostrogoths, he must be considered as the extirpator of those whom his enemies, the Ostrogoths, had subdued a century before, and also as extirpator of those preceding tribes, his own allies and friends, who had been extirpated by the enemies of those very Ostrogoths?

Let us take a parallel case. The Duke of Wellington subdued Napoleon.

Napoleon had previously subdued the Emperors of Austria, Russia, and the King of Prussia, at Austerlitz, Friedland, Jena, and Wagram.

Can we, therefore, state that the Duke of Wellington subdued

*What should we say if any one spoke of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty as arising amongst, and supplanting three others, the Norman, the Plantagenet, and the Tudor, omitting all mention of the Stuarts and the Guelphs ?

the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and the King of Prussia, because he subdued their subduer? Should we not be laughed at?

Precisely the same reasoning, carried out, would make the Duke of Wellington guilty of Napoleon's poisonings at Gaza, and of the massacres of Jaffa.

Yet the cases are precisely parallel. The King of the Turingi expelled the Greek troops from Rome, leaving the Pontifical power undisturbed, simply assuming the rights now held by the Emperor. The King of the Heruli conquered the King of the Turingi, but did not interfere with the Pontiff. The King of the Lombards conquered the King of the Heruli. The King of the Ostrogoths conquered the King of the Lombards. The King of the Franks conquered the King of the Ostrogoths, and gave the Pontiff one-fifth of the spoil. Yet by Mr Elliott it is silently taken for a fact, that the Pope subdued the Lombards, the Heruli, and the Turingi too, who were not in existence as nations, races, or monarchies at his rise, as fixed by Mr Elliott; whilst all mention of any feud between him and the Ostrogoths and their successors is suppressed! Such are the premises which we are required to accept without examination. If the mere excellence and piety of their propounders could dispense with proof positive, we would accept them gladly; but there is danger in mere forced and conjectural interpretations of the Word of God; and even the high character and deep spirituality of Mr Birks and Mr Elliott may not supply them, on all points, perfect information as to facts.

We might as well say that the jackal, to whom the lion disdainfully leaves some portion of the wild boar he has slain, had vanquished all animals slaughtered by that wild boar before its fall, as that the Pope plucked up those whom Pepin vanquished. We press these facts home. Let them be fairly met. What kings or what races has the Court of Rome subdued? The question is not now how many she has seduced. If she have not plucked up three kings, ruling at the same time, she cannot be the last Antichrist.

If the Pope became Antichrist at any time before A.D. 533, then Mr Elliott's theory of itself falls to the ground, as all his calculations are based upon that epoch. If, on the other hand, he only became Antichrist in A.D. 533, he cannot be said to have plucked up three kings who had long since ceased to exist, nor three races; nor, indeed, was ever any one king or any one race subdued by him either before or after A.D. 533. There are some who say that the word kings means the ten

races who divided the Roman Empire. The substitution of races for kings is a very daring thing, without warrant from Scripture, and can only be paralleled by Chevalier Bunsen's attempt to prove that Adam, Abraham, and Isaac were races, not individual, real, personal men. If we thus interpret unful filled prophecy, do we not encourage others to explain away Scripture history, and future prophecy too? Whether we take the existing nations of Europe, or the conquering tribes that reclaimed them from the corruption in which they were plunged, we come, however, to precisely the same result, as the conquering aristocracies formed the nucleus around which the conquered population crystallised and set up each its own chief. Take now the races which have settled in Europe since A.D. 381, at which period we have shewn that the reign of the Papal Antichrist had begun :

1. The Alans.

2. The Almagnes, or Germans.

3. The Angles.

4. The Burgundians.

5. The Danes.

6. The Franks.

7. The Huns.

8. The Heruli.

9. The Hessians, or Catti.

10. The Jutes.

11. The Lombards.
12. The Mæsogoths.
13. The Normans.
14. The Ostrogoths.
15. The Saxons.
16. The Suevi.
17. The Turingi.
18. The Vandals.
19. The Visigoths.

Of these, the Heruli and Turingi were extirpated or swallowed up before the Lombards, and the Norman Conquest took place after the third seal, A.D. 719 to 1062; so that, omitting these, we come pretty nearly to the same result, finding sixteen horns, exclusive of the Papacy, all in existence at the same time. Let Mr Elliott reduce their number to ten if he can.

In this list we are not conscious of having put down a single unimportant tribe, or one which has not become the germ of a modern and now existing aristocracy.

Strange to say, in no one list of the ten horns that we are acquainted with are the Normans mentioned, the conquerors of the whole West.

This is remarkable, and shews how wedded to traditional theory are even good and holy men.

But here we shall be met by commentators more confident, and who hope to place us in a dilemma. We admit, say they, that the Scripture speaks of kings, not of races. The kings of Rome, Ravenna, and Lombardy, are the three "kings" plucked up by the Pope.

They might as well say that the Norman Conqueror subdued the three kings of "Windsor, Westminster, and Woolwich," or of London, Southwark, and Westminster."

Will they kindly give us the name of any one king, either of Rome or Ravenna, or of any Lombard sovereign who did not rule Rome, and Ravenna too?

Was there ever a ruler resident at Ravenna who did not also hold Rome, or a ruler resident at Rome who did not also possess Ravenna? The general-in-chief resided there, as the great King of Prussia did at Potsdam. Ravenna was the mere arsenal, the Woolwich of Rome. The Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities, the senate, and the councils, never quitted Rome. The garrison of Rome reported to the commander-in-chief, if staying at Ravenna. The proctors and judges of Ravenna reported to the Pontifex Maximus at Rome. The Queen may hold her Court at Windsor, or, if she chooses, at Weedon Barracks, but it is not less the same court as at St James's. Was there ever a king of Ravenna? The socalled exarch of Ravenna was the commander-in-chief of the troops occupying Rome. How could the Pontiff pluck up or subdue three kings who never existed? When was there an independent government of Ravenna, or of that part of Lombardy which now belongs to the Pope, or of Rome itself? All three have at all times obeyed one sovereign. All three formed parts of one small Roman province, not to be compared with the two counties of Surrey and Middlesex. Who was the king of Rome plucked up by the Pontiff, who was not also King of Lombardy? Surely we may ask the names of these three kings.

Our first answer will apply to this also:-The Pontificate began, as we have before shewn, between A.D. 378 and 383. Now, in A.D. 383, Ravenna was a mere garrison town, not even the residence of any officer higher than a tribune, and at no time has it ever been under a different ruler from the city of Rome. As to Lombardy, we have also shewn that the Pope had no more to do with its conquest than the women who follow the camp for plunder had with the victory of Waterloo; and that any trull who might have stolen a bottle of Burgundy from Bonaparte's carriage, might as well boast that she had subdued the Emperor. Lombardy is an Austrian kingdom won by the sword; Milan is its capital, not Rome; and the bright bayonets of the white-vested Croats glitter, and the bronzed rifles of the Tyrolese yagers gleam in its streets; and so they always will, unless dislodged by French or Russian power, or drawn off by mutual war between the German and Sclavonic races. We

assert, then, that the Papacy arose before division of the Roman Empire; that the Roman Empire has never been divided between ten Gothic kings; that it cannot, therefore, as Dr M Hale alleges, be the stone which crushed those ten kings, and which is to fill the world; but that it can as little be the one last Antichrist who is to secure universal empire, and whom all men will worship whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

But space warns us to conclude, for we have yet to compare the four beasts of Daniel, and the three of Revelation, with the prince of Dark Countenance and the wilful king. These comparisons will evolve fresh matter for consideration, and will, we trust, enable us in some degree to mark out and expose the character of our deadly foes. Let none, however, suppose that Romanism is the less to be feared by us because other Christians in other parts of the world may also have their special foe to struggle with, or that we may safely relax our exertions against her because she herself, with her forces, forms but the vanguard of Satan's army, and not the reserve with which he will make his last struggle against Christ and his Church.

If, in these remarks, the writer has assailed Mr Elliott, Mr Hislop, and Dr Keith's theories rudely, it is because he well knows that with such antagonists a combat must be waged with full force, not by half measures. The object of all is to ascertain the truth; and the talent, the erudition, and the piety, of these men renders the slightest expression of sentiment on their part so important to the welfare of others, that it is the more necessary to try well the soundness of all they say. Unlike too many writers, they are incapable of inventing facts or colouring theories; but at the same time they may, like too gallant soldiers, be misled, by their very zeal and energy, into an ambuscade, and they may also lead others. Hence, then, the writer feels that he has no option but to point out what he humbly considers the errors of those at whose feet he does not pretend to be worthy to sit.