he maintains that the predictions relating to the present crisis are of a similar nature. The practical object, then, of his work is to prepare the Christian church for the coming events; and this is done through the medium of our Lord's warning, (Rev. xvi. 15.); which, according to the scheme of relative chronology that he has adopted, is intended as an admonition for the present period.

In proceeding to make some remarks upon the interpretation here advocated, we must premise that we do not undertake to dispute the truth of Mr. Cooper's conclusions, (however extraordinary they may appear to us,) but the validity of his reasoning. Whether he be right or wrong in maintaining that Daniel prophesied of Napoleon, all we assert is, that he has not proved, or rather has misproved his point. We seriously object both to the chronological arrangement he has adopted, and to his mode of applying it to the present times.

Admitting that the prophecy is given with reference to the fortunes of the Jews in the latter days, (compare Dan. x. 14. with xii. 6-9.) and that at " the time of the end" they are to be restored to the favour of God; admitting too (what is altogether assumed,) that the 1260 years terminated in 1792;-still we see no reason why the phrase, "the time of the end" should be interpreted to mean a period rather than a date; much less why it should mean a definite and bounded period. Now on this assumption, viz., that "the time of the end” is a period of 75 years immediately succeeding the 1260 years, Mr. Cooper's whole hypothesis is founded. Yet granting all this, the mode in which he proves this period to be one of 75 years is most singular: from inspection of the 12th chapter of Daniel he concludes, that "the time of the end" is the interval between the 1260 years in ver. 7, and the 1335 in ver. 12. As well, we think, might he conclude, from the 13th verse, that Daniel would himself stand in his lot at the termination of the 1260 or 1335 years.

From verse 7, it seems natural to conclude, that the recovery of the Jews will be effected by the close of the 1260 years: whereas Mr. C. interprets it to mean, that their delivery will be accomplished by the end of the 1335 years, (pp. 3, 75.) But still more unsupported, or rather still more arbitrary, is his assignment of the era for the commencement of the Jewish restoration; which he places in the thirty-first year of his "time of the end," simply because the prophecy makes mention of a date (v. 11.) which he knows not how else to apply. It is but a continuation of this mode of argument (if argument it may be called) to place the impious king in the first thirty years of " the time of the end." That he precedes the standing up of Michael may

indeed be inferred from the expression "at that time," (Dan. xii. 1.) which immediately follows the account of his death. But that he is to appear after the completion of the 1260 years, rests merely upon the circumstance, that he is first introduced by name (xi. 35, 36,) after the mention of the "time of the end." (p. 23.) But what is there here to favour the idea that he is to rise after the end rather than in the end of the long period of persecution so often referred to? does not the abruptness with which he is introduced lead us to suppose that the prophet is not so much foretelling events subsequent to the 1260 years, as events included in them? not describing a character then first to be manifested, but one that had appeared before, and then was only developed more fully? And is not this implied in the 40th v. when, sometime after the introduction of the king, it is said, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him*?" Again: does not the same king seem alluded to in a verse preceding the mention of the "time of the end;" by the words "such as do wickedly against the covenant, shall HE corrupt by flatteries?" and if so, will not the character afterwards called the king, and here designated by the singular hè, be the same as is intended by the plural pronoun in the preceding verse," and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate?" If this be the case, the king is not an individual, but a state; and Mr. Cooper's hypothesis is overthrown from its very foundation. Again, we remind the author, we are not advocating a counter-interpretation: the question is to be decided by a balance of probabilities, and the above inquiries are only intended to point out to him the appearance of unfairness cast over his work by the omission of those circumstances in the prophecy, which militate against his own interpretation.

Admitting the force of Mr. Cooper's argument, for the individuality of the wilful king, drawn from that of the kings mentioned in an early part of the chapter; still we hardly think a fair comparison between the parts of the prophecy, would on the whole be favourable to his hypothesis. For example, the distinct and marked introduction of the first kings, (xi. 2, 3.) is strongly contrasted with the words used in speaking of the latter king: "And THE king shall do according to his will,"-words which, according to the custom of all languages, imply that the character mentioned has been before spoken of; and therefore, if an individual, must at least be a successor in a dynasty, not an isolated monarch.

*Mr. Cooper translates " in the time of the end," (p. 46.) but admitting this alteration, how tame and out of place is the phrase, on such an interpretation! whereas it is quite natural if the king appeared before, and is then to be destroyed.

It may further be observed that the history of kings and kingdoms is generally predicted in Scripture as far as connected with the fortunes of the church; and this we might suppose especially the case in a prophecy which avowedly relates to the Jewish people. Hence the kings of Persia, Greece, and Syria, are introduced, because their exploits affected the chosen race; whereas this last king (according to Mr. Cooper,) is described not so much because instrumental to the accomplishment of the divine counsels respecting the Jews, as because he is a signal of their approaching deliverance, (pp. 11, 12.) Our author indeed will tell us, that he has been made subservient to that event, (p. 26.) by chastising the apostate church; and that this chastening is implied in the words "he shall prosper till the indignation (i. e. on the apostate church) be accomplished." But surely it is much more natural to explain the phrase, by the parallel one in ch. xii. 7, of the divine indignation against the Jews: and thus the opinion above maintained against Mr. Cooper would seem to be confirmed: viz. that the king is not to appear after the 1260 years, but towards their termination. But admitting that the punishment of the Papal states is here intended, Napoleon certainly did not accomplish and complete it. He has come to his end, and they still survive. Mr. Cooper is therefore obliged to suppose some further instruments may be employed to execute the divine vengeance; and tells us that when it is said of the king, that he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished, we may understand this expression as applying not to the whole of the divine indignation, but "merely to that part or portion of it, of which he was to be the appointed minister," (p. 45;) which, if it be not a truism, is an explanation perfectly gratuitous-not to say, inconsistent with the words themselves.

But waiving all these incongruities in Mr. Cooper's interpretation, let us inquire how these divine judgments are fulfilled in the events to which he applies them. He expatiates, indeed, upon the chastisements which Napoleon inflicted on the Papal kingdoms; and terrible doubtless they were: but surely not confined to them, as he seems to consider (pp. 49, 191.) Did not Protestant Prussia suffer? did not the German Lutherans? Did not Sweden almost receive a monarch from his hands?

The correspondence, indeed, of the history of the wilful king to that of Napoleon, Mr. Cooper seems to consider as his strongest point: yet although doubtless a few very general and disjointed events in the life of that wonderful man, are also found in the prophetic description, yet even these become inconsistent with it when united; while most of those minuter

details which substantiate the validity of an interpretation, are altogether at variance with his theory. E. g. we do not understand Mr. Cooper's application of the words: "Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge." Nor do we acquiesce in his opinion. that, "the desire of women," must mean the Messiah. Nor does it appear that Napoleon" had the Libyans and Ethiopians at his steps," when he recruited his army from the Egyptians. Nor that the great fury of his going forth "to destroy and utterly to make away many" [of his enemies] is illustrated by stating that "the numbers which perished in consequence of this attack upon Palestine, of Frenchmen, Egyptians, Natives and British are calculated at not less than 50,000." Nor do we see why in mentioning the kings of the north and south, the prophet has not a reference to those introduced in the former part of the chapter: nor why the king of Spain should be in preference designated the king of the south: nor how the word pushing can signify a slight resistance, when three chapters before it means the most vehement and victorious aggression. Nor, if (as our author supposes) England, rather than Russia or Prussia, be intended for the king of the north, and the great leveller of his power, because England was "the life and soul of the last great combination by which the countries he had subdued were inundated with innumerable forces," (p. 51.) can we discover, why the same power should not be substituted for the king of the south, as making the first stand against him; for if England was the life of the last confederacy, much more was she the life of the Spanish resistance.

But the principal objection to his interpretation is as obvious as it is, in our opinion, insurmountable. True it is, Napoleon went into Egypt; was overcome by a king of the north, and came to an inglorious end: but, after all, the order in which these events are related by Daniel, is different from that in which they actually occurred in the history of the emperor. To meet this difficulty, Mr. C. maintains that there is a studied disregard of chronological order throughout the prophecy: contrary, as he himself acknowledges, to the prophet's usual practice; contrary, be it carefully observed, to the disposition of the former part of this very prophecy, to which he several times appeals in confirmation of his peculiar interpretation. (Pp. 13-17, 25, and particularly end of p. 17.)

But Mr. C.'s defence of this anomalous mode of exposition is still more singular than the exposition itself. He first reviews the structure of the prophecy; and here his principal argument is, that there is no necessity for the context of any consecutive

connection between the verses! and secondly, it is suggested, that the mention in the prophecy of Two expeditions into the Holy Land, whereas, NO DOUBT but ONE is intended, (a mere assumption,) is an evidence of inattention to the chronological order.

"It may be further remarked, (he says) that if this prophecy be strictly chronological, 'the king,' whoever he be, must make two expeditions into Palestine: the first, v. 41, then an intermediate expedition into Egypt, then a second into Palestine, v. 45. In this view, the expedition of Napoleon has certainly no connection with the prophecy for he went first into Egypt, and only once into the Holy Land." (Note, p. 59.)

A very novel and adroit way of converting a difficulty into an argument. He goes on to observe :

"Contrary to the prophet's usual practice, there is, as has been already suggested, an ambiguity, and a designed ambiguity, in this part of the prophecy. The events are not related in the order in which they would exactly occur; and as it may be conjectured, for this very reason, namely, that the meaning of the prophecy might not be prematurely disclosed, till its accomplishment should have taken place. Till the king' should have come to his end, it was not the purpose of God, that the book should be unsealed; and this designed unchronological disposition of the events related in it, seems to be the only circumstance which could have precluded such a disclosure. So clear and striking was the correspondence between the character and exploits of Napoleon, and those of the predicted king, that nothing would have prevented almost every reader of prophecy during the last twenty years, from making this application of the passage, had the account of the Egyptian expedition been inserted by the angel at the beginning, instead of the end of his description." P. 59-61.

It is really painful, and to many it may appear superfluous, to combat so weak and almost childish an array of argument. We would only remind Mr. Cooper of the extreme clearness preserved in the former part of the prophecy, in the descriptions of Xerxes, Alexander, and Antiochus; and would request him to find any reason why the description of Napoleon should be designedly ambiguous, which will not equally apply to the accurate delineations of the monarchs just mentioned *.

We do not presume to say, there can be no reason why the Divine Mind might think fit to conceal the one event, and not the other but we are arguing on probabilities, and from what

* If the passage in Josephus about Jaddæus and Alexander be authentic, the prophecies relative to Alexander were understood before the event.