whatever sway the Papacy might bear in spirituals, it most assuredly was never the secular head of the Roman Empire; in the same manner as Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Consular Tribunes, and Emperors, were successively its secular heads.

St. John gives us no reason to suppose, that the predicted seventh and eighth forms of Roman government would differ from their predecessors, save as one secular polity may differ from another secular polity; that is to say, save as one of their predecessors differed from another of their predecessors. Hence we have no right to conclude, that the seventh and eighth forms will differ from their six predecessors, more than those six predecessors mutually differed from each other: in other words, we are required to suppose, that all the eight agree in being secular forms, though they may or rather must (for otherwise there could not be eight distinct forms) disagree in their politi

cal constitution.

But the mode, in which Daniel speaks of the eleventh horn is the very opposite to that which is adopted by St. John. As if aware, that any reasonable commentator would conclude the eleventh little horn to be the same in kind with the ten larger horns, however inferior it might be in magnitude: he carefully informs us, that it "shall be DIVERSE from the first;" and he plainly points out the ground of its diversity, by saying, that it had eyes like the eyes of a man," or (as Sir Isaac Newton excellently remarks) that it was an episcopus or an overlooker or a seer or a bishop. Dan. vii. 24, 8.

Yet, notwithstanding this marked difference in the language of the two prophets, and notwithstanding the place of the ittle horn in Daniel is so manifestly occupied by the false prophet or the harlot in St. John; the error of identifying the little horn of Daniel's beast and the last head of St. John's beast has been almost universal among protestant expositors.

There

Therefore the Papacy cannot be intended by the last form of Roman government *.

III. Thus convinced that in this particular protestant interpretation has been radically erroneous, I was led to seek in history for the rise of a Roman form of government, which should answer to the successive seventh and eighth kings viewed as jointly constituting the single seventh head: and this I supposed myself to find in the short-lived Carlovingian Patriciate soon merging in the Carlovingian Emperorship.

Bp. Newton, who adopted the usual protestant opinion that the last form of Roman government was the Papacy, and who yet could not refrain from seeing (what history so clearly evinces) that the Carlovingian Emperorship was one of the seven heads, maintains, that that Emperorship is but the Augustan Emperorship revived: so that the Augustan Emperorship in Italy, the Constantinian Emperorship in Greece, and the Carlovingian Emperorship in the Western Empire, constitute jointly that, single sixth or Imperial head of the wild beast, which in the days of St. John had recently begun to exist t.

To this I objected the political dissimilarity between the Carloviugian Emperorship and the Augustan Emperorship: whence I argued, that, while they were the same in name, each individual prince

* See this point fully established above chap. x. sect. 3. + Newton's Dissert. on the Proph. Dissert. xxv. vol. iii. p. 211.

of

of the two lines being styled alike Emperor of the Romans, they were different in constitution; so that, notwithstanding the identity of title, they might be viewed as two distinct heads.

Having thus arranged the prophetic last form of Roman government, and having observed that it was of an ambulatory nature because it had passed from the kingdom of France to the kingdom of Germany; I argued, that, when the title of Roman Emperor was formally abdicated by the chief of the house of Austria, the last form of government did but return to France where it had previously existed under the administration of the Carlovingian princes. Hence I supposed it to follow, that, ever since the seventh day of August in the year 1806 when the Austrian archduke renounced the title of Emperor of the Romans; the military chief of the French Empire, then nearly identified with the old Western Empire, had been the representative of the last head of the Roman wild beast *.

1. I was long without perceiving any objection to this arrangement: but, in the autumn of the year 1815, an intelligent friend started a difficulty, which had been overlooked both by myself and by those numerous persons who have honoured my work with objurgatory criticism. The difficulty was this.

To constitute a prince, during the middle and modern ages, a proper representative of what I denominated the feudal Carlovingian head; he must

* See above chap. x. sect. 3.

plainly

plainly be either the real head of the Western Empire, in point of solid power; or the nominal and prophetic head, by virtue of his being recognized as the legitimate successor of the Carlovingian Emperors, and of his thence bearing (with whatever diminished authority) the official title of Roman Emperor.

If the first of these opinions be maintained: then Napoleon Buonapartè could not have BECOME the representative of the last head, in consequence of the mere cession of an empty title on the part of the Austrian archduke; because he was ALREADY the representative of that last head, by virtue of his being by far the most powerful prince of the Western Empire previous to the cession of the title on the part of Austria. But then, on the same ground, Louis XIV. must equally have been the representative of the last Roman head long before Napoleon was born; because he was undoubtedly a much more powerful prince than the titular Emperor of the Romans.

On the other hand, if the second of these opinions be maintained; that is to say, if it be maintained, that the true representative of the last head is the sovereign who bears and is recognized by the title of Roman Emperor: then Napoleon Buonapartè can just as little have BECOME the representative of the last head, in consequence of the cession of the title on the part of the Austrian archduke; because it was necessary, not only that the Austrian archduke should cede it, but that Napoleon should assume it.

Now

Now Napoleon never DID assume it. Therefore, although the Austrian archduke CEASED to be the representative of the last head; because he FORMALLY ABDICATED the official title of Roman Emperor: Napoleon did not BECOME the representative of that head; because he NEVER ASSUMED the official title in question.

2. I need scarcely say, that the second of these opinions was that, which I maintained: for I was compelled to maintain it by the general harmony and concinnity of prophecy.

If the Roman Augustulus and the last Byzantine Constantine were respectively representatives of the sixth head, which no doubt they were, even when their sovereignty was confined to the walls of Rome and Constantinople, and when their style of Roman Emperor was a mere title so far as any authority over the Roman Empire was concerned: then, by a parity of reasoning, if the Carlovingian Emperorship were the last head; the direct successor of Charlemagne, who was denominated and recognized as the legitimate Emperor of the Romans, must plainly have been the representative of the last head, however inferior his solid power within the limits of the Roman Empire might be to that of Charle

magne.

7

Hence, if I cannot make my cause good when argued on the ground of this second opinion, I must needs relinquish it as untenable.

3. Ample time has now been taken by me to consider the objection, which has been so forcibly urged

by