horns of the beast, and again decorate that eighth head which is to be the same as one of the preceding

seven

an

II. Here I might fairly close the argument: for, on the joint authority of the fathers and Bp. Walmesley (the former pronouncing the little horn to rise SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns, and the latter rightly determining from history that the ten horns are THE TEN PRIMARY GOTHIC KINGDOMS), authority which I am sure Mr. Rutter will be the last man in the world to impugn; on this joint authority I have shewn, either that Daniel has by the event been convicted of falsehood, or that the a priori doubtful period of 1260 days must needs be interpreted as denoting a period of 1260 natural years. I consider therefore the point as settled: yet I am not unwilling, ex abundanti, to follow Mr. Rutter through his other objections; which, I suspect, will not prove more formidable than that deduced from the authority of the fathers.

This gentleman then, while he styles the protestant calculation of the period novel and groundless and arbitrary, notwithstanding it is confessedly built upon the express authority of two texts in Numbers and Ezekiel†; contends, that we must have some more direct proof, than that afforded by the texts in question, that the 1260 days denote 1260 solar years. His second objection therefore is, that

* See Rev. xvi. 13, 14. xix. 19.

+ Numb. xiv. 34. Ezek. iv. 6.

we

we have not a sufficiency of direct authority to warrant the protestant calculation *.

I might here reply, that, since the texts from Numbers and Ezekiel prove that the period may be computed mystically, and since the preceding arguinent demonstrates to every one who allows the divine inspiration of Daniel that it must be computed mystically; no one can justly say, that the protestant calculation labours under any want of direct authority but I shall endeavour, if possible, to give full satisfaction to Mr. Rutter.

1. St. John, I conceive, may be allowed without danger to act as his own interpreter, and at the same time as Daniel's interpreter also: for Romanists and Protestants are perfectly agreed, that the three times and a half end the 42 months and the 1260 days of these two prophets express one and the same period, whatever that period may be †.

* Key. p. 307.

Now

+ So fully satisfied is Bp. Walmesley on this point, that he even argues from it the necessity of computing the period literally. His argument is one of the most original, which it has been my fortune to encounter.

"There can be no real doubt," says this great expositor, "that the term of Antichrist's persecution is confined to three years and a half or 1260 days, and not extended to 1260

86

years, as some moderns have pretended with a view of calum"niating the Catholic Church. For, though, in some parti"cular places of the Scriptures, a day may be found to denote

66

a year, or a month to denote a month of years that is thirty years, or a week to signify a week of years or seven years: yet "there is no instance of a period of time mentioned in Scrip

66

Now St. John foretells a persecution of the

Church

"ture under the three denominations of years and months and days, that is not to be taken in its natural sense." Gen. Hist. p. 348, 349.

Any person, unacquainted with the Bible, would obviously conclude from this most extraordinary piece of reasoning, that nothing occurred more frequently in Holy Writ than a description of the same period under the three different denominations of years and months and days; that, wherever such a description occurred, the period so described was uniformly to be calculated according to the literal sense of the different denominations employed; and that Protestants, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture and out of pure spite to the innocent and persecuted Church of Rome, have nevertheless taken upon them to calculate mystically a single solitary period thus variously described by Daniel and St. John.

Such must evidently be the form of the learned prelate's argument, if he mean it to have any weight: and, under such a form, I freely confess, that it has very considerable weight.

But, most unfortunately for the bishop's argument, it so happens, that the period under dispute is the ONLY period in the whole Bible, which is variously set forth under the three several denominations of years and months and days. Hence, whatever may be thought of the cogency of his professed analogical reasoning, he certainly speaks an undoubted truth when he says; that, except the litigated period of 1260 days," there is NO

INSTANCE of a period of time mentioned in Scripture under "the three denominations of years and months and days, that is "not to be taken in its natural sense.” He may safely defy the most malignant heretic to produce any SECOND INSTANCE: yet protestant pravity will be apt to suspect, that this most notable argument was framed for the benefit of those, who are not much in the habit of reading their Bible; of those, from whom the Catholic Church would piously withhold the sacred books on the laudably cautious principle, as Mr. Rutter happily

remarks

Church of Smyrna, which should last ten days * What then are we to understand by this period? Will Mr. Rutter maintain, that the days are only ten natural days: or will he allow, that they are ten mystical days equivalent to ten natural years? He will adopt, I presume, the latter mode of computation; and will pronounce the oracle to have been accomplished in that famous persecution of ten solar years, which is recorded by Eusebius, Lactantius, and Orosius t. But, if the predicted event thus early demonstrated St. John's prophetic days to be natural years: we have as direct a proof (furnished by the book itself), as the professedly enigmatical nature of prophecy could allow; that, since his ten days are ten years, so analogically and homogeneously his 1260 days are 1260 years.

2. To this may be added that internal proof, which springs from the very necessity of the case.

The slain apocalyptic witnesses lie dead in the letter no more than three days and a half. But, in this very brief period, the joyful intelligence is spread throughout all the peoples and kindreds and tongues and nations, which own the supremacy of the great Babylonic harlot : and they not only find time to

remarks in opposition to the profane labours of the Bible-Society, that we ought not to throw pearls to swine. See the argument for extinguishing the noxious light of the Gospel drawn out with much logical precision in Key. p. 208, 209.

* Rev. ii. 10.

+ Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. viii. c. 15, 16. Lactan. de mort. persec. c. 48. Ores. lib. vii. c. 25. p. 528.

Compare Rev, xi. 9. with xvii. 15.

receive this intelligence; but, still during the same brief period, they contrive to make merry and to send gifts to one another *. Now, unless the mechanical ingenuity of Mr. Rutter can contrive some yet more expeditious mode of conveying news than the too tardy modern telegraph, he must acknowledge the physical impossibility of crowding such transactions within the narrow compass of three literal days and a half, the time set forth by the prophet. But, if these days plainly cannot be literal days, they must be mystical days: and, if they are mystical days, then, by every rule of good composition, the 1260 days must be mystical days also; because, in the self-same continued narrative, the two witnesses are said to lie dead three days and a half and to prophesy twelve hundred and sixty days clothed in sackcloth. Doubtless, of whatever sort of days the smaller period is composed, of that same sort must also be composed the larger period.

3. After all, since I wish (as in duty bound) to shew all possible deference to the celebrated comment of Bp. Walmesley: let us hear the decision of this oracle of the Romish Church; a decision, to which Mr. Rutter, as an orthodox catholic, cannot reasonably object.

Bp. Walmesley then, otherwise known by the warname of Signor Pastorini, teaches us, that, by the apocalyptic locusts which issue from the bottomless pit, we are doubtless to understand the protestants

* Rev. xi. 9, 10.

who