which the Roman kingdom was successively to subsist. With respect to the first six of these forms no difference of opinion appears to obtain among writers of authority. It is agreed that the five, which in verse 10 are declared to be fallen, were, 1. kings, 2. consuls, 3. dictators, 4. decemvirs, 5. military tribunes with consular authority, and that the sixth, which was in existence at the time of the Apostle, was the imperial government of the Cæsars.*

* I have considered the objections to this interpretation of the seven heads, which are stated in the review of my work by the Investigator, Vol. I. pp. 351-2, but without conviction of their solidity. The Reviewer appears to have failed to perceive that the seven heads of the Beast have two distinct significations. 1st. They symbolize the seven mountains, where the Woman sitteth, i. e. the seven hills of Rome. 2dly. They signify seven kings. Now, admitting for a moment for argument's sake, that these seven kings may denote seven principal European kingdoms, which were the great pillars of the Church, (an interpretation which many years ago suggested itself to my own mind, but was rejected for want of evidence.) Supposing further, that these kingdoms might be, 1st, Germany; 2d, France; 3d, Spain; 4th, Portugal; 5th, Sardinia; 6th, Naples; 7th, England; we shall at once see that this hypothesis attributes to the seven heads Regal power, after the symbol denoting regal power, viz., 'the diadem, is removed from them and transferred to the ten horns. In other words, this hypothesis flatly contradicts the meaning of the symbols, and is, therefore, altogether untenable.

I have also carefully examined, and for equally strong reasons must reject another scheme, which makes the Beast of the Apocalypse a symbol of the whole of the kingdoms that have oppressed the Church in every age, and explains his heads as denoting, 1st, Egypt; 2d, Assyria; 3d, Babylon; 4th, Persia; 5th, Greece; 6th, Rome; 7th, Constantinople, or eastern Rome; 8th, Rome revived. To this scheme it appears to me to be an unanswerable objection, that the Beast, as a symbol, being a

There is, however, a great diversity of sentiment with respect to the seventh form of government, and likewise the eighth, which is emphatically declared to be the Beast that was, and is not, and yet is. In order to arrive at a successful elucidation of this most difficult point of Apocalyptical interpretation, it is necessary for us, in the first place, to consider the abstract signification of the symbols. The Dragon of the 12th chapter, with seven heads and ten horns, is, as already observed, Satan himself, embodied and reigning in the Roman empire. His seven heads are adorned with diadems, the symbols of Imperial power. Now, since in nature, all animals have but one head therefore, in symbols the head living animal, must be understood to possess an individuality of Animal existence; consequently the power or empire which he represents must possess an individuality of Political existence. On the other hand, the image of Nebuchadnezzar being without life, and its parts or members being capable of existing separately from each other, the various members of this dead image may, without any violence to natural probabilities, be made the symbols of a succession of different empires, existing at various periods of the world.

The able writer of the review in question, may therefore be assured, that it is not without the deepest consideration of the question in all its bearings, that I have preferred the common interpretation of the seven heads. Moreover, the Reviewer cannot deny, that seven successive forms of government in one and the same Empire, are capable of being signified by symbols, and let him choose, in the whole vocabulary of symbols, and I presume he will find only two which can be applied to such changes in the form of supreme rule. They must either be expressed by a succession of heads, or of horns. Now I have in the paragraphs which follow given conclusive reasons to show, that the first of these is the proper symbol for such political changes, in the form of government.

naturally signifies single and undivided sovereignty. Accordingly, it is plain from the words of chap. xvii. 10, already quoted, that the seven heads are the emblems of seven successive sovereignties, under which, the Empire was to subsist in an undivided state.

In chapter xiii. 1, the Beast rises from the sea, having, in like manner, seven heads and ten horns, and the Dragon gives to him his power and his throne. The diadems are, however, no longer on the heads but are transferred to the ten horns. Therefore, since in nature, it is common to all horned animals (of our hemisphere at least) to have a plurality of horns, it is plain, that in symbols, a plurality of horns are the natural emblems of a plurality of coexisting and distinct sovereignties, in one Empire, or body politic; and we hence infer, that the ten horns with diadems, are the symbols of the division of the power of the Beast among ten cotemporary kingdoms, and that the power of the seven heads, has, at the time when the Beast rises from the sea, disappeared for ever.

* The four heads of the Grecian leopard, Dan. vii. 6, probably form an exception, to this canon. But as the rule itself has its foundation in nature, and its application to the history of the Beast, is confirmed by the language of Rev. xvii. 10, 11, the foregoing exception does not affect its validity. I may add, that Mr. Faber, in his Sacred Calendar, interprets the heads of the Leopard as having relation to four successive forms of rule, in the Grecian kingdom, and, therefore, in strict harmony with the above canon. I, however, do not feel sufficient confidence in the soundness of Mr. Faber's interpretation of these four heads, to rest upon it any argument.

Thus we learn, simply from the consideration of the symbols, in the abstract, that the Roman empire was to exist under seven successive forms of undivided sovereignty; and an eighth or decemregal form, of ten cotemporary kingdoms. Moreover, it is evident, that we must account for the whole of the seven forms, indicated by the heads with diadems, before the rise of the decemregal form, signified by the ten horns with diadems; for this is necessarily implied, by both the order of the symbols, in chap. xii. and xiii., and by the words of chap. xvii. 10, 11. "There are seven kings, five

66

are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come, and "the beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth.” Now, as it is with the revived Beast or the eighth form, that the ten horns receive power, it is selfevident, that their reign is posterior in time, to that of the whole seven heads.

We have already observed, that among writers of authority, no difference of opinion exists as to the first six forms of the Roman sovereignty.*

* Mr. Faber is now, though not when my former editions appeared, an exception to this remark. He maintains, that the Triumvirate was the sixth head of the Beast, and that the Imperial form was simply a revival of the first or kingly power. The arguments of the learned author will be found in his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, B. v. Chap. iv. The former assertion, that the Triumvirate was a distinct head of power, is not new. The point was fully argued by Dr. H. More, more than a century ago, in his Synopsis Prophetica, Book I. chap. xvi. Works, p. 601. He observes that Tacitus "when he reckons up the forms of Supreme power in the Roman state, declines the mentioning of any such Triumvirate. Urbem Romanam a principio Reges habuere, Libertatem et Consulatum L. Brutus instituit: Dictaturæ ad tempus sumebantur, neque Decemviralis

With respect to the seventh and eighth forms, the interpretation offered in the first edition of this Work, was, that the French Imperial Government of Napoleon Bonaparte constituted the seventh

potestas ultra Biennium, neque Tribunorum militum Consulare jus diu valuit, which manner of speech implies, that he would not leave out any of the forms of Supreme government, though of never so short a continuance, if sufficiently distinct from others. But now when he falls on those times wherein this Triumviratus Reipublicæ constituenda was to be noted, he runs over it, so as not to be taken notice of, going on only in this manner. Non Cinna non Sulla longa dominatio et Pompeii Crassique potentia cito in Cæsarem, (which Cinna was only consul, Sulla first consul and then dictator, and Pompey and Crassus, consuls or proconsuls, and no more). But now where is the very nick of naming this Triumviratus Reipublicæ constituendæ, he only adds, Lepidi et Antonii arma in Augustum cessere qui cuncta discordiis civilibus fessa nomine Principis sub Imperium cepit." Having added some further remarks, Dr. More next says, "And, therefore, Fenestella (de Magist. Roman. cap. xxii.) though he first speaks doubtfully of this Triumvirate, Utrum Potestatibus enumerandum censuerim haud satis scio," yet, presently he recovers himself and speaks more definitively. Quippe quod eas Potestates quas injussu præterque Senatus authoritatem quisque non dicam sortitus fuerit, sed per libidinem dominandi arripuerit, Tyrannides potius quàm potestates seu magistratus adduxerim." Dr. More, however, further shows, that the historian Suetonius considers the Triumvirate of Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius, to be only the first part of the reign of the last, as Emperor. Atque ab eo tempore exercitibus comparatis primum cum Marco Antonio, Marcoque Lepido, dein tantùm cum Antonio per duodecim ferè annos, novissimè per quatuor et quadraginta solus Rempublicam tenuit, upon which Nauclerus thus comments, Regnavit annis quinquaginta sex, duodecim cum Antonio et Lepido, solus verò quadraginta quatuor, and, adds Dr. More, "Chronologers, as

66