silence, admits the accordance of every feature, save one or two at the most; and the objections on these are such as a child might answer. Therefore" there is no reason whatsoever for believing it." But the two little horns, out of ten or twelve features in each, have three or four in common. Therefore, although the Fathers, Romanists and Protestants, have almost without exception held them to be distinct, their identity is to be assumed as nearly self-evident, and made the basis of the whole scheme of exposition!

But let us examine the argument for this identity, as Dr. Todd presents it in his third Lecture. First, he counts seven characters of the little horn of the fourth beast-diverseness from the other kings, blasphemy, destruction because of blasphemy, persecution of the saints, continuance for three times and a half, changing of times and laws, and consumption at the second advent. Next, he traces the marks of correspondence in the second little horn. It waxed great in three directions, as the first subdues three kings; it magnifies itself against the prince of the host-a mark of blasphemy; "the last end of the indignation is plainly spoken of as the period when its kingdom shall come to an end." "There can be no question that persecution of the saints is ascribed to him," when it is said, "By him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary cast down ;" and this is made still more unequivocal by the words, "He shall destroy the mighty and the holy people." "From these considerations (Dr. Todd infers) it would seem that the same persecuting power is intended in both prophecies; for it is not to be supposed without good reason, that two powers so exactly similar should exist together, perform the same actions, and meet with the same destruction."

A more exact analysis of the visions will show at once the weakness and futility of this argument.

1. First, the account of the first horn involves at least ten particulars: its rise from the fourth beast; its co-existence with ten kings, and its subjugation of three; its eyes as of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and its judgment by the Ancient of days; diverseness from the other kings; blasphemy against God; persecution of the saints; changing of times and laws; and continuance for a time, times, and dividing of a time.

2. Next, the description of the second horn also includes at least twelve particulars: its rise from the hegoat, or Grecian empire, in one of its four divisions; its great increase of size and power, and the three directions of its conquests; its trampling on the stars of heaven; its opposition to the prince of the host; removal of the sacrifice and casting down of the sanctuary; the time, two thousand three hundred days, of its continuance, or of some related events; its might, not by its own power; its fierceness of countenance; its understanding of dark sentences; its triumph by policy; and its destruction without hand.

3. The correspondence, then, of four characters, out of ten on one side and twelve on the other, is the proof of identity on which Dr. Todd relies. By such an argument almost any two reigning monarchs of the present time might be proved to be the same. This meagre and scanty proof is, however, in reality, more shadowy still.

(1). Two of the common features named are persecution of the saints and blasphemy. But these have applied to at least fifty characters well known in history, and may apply to fifty more. As a proof of identity they are quite worthless.

(2). A third mark of sameness alleged is, that the first horn subdues three kings, and the second waxes great in three directions. To subdue three kings, however, out of ten, and to wax great in three directions out

of four, will seem, to most plain understandings, a proof of diversity rather than of sameness.

(3). The fourth correspondence alleged is, destruction at the second advent. Now, if this were certainly true, the identity supposed would by no means follow; since at that time "the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold, are broken to pieces together." But the proof of the fact, in the case of the second horn, is entirely wanting. First, the last end of the indignation is assumed to be synonymous with the judgment of the Ancient of days. But the phrase is properly "the future time of the indignation," and plainly denotes the season of vengeance and desolation of the Jews (Isaiah x. 5, 20-25, xii. 1; Dan. xi. 30, 36). Again, the words, "he shall be broken without hand," would clearly have applied to the fall of Pharaoh, or Sennacherib, or Herod ; and cannot therefore prove the time to be that of the second advent.

(4). Further, the persecution even of the saints by the second horn is asserted on insufficient grounds. Titus, it is plain, took away the daily sacrifice, and cast down the sanctuary; but this did not constitute him a persecutor of the saints, who thereby were relieved from persecution rather than persecuted. The words, "he shall destroy the mighty," are not less inapplicable. And even those," he shall destroy the people of the holy ones," may be applied, with at least equal probability, to the Jewish nation, in contrast with Christian believers.

(5). Lastly, the marks of distinction, when collected, seem greatly to outweigh the points of resemblance. The first arises from the fourth, which has been proved to be the Roman empire; the second from the third empire, or that of Greece. The first co-exists with ten horns in the same political body; the second with three

G

at the most. The first continues little; the second waxes great. The first is symbolized with eyes and a mouth; no such emblems appear in the other. The first has no express connexion with the land of Israel; the second waxes great towards the pleasant land, and casts down the sanctuary. The season of the first is three times and an half; of the second, if any be expressed, one quite distinct. The second alone is said to cast down the stars of heaven, or to be mighty by a power not its own. And it must be remembered that, in this kind of argument, one clear mark of difference has more weight to prove the distinctness of the objects compared, than twenty resemblances to prove their sameness.

It seems a waste of time to refute at length Dr. Todd's strange notion, that the four horns of the goat are the same with the four beasts of the previous chapter. Not to speak of its utter violation of all symbolical congruity, and of that law of successive development which runs through these divine prophecies, it is already refuted by the proof I have given that the four beasts rule in succession, and involves other absurdities of the most evident kind.

From the whole of this inquiry it appears that nothing can be more futile than Dr. Todd's attempt to disprove the common interpretation of the fourth empire, by assuming the identity of the two little horns. The reasoning of Mr. Faber, which he condemns, is quite legitimate; the argument which he would substitute himself makes a false and groundless assumption the lever with which to overthrow a clear and well established truth.

IV. THE PROPHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF KINGS.

This subject, in the natural order of discussion, would come later; but as I wish to leave no unanswered ob

jection behind me, and Dr. Todd has applied it to perplex the meaning of the vision of the ram, I prefer to examine it here before proceeding to the next prophecy. It may be useful also to show already, that even where Protestant writers deviate from several authorities in the early Church, and have most of the Futurists and Romanists united against them, both reason and Scripture evidence may prove sometimes to be clearly on their side.

The objection is urged by Mr. Burgh and Mr. Tyso, as well as Dr. Todd. Not to disguise its force, I quote their remarks at length. Mr. Burgh writes as follows:

“From this difficulty, attention to the wording of the vision would have saved them, as it is said 'in the days of these kings,' not kingdoms. It will be said, does not a king imply a kingdom? Yes, but with this difference, that ten kingdoms might co-exist for many generations beyond the lifetime of the ten kings who first ruled them; while, if the days of these kings be specified, then are the kingdoms established and destroyed under the same kings, and within one generation. A most important distinction this, and still plainer in the Apocalypse; but even here we have proof that king and kingdom are not equivalent; for was it to Babylon as a kingdom that the head of the image applied? No, but to Nebuchadnezzar, the then king, and the kingdom only as under him Thou art this head of gold'" (Lect. Adv. p. 102).

The passage is curious, from the confidence with which Mr. Burgh would prove other commentators to be wrong, by an argument which irrefragably proves them to be right. But let us next hear Mr. Tyso:

"The ten horns pertaining to the beast seen by John cannot be kingdoms. The interpreting angel says, "They are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet.' It is very indecorous for a fallible man to contradict an angel, or so to interpret his words as to make him talk nonsense; and where is the sense of saying they are ten kingdoms, which have received no kingdom as yet ?"

It is equally indecorous for Mr. Tyso to represent