EVERY ONE THAT SHALL BE FOUND WRITTEN IN THE BOOK *.

May the name of the great protestant and maritime nation of Britain, now engaged in assiduously sending bibles and missionaries to every quarter of the globe, be found written in that same mystic volume of Godt!

* Dan. xi. 40-45. xii. 1.

+ Mr. Cuninghame, in the first edition of his Dissertation on the Apocalypse, threw out the following brief conjecture respecting the seventh and eighth forms of Roman government.

"The sixth head continued till the subversion of the German "Empire and the extinction of all the imperial titles of Rome, "in the year 1806. Since that period, Napoleon Buonapartè, "Emperor of the French, King of Italy, and Protector of the "Confederation of the Rhine, has been the acknowledged head "of the beast: and, if I mistake not, this is the seventh king 66 or form of government, which was not come when the apostle "saw the beast with the harlot seated on his back. This is a "new form of government, quite distinct from the sixth head, "inasmuch as at the present time the imperial titles of Rome "are not in existence; they are extinct. The eighth king, or "form of government, is, I apprehend, still future. Things "seem to be preparing for this last form of the Roman Empire. "The present head of the beast evidently aims at the re-estab

lishment of the Roman Empire in all its pristine vigour and "splendour; and perhaps may assume, at no distant period, "the now extinct title and pretensions of Cesar Augustus "emperor of the Romans, and thus unequivocally identify him"self with the Roman Empire. This seems the most probable "explanation of the expression, the beast, that was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven. He is not really a "new form of the beast, but one of the preceding seven re"vived; namely, the sixth." Dissert. on the Apoc. p. 356 -358.

ઃઃ

Respecting

Respecting the characteristic marks of the seventh head, Mr. Cuninghame is wholly silent; nor does he enter into the subject beyond the limits of the preceding quotation. I likewise conceive him to be mistaken in his supposition, that the head slain by the sword was the sixth head; for it was most assuredly the seventh and, on this principle, I of course deem him to be also mistaken in his conjecture, that the eighth form will be a revival of the sixth. The conjecture no doubt follows from his view of the matter; because, assuredly, the same head, that was slain by the sword, must likewise revive: but, if the slain head be the seventh and not the sixth; then the deadly wound must be healed by the revival, not of the sixth, but of the seventh.

Happy however in the main, as was the brief hint thrown out by Mr. Cuninghame in his first edition; instead of correcting the errors with which it stands associated, and instead of prosecuting it as it ought to have been prosecuted, he rejects, in his second edition, the whole idea as decidedly and intrinsically erroneous: that is to say, he discards a peculiarly felicitous conjecture at the very time when events have demonstrated it to be true, so far at least as its grand outlines are concerned. The consequence is, that this ingenious and able expositor now sets forth, as his oripas portides, a tissue of contradictions so glaring, that I can only wonder how his general acuteness could have suffered them to pass from him without dissatisfaction His present theory is as follows.

The sixth head is the Pagan Roman Emperorship from Augustus to Constantine: the short-lived seventh head is the Christian Roman Emperorship from Constantine to Augustulus, the last of the western Cesars. This seventh head was slain by the sword, when the imperial dignity in the West was extinguished by the Heruli and Turingi: and it was healed by the restoration of the Western Empire in the person of Charlemagne. But this revived seventh head ceased to exist; when, in the year 1806, the Christian Roman Emperorship of Charlemagne was abolished. What then is that eighth form of government, which is to follow the seventh, and which is to identify

itself with some one of the preceding seven heads? It is, if we may credit Mr. Cuninghame, "a sort of complex sovereignty, consisting, not of the ten regal horns alone, nor of the em

66

perors alone; but of the two taken together, forming one "federal system, and united by a community of religion and "civil polity." The existence of this eighth form we have witnessed, ever since the fall of the revived seventh head in the year 1806. When, in that year, the sovereign of Austria was compelled" formally to resign the imperial titles of Rome;

then, for the first time since its origin in the person of "Augustus, the title of Emperor of the Romans became "totally extinct. From that date till the abdication of Napo

leon Buonapartè in the year 1814, the imperial power of the "West, though without its titles, appears substantially to have "rested in his person. Since, his fall to the present moment, "the ten regal horns have reigned WITHOUT ANY SUPERIOR 66 CO-EXISTING POWER WHICH CAN BE VIEWED AS REPRE 66 SENTING THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY." Dissert. p. 163–171, 2d Edit.

I would particularly direct the attention to the winding up of this theory. Mr. Cuninghame clearly perceives, as every man must perceive, that the Roman Empire now exists WITH Our any superior dominant government, which may fitly be deemed its HEAD: in other words, it is now, for the first time, since the days of Romulus, in a HEADLESS condition. Yet does the learned expositor pitch upon this identical period of HEADLESSNESS, as the period appropriated for the eighth form of Roman government under which it is to go into perdition. I readily allow, that this headless state of the Empire might have been meant by the Spirit of prophecy as the eighth form of Roman government, if that Spirit had declared that it should be PALPABLY DIFFERENT from all the preceding seven forms: but the accurate language of the apostle pronounces, that the very reverse should be the case. When the eighth form comes, it is not to be DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT from its seven predecessors; but it is to be THE SAME as some one of them.

The eighth," says the interpreting angel, “is of the seven :"

so that, although the beast chronologically subsists under eight successive forms; he really subsists only under seven, the eighth being no other than one of its seven predecessors revived. Such is the view, which Mr. Cuninghame himself most justly took of the apostolic language in his first edition: and there cannot be a doubt of its accuracy; for, on any other interpretation, the beast is made to have eight distinct heads, whereas he is positively declared to have no more than seven. Omitting then minor objections to Mr. Cuninghame's present theory, I would ask him, with which of the seven heads of the Roman Empire does he identify his supposed eighth form of Roman government? This eighth form, he tells us, is "a sort of com"plex sovereignty, consisting, not of the ten regal horns alone, nor of the emperors alone; but of the two taken together, 66 forming one federal system:" and the seven heads he maintains to be, Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, Pagan Emperors, and Christian Emperors. With which of these enumerated seven heads does he identify his imagined eighth form? At present, as he truly remarks, "the ten regal "horns are reigning without any superior co-existing power "which can be viewed as representing the imperial dignity." Yet is this confessedly HEADLESS state of the Empire pronounced, to be that eighth form of government, which should be one of the seven HEADS revived.

It may be proper to remark, that these Dissertations had been written and sent to the press without my having any recollection of Mr. Cunninghame's theory relative to the seventh and eighth forms of Roman government, as expressed in the first edition of his work. A considerable time had elapsed since I read his Treatise, and my attention had been subsequently directed to entirely different studies. The recent publication of his second edition led me to discover, that he had once advocated an interpretation which he has since injudiciously re- jected,

DISSER

DISSERTATION II.

Respecting the death of the apocalyptic witnesses.

MANY eminent men, among whom was the late Bp. Horsley*, have supposed, that the death of the two apocalyptic witnesses is still future. To this idea they seem chiefly to have been led, from thinking, that no past event has occurred of a sufficiently explicit or important nature to come up to the terms of the prophecy.

It may not be inexpedient in this place to give a view of the arguments on each side of the question, and then leave it to be 'finally determined by historical futurity. I am the more inclined to enter a little on the subject; because my last discussion has brought out an argument in favour of the opinion, that the predicted death of the witnesses has not yet been accomplished: and, though I am by no means convinced that I have erred in my exposition of the prophecy respecting them and therefore do not at present see any reason to retract it; yet I hold it

* As he informed me in a private conversation which I had with him on this subject.

dishonest