been confuted before the event. Mr. Mann's assertion I do not contradict, but I doubt whether he has not greatly mistaken the nature of Justinian's grant. Phocas declared the Pope to be at once head of all the churches which is a title of dignity, and sole universal bishop which is a title of authority: whereas Justinian conferred upon him only the first of these titles, styling at the very same time the patriarch of Constantinople head of all other churches.* A comparison is accordingly drawn very judiciously by Brightman between the grant of Justinian and the grant of Phocas: in which he states, that the former only gave the Pope precedence over all other bishops, and did not, like the latter exclusively, constitute him Universal Bishop.† Upon examining the passage in the Novella to which he refers, I find him perfectly accurate. The Emperor is simply laying down the precedency of the different patriarchs and prelates throughout his dominions. Of these, the patriarchs come first; next, the archbishops; and last, the bishops and, of the patriarchs, the first place is assigned to Rome; and the second, to Constantinople.+ Thus it appears, that the supposed grant of universal episcopacy dwindles into a mere question of empty precedency. Indeed had Gregory himself borne the title of Universal Bishop, or had it been generally borne by his predecessors, he could not, in common decency, have cen

the year 1800, but had not yet been enthroned at Rome: we have since beheld Popery formally reestablished in France, and a compact entered into between the present usurper of the throne of the Bourbons and the sovereign pontiff.

* “Omnium aliarum caput." This plainly shews, that in the mind of Justinian both the titles were mere titles. Head of all the churches, and Head of all the other sburches, remind one of Primate of all England, and Primate of England. The two first as little confer universal episcopacy in the Roman empire, as the two last do in our own country. Nay even the title of Ecumenical seems to have been borne both by the patriarch of Constantinople and by the other eastern patriarchs; and consequently, when borne by more than one, was a mere title. Phocas was the first, who gave it exclusively to the Pope, and forbad all other prelates to assume it.

↑ "Anno 606 to, — hic (Phocas) Bonifacio III. concessit, ut Romanis Universalis Episcopus haberetur: non solum ut ordine ac honore reliquos antecederet, uti decrevit Justinianus primatum sacrarum synodorum definiens, sed cuitotus orbis sua diœcesis foret." Apoc. Apoc. Fol. 205.

"Sancimus, secundum earum (scil. sacrarum synodorum) definitiones, sanctissimum senioris Romæ Papam primum esse omnium sacerdotum : beatissimum autem archiepiscopum Constantinopoleos novæ Romæ secundum habere locum post sanctam apostolicam senioris Romæ sedem: aliis autem omnibus sedibus præponatur.” Justin. Novell. Tit. 14. Constitut. cxxxi. Cap. 2.

sured his Byzantine brother as the precursor of Antichrist for assuming it. In addition to this reason, the prophetic tests afford the same insurmountable objection to the date proposed by Mr. Mann as they have already afforded to those proposed by Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton. No desolating transgression connected with the little horn of the he-horn arose in the years 533 and 534; nor will either of those years bear to be checked by any of the numbers which the different readings assign to the larger period. It is somewhat remarkable, that, although Bp. Newton acknowledges that "the religion of Mohammed will prevail in the East for as long a period of time as the tyranny of the little horn in the West," and although he is struck with the wonderful coincidence of "Mohammed's having first contrived his imposture in the year 606, the very same year wherein the tyrant Phocas made a grant of the supremacy to the Pope;" yet he is unwilling to date the 1260 years from that era, merely because the Pope did not attain to the height of his temporal dominion till the eighth century. The saints however were given into his hand, not surely by the grant of the Exarchate and the kingdom of Lombardy which in itself conveys not an atom of catholic spiritual power in the Church, but by constituting him supreme in ecclesiastical matters by making him a Bishop of all other Bishops and the prophet expressly informs us, that the 1260 years are to be dated from the era, when the saints were thus given into his hand.†

*Dissert. xvii. "A time times and a half are three prophetic years and a half; and three prophetic years and a half are 1260 prophetic days; and 1260 prophetic days are 1260 years. The same time therefore is prefixed for the desolation and oppression of the eastern church, as for the tyranny of the little born in the western church : and it is wonderfully remarkable, that the doctrine of Mohammed was first forged at Mecca, and the supremacy of the Pope was established by virtue of a grant from the wicked tyrant Phocas, in the very same year of Christ 606." Ibid.

† Mr. Bicheno has proposed a scheme differing both from mine, and from those of all the preceding authors.-He supposes, that the 1260 years are to be computed from the year 529, when the code of Justinian, which he styles the strong bold of clerical tyranny, was first published. They terminated consequently in the year 1789, when the French revolution took place. To the 1260 years thus commencing he adds 30 years, in order to complete Daniel's 1290 years. This second operation brings us down to the year 1819; at which period he conceives that the antichristian powers (against whom the judgments of God began to go forth at the close of the 1260 years in the year 1789) will be finally broken, and that the restoration of the Jews will commence. From the year 1819, when the sanctuary will be completely cleansed by

The result of the whole is, that, since the year 606 is the only era which perfectly answers to the prophetic

the overthrow of the Papacy which he assumes to be the desolating transgression mentioned in Dan. viii. 13. and xii. 11, he next computes backwards 2300 years, in order to arrive at the beginning of the vision of the ram and the be-goat. This third operation brings us to the year A. C. 481; at which period Xerxes set out to invade Greece, for Mr. Bicheno supposes that the wars of that prince are foretold in Dan. viii. 4, 20.- Lastly to the 1290 years, terminating in the year 1819, he adds 45 years, in order to complete Daniel's 1335 years. This final operation brings us down to the year 1864; when the restoration of the Jews (to which he assigns the space of 45 years) will be completed, and when the distant heathen nations will be converted to Christianity. (Signs of the times Part I. p. 52—61.)

I feel some degree of unwillingness to urge any objections against this scheme of Mr. Bicheno; because so very short a space of time, about 13 years only, will either practically demonstrate it to be right (at least so far as the restoration of the Jews is concerned,) or effectually preclude the necessity of any verbal confutation. With my present views of the subject, it certainly appears to me erroneous in every point; and it is my firm belief that the rapidly approaching year 1819 will prove it to be so.-I first object to the era, from which the 1260 years are computed. The Justinian code, says Mr. Bicheno, granted vast powers and privileges to the clergy, and perfected the union between things civil and ecclesiastical. All this may be very true: but how can a grant of privileges to the clergy in general, both in the east and in the west, be a delivering of the saints into the hand of the papal born in particular, whose jurisdiction was confined to the patriarchate of the West? Mr. Bicheno replies, If Justinian did not declare the Pope bead of all the churches in the year 529, be certainly did as early as the year 584. Now, even supposing that Justinian bad conferred the power of Universal Episcopacy upon the Pope, which he certainly did not for he granted him nothing more than an empty precedence over all the other patriarchs, what has this to do with the date which Mr. Bicheno has chosen? If the 1260 years be computed from the year 534, they carry us beyond the year 1789; and an error of five years as effectually invalidates a numerical calculation as an error of five centuries: if they be not computed from the year 534, but from the year 529, they will no doubt bring us exactly to the year 1789; but, in that case, what can an event which happened in the year 534 have to do with a date which is declared to be the year 529 ?—I next object to the supposed termination of the 1260 years. Though I think Mr. Bicheno perfectly right in supposing that the judgments of God will begin to go forth against his enemies at the end of the 1260 years, and that 30 years will elapse before those enemies are finally destroyed; I believe him to be quite mistaken in assigning the termination of those 30 years as the proper date of the commencement of the restoration of the Jews. Daniel plainly teaches us, that the Jews will begin to be restored, not at the end of the 30 years, but at the beginning of them; that is to say, not at the end of the 1290 years, but at the end of the three times and a half or the 1260 years. (Dan. xii. 6, 7.) Accordingly, after having described the expedition and overthrow of the king who magnified himself above every god as taking place at the time of the end or at the termination of the 1260 years, he adds that at that same time the nation of the Jews should be delivered. (Dan. xi. 40-45. xii. 1.) What probably led Mr. Bicheno into his mistake was his referring the expression at that time (xii. 1.) to the overthrow of the king (xi. 45.) instead of referring it (as he ought to have done) to the beginning of the king's expedition or the commencement of the time of the end. (xi. 40.) That the latter reference is the proper one, is manifest both from the subsequent declaration of Daniel (xii. 6, 7.) and from the unvarying tenor of all the prophecies which speak of the restoration of the Jezus. They unanimously represent them as being opposed in their own land, and even besieged in their own capital city, by the antichristian confederacy: hence it is plain, that their restoration must have commenced, not contemporaneously with the overthrow of that confederacy, but some time previous to its overthrow; otherwise how can the various matters, which are predicted respecting them, receive their accomplishment? How long indeed before this overthrow their restoration will commence, the unchro nological prophets no where tell us; but Daniel, as we have seen, amply makes up

tests, there is at least a very high degree of probability that it is the true date of the commencement of the 1260 days. In this year, the saints were given into the hand

their deficiency by informing us, that they will begin to be delivered at the time of the end or at the close of the 1260 years, when all the predictions relative to the won derful events comprehended within the three times and a balf shall have been fulfilled. On these grounds we may safely, I think, conclude, that the 1260 years did not expire in the year 1789, because the Jews did not then begin to be restored: and, even if their restoration should commence in the year 1819 as Mr. Bicheno expects, such an event would be no demonstration of the rest of his system; on the contrary, it would confute it, because it would prove that the 1260 years, instead of expiring in the year 1789, expired in the year 1819.-I thirdly object to his computing the 1290 years and the 1335 years from the year 529, on the ground that the abomination of desolation, mentioned in Dan. viii. 13. and xii. 11, is the Papacy. That these two periods are to be dated from the same era as the 1260 years, cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted in this point therefore Mr. Bicheno and I perfectly agree. We both like wise agree, that all the three periods are to be dated from the setting up of the abomination of desolation: for neither can this position be reasonably doubted. We lastly agree, that one and the same abomination of desolation is spoken of both in Dan. viii. 13. and in Dan. xii. 11; and that this abomination cannot be referred to the pollution of the literal temple by the Romans as predicted (according to our Lord's own exposition) in Dan. xi. 31, because the numbers connected with it render such a reference impossible. Thus far we are perfectly agreed: but here we begin to differ. Mr. Bicheno maintains, that the desolating transgression, connected with the little born of the he-goat and with the numbers 1290 and 1335, is the Papacy, which he contends was set up by the code of Justinian in the year 529: I, on the contrary, most explicitly deny that this desalating transgression is the Papacy. Let the little born of the he-goat be Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman empire, or any other power; it certainly cannot be the Papacy, because the Papacy never was a born of the be-goat or Macedonian empire. Hence it is evident, that the desolating transgression connected with the Macedonian little born, which was to take away the daily sacrifice and to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot, cannot be the Papacy and, if it be not the Papacy, we have no right to date the 1260 years the 1290 years and the 1335 years from the year 529, unless it can be shewn that some desolating transgression, which afterwards became a born of the begoat and which fully answers to the prophetic description of it, arose in the year 529. This however Mr. Bicheno will find it no very easy matter to do: therefore the three periods cannot be dated from the year 529.-Here I might stop; for, if Mr. Bicheno's foundation give way, his superstructure falls to the ground of course: yet I cannot refrain from noticing the strange era which he has pitched upon as the proper date of the larger number 2300, and consequently of the vision of the ram and the be goat. A computation deduced, not from the end of the 1260 years as it ought to have been, but from the end of the 1290 years (that is to say, from what he supposes to be the end of the 1290 years), brings him to the year A. C. 481, in which Xerxes set out to invade Greece; and this famous expedition he affirms to be specially predicted under the imagery of the pushing of the ram. Never surely was history more injudiciously brought forward as the interpreter of prophecy. Daniel tells us, that the pushing of the ram was so irresistible, that no beast could stand before him, and that none could deliver out of his hand, but that he did according to his will, and became great. Herodotus assures us, that the huge unwieldy armament of Xerxes was totally discomfited by the Greeks, and that the king himself was compelled to flee with disgraceful precipitancy into Asia. In fact the the pushing of the ram relates al◄ most exclusively to the victories of Cyrus, which were achieved long before Xerxes came to the throne.

My general conclusion is this: that Mr. Bicheno's scheme, though not deficient in ingenuity, rests upon no solid foundation. A very few years however, as I have already observed, will irrefragably decide the question between us.

* Mr. Fleming fixes the rise of Popery properly so called, that is to say, the com

22

fled

no

ind

cts

ra

pir

of the papal horn in this year the Mohammedan transgression of desolation, which shortly after its rise became by the conquest of Syria a horn of the he-goat, was set up:* and a computation, deduced from this year, brings us precisely to the very year in which Alexander invaded Asia, one of the most proper dates that could have been assigned even a priori to the vision of the ram and the he-goat. Positive certainty indeed in such matters is the high privilege of God alone: yet a triple coincidence is not, I think, to be slighted. According to what is called the doctrine of chances, the improbability of an accidental triple coincidence bears a much higher ratio to the improbability of only an accidental double coincidence, than the number three does to the number two.†

I shall now proceed to compare the character of the he-goat's little horn with the character of Mohammedism, in order that their identity may be proved as well by circumstantial as by chronological correspondence.

I. "For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desmencement of the spiritual empire of the Pope, to "that memorable year 606, when Phocas did in a manner devolve the government of the West upon Boniface the third, by giving him the title of supreme and universal Bishop :" yet he afterwards, with an inconsistency similar to that of Bp. Newton, dates the 1260 years from the year 758, when he supposes the Papacy to have been established. His own expression, "by steps he hath been raised up, and by steps must he be pulled down,” might have shewn him, that the tyrannical reign of the papal born ought to be dated, not surely from the era of its meridian splendor, but from the very first year that it commenced, from the time when the saints were first given into the hand of the born. We date the age of a man from the day of his birth, not from the period of his adolescence: why then must a different mode be adopted in computing the duration of a spiritual-catholic empire? Besides this objection to dating the 1260 years from the year 758, that era is equally unable to bear the tests proposed by the prophet as every other era which has been pitched upon, one only excepted, the 606, which has been found exactly to answer to those tests, and which I have therefore concluded to be the true date of the 1260 years. Mr. Galloway adopts the first conjecture of Mr. Fleming, rejecting very judiciously his subsequent inconsistency. (Comment. p. 88, 129.)

year

⚫ The extreme accuracy of the prophet is highly worthy of our notice. He does not direct us to date the 1260 years from the rise of the be-goat's little born, but from the incipient pollution of the spiritual sanctuary and the setting up of that desolating transgression which afterwards became a born of the be-goat. (Dan. xii. 11.) Had we been directed to date them from the rise of Mohammedism as a born of the be-goat, we must have dated them some years later than the year 606.

What I mean is this, if the gravity of my subject will permit me to use such a mode of exemplification. A double coincidence I compare to throwing two aces with two dice; a triple coincidence, to throwing three aces with three dice. Now it is well known, that the chance against throwing the latter is, to the chance against throwing the former, much more than three to two.