nation and the Prophetical symbol of "the small "horn," is contested by the author upon three

separate and studied grounds. I must frankly confess, that, with the best application of my understanding, I cannot discover that his three objections in any manner affect that correspondence. I shall, however, consider each of these special objections in their order.

1. He contends, that the power which was designed by the symbol of " the small horn," cannot be the new French power; because the dominion of the former power was to flourish, not in the last period, but in the penultimate, or last period but one, of the Roman Empire, and, in the last period, was to be consumed and destroyed; whereas, the dominion of the new French power both began to flourish, and is to fail and perish, in the last period of that Empire: and from thence he concludes, that the power foreshown by "the small horn," and the new French power, cannot be one and the same, but must be two different and distinct

powers although I am quite unable to discover where he finds separate and distinct symbols for the latter of these two powers, since he applies all the symbols to the Papacy.

The author of "The Dissertation" will surely do me the justice to acknowledge, that I have here presented his refined argument with much more clearness and force than he has put it himself; for I must confess, it took me some time to apprehend distinctly the separate point upon which this first objection was designed to rest, which, as it stands, appears in a great degree confounded with that of the objection which follows. But the whole strength of this argument is drawn from an equivocation in the words "last period," and from the author's arbitrary application of those words to the prophetic circumstances of the Roman Empire. In order to expose this point, it will be necessary to bring the terms "last period" to some fixed and steady criterion; and there is no other to which it can be brought but to the Prophecy itself. Now,

in the three several passages of this chapter of Daniel, in which the fourth or Roman Empire is predicted, it is described, 1st, as the sole conqueror and reducer of all the other nations; 2dly, as bearing a plurality of sovereignties, denoted by the symbol of ten horns; 3dly, as giving rise to a last, but small, or young horn, which immediately acquires a pre-eminence above the former sovereignties, but is presently cast down. These are the only three periods of the Roman Empire, marked out by the Prophecy. This small horn, or the power signified by it, occupies the third and lust of these Prophetic periods, holding its dominion until it is "consumed and destroyed unto the end." What that end is, is declared by what immediately follows; namely, the establishment of the final kingdom of the MESSIAH. "The end," therefore,

is the end both of the small horn and of the animal that sustains it; or, in other words, both of the last power of the Roman Empire, and of the Roman

Empire itself. The last period of the Roman

Empire, is therefore marked out in the Prophecy to be the period commencing with the rise of the small horn, and terminating with the common end, both of it and of its supporter. Both the dominion and the decay of the dominion of the small horn, fall therefore, successively, within the last period of the Roman Empire, and constitute the entire history of that horn; and, therefore, both belong properly to the last period of the Roman Empire. The author of "The Dissertation" has, indeed, chosen to subdivide that period into what he calls a penultimate, and a last state; but this arbitrary subdivision relates only to the horn, and not to the Empire. Both states of the horn are comprised in the last period of the Roman Empire, according to the Prophecy. The question therefore is, does. this" small horn," whose time and circumstances fill up the last period of the Roman Empire, agree best with the Papal, or with the French power?

The author of "The Dissertation," like all other writers who have laboured to apply this symbol to

the Papal power, has entirely overlooked the powerful demonstration contained in the quality of smallness, which is so distinguishably and emphatically ascribed by the Holy Spirit to this symbol. He passes it over, like his predecessors of a former age, without one reflection or observation upon it; although it is now become the most lucid, and determining circumstance of the type. Does he really imagine, that a characteristic so remarkable, so principal, and so forcibly pressed. upon his attention by the Prophetic Spirit, is devoid of all meaning, and without any specific and adequate design? This small horn, is "small" when it acquires its overwhelming dominion, and still "small" when that dominion is "taken away

and consumed unto the end;" it never varies in this circumstance of its being. Now this smallness, to which our attention is so particularly called, must have respect, either to the quantity of its power, or to the duration of its existence.

That it does

not betoken the measure of its power, is manifest;