cause did not save him from being hissed. There is only one species of liberty allowed in these free assemblies, the liberty of concur ring in the prevailing sentiment. Even a slight dissent on some questionable point of policy is not to be tolerated. It is treason against the majesty of the party; an insinuation that their assumed infallibility is liable to doubt. No inquisitor in the worst days of papal Rome was more fiercely intolerant of heretical opinions, than they are of the lightest deviation from the popular creed of the day.

But the error is not entirely on one side. We wish it were. We wish that the strong aversion of a large body of our politicians, to reform, however reasonable and moderate; the want of a more conciliatory spirit in the government; and the excessive violence and acrimony of the charges and recriminations of our public men against each other, had not furnished arms to those whose efforts are so systematically and successfully directed to degrade the character of parliament. But neither our time nor room will allow us to proceed. We are likely, however, to have frequent opportunities of recurring to the subject. In the mean time, we refer our readers to what we have said upon it in former numbers of Cur work.*

* See Vol, for 1808, p. 277, 278; Vol.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

The islands of St. Eustatius, St. Martin's,' and Saba, in the West Indies, have surrendered to his Majesty's arms. There is not now, in that part of the world, a foot of land possessed by the nations at war with this country.

A dreadful storm took place on the coast of Spain and Portugal about the 8th of March. A great number of merchant ships were wrecked both at Cadiz and Lisbon, and a few in the Bay of Gibraltar. At Cadiz three Spanish and one Portuguese ship of war were driven on shore, and, to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy, were burnt.

The East India Company have suffered severely during the last year, by maritime captures, as well as by shipwreck. Advices have been received of the recent capture of three of their outward-bound ships, the Charlton, Windham, and United Kingdom, by three French ships of war. A British sloop of war has also been taken in the Indian Seas.

Lord Collingwood, whose death has recently been announced, has been succeeded in the command of the Mediterrancan station by Sir C. Cotton.

for 1809, p. 197; p. 335, 336; p. 405, &c.; p. 674; as well as our last number, p 188, &c.

inonth.

P. S. is not fit for insertion.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. THE latter of the two passages from Paulus Diaconus, which Talib bas adduced apparently for the purpose of controverting my mode of calculating the 1260 years, is cited in the third and fourth editions of my Dissertation; so that, what ever argument they may be thought to afford against my conjecture respecting the proper date of that period, it has at least been brought forward by myself. I had not indeed an opportunity of directly consulting Paulus, as I had of consulting the Novels of Justinian; I therefore gave his words, with a proper ac knowledgment, on the authority of Dr. Brett. Had I been able to procure a sight of the work itself, I should have given them more at large, as Talib has done; for the obvious reason, that his longer quotation establishes my theory far more decisively than my own does. Mine was simply, Phocas statuit sedem ecclesiæ Romanæ ut caput esset omnium ecclesiarum: each of Talib's citations adds the reason of the grant, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat. This appears to me to constitute the important difference between the grants of Justinian and Phocas, which Talib says he cannot discover, and which I have discussed at large in my work. Justinian granted to the two patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople the titles of caput omnium ecclesia, rum, and caput omnium aliarum ecclesiarum. The incompatibility of these titles might in itself shew of what nature they were: but the emperor explains his meaning very ⚫ Christ. Observ. Jan. 1810, p. 16. CHRIST. OBSERY. No. 101.

fully, by drawing out a table of precedence as regularly as the heralds' officer could have done, in which the first rank in the church is assigned to the Roman bishop. Whereas Phocas, as Baronius and Brightman rightly understand Paulus, constituted Rome the head of all the churches in direct opposition to Constantinople; he took away the title from one, as they observe, and gave it exclusively to the other. With respect to the title itself when thus exclusively conferred, I can see no very material difference between it and that of ecumenical or universul bishop. Cardinal Baronius, who, I apprehend, understood the etiquette and claims of his own court at least as well as either Talib or myself, considers them as synonimous, and uses them indifferently; or rather uses the one as explanatory of the other: and in this he is followed by the various writers who have treated the subject, myself among the rest. But, if Talib prefer the one name to the other, I am not disposed to contest the matter with him; though, as far as I can understand Paulus, I still think the gloss of the cardinal conveys the true sense of his words; at least it shews that Baronius gave the sense, in which they were understood at Rome, and in which they certainly have been understood also by protestant writers-Phocas sancivit, nomen Universalis decere Romanam tantummodo ecclesiam, tanquam quæ caput esset omnium ecclesiarum ; solique convenire Romano Pontifici, non autem Episcopo Constantinopolitano.

But, if I were to stract, that so fa concerned, the 12

2 K

grant in the abas the title was years might be

computed either from the grant of Justinian or from that of Phocas, I should neither thereby give up my own opinion, nor would Talib be any nearer establishing his. My conjecture (for after all it is only a conjecture, which if erroneous will not affect the solid body of my system) is not founded merely on the grant of Phocas, but on a very remarkable coincidence of circumstances, which I cannot deem accidental. I will say nothing of the rise of Mohammedism, and of my calculation of the number mentioned in the vision of the ram and the hegoat, because Talib may dispute the propriety of my explanation of the eastern little horn: but he seems totally to forget, that the delivering of the saints into the hand of the western horn, although a striking badge of the commencement of the 1250 years, is by no means the only one. Their commencement is to be marked, 1. by that delivering of the saints, 2. by the Gentiles beginning to tread the holy city under foot, 3. by the witnesses beginning to prophesy in sackcloth, 4. by the revival of the ten-horned beast, 5. by the flight of the woman into the wilderness. The two first of these, I take it, are the key to all the others, which are connected and subordinate. Now the trampling of the holy city by the Gentiles is, I believe, universally understood to mean the reestablishment of Gentile demonolatry in a new form. Let Talib try if he can shew any such re-establishment at the era, whence he would com

pute the 1260 years. The trampling cannot mean the unauthorized and individual introduction of idolatrous superstition; because that commenced quite as early as the time of Constantine; at least neither the authorized nor the unauthorized introduction took place in the time of Justinian. The one was prior; the other was posterior: for Gibbon assures us, that the veneration of images and saints was not established even at the end of the sixth century, but fluctuated according to the humour of prelates and indivi

duals.. If then the holy city did not begin to be trodden down of the Gentiles in the time of Justinian, the 1260 days cannot have commenced then: because, according as we understand the treading down to be unauthorized or authorized, the period must have commenced either before or after the time of that emperor. At any rate, it clearly could not commence in his time; because the holy city, in no sense of the words, began to be then trodden down of the Gentiles. I think however there cannot be a doubt, that the authorized establishment of idolatry is meant. Now this took place in the year 607, immediately after the grant of Phocas: whence I was led to conjecture, that the first year of the 1260 years was that which began in the year 606 and ended in the year 607. Let Talib try if he can shew any such coincidence at the era when he supposes the 1260 years to have commenced. I am not aware, that the grant of Justinian is marked by any similar attendant circumstance. To this it may be added, that the language of Gregory the Great shews plainly, that he had no idea that the Bishop of Rome was either universal, or (if Talib prefer the expression) sole head of the churches: and, to the best of my recollection (but I speak from memory, and have no oppor tunity of verifying what I say), the council of Chalcedon offered the title of universal bishop to the pope, which at that time was declined. On the whole, I see no reason for giving up a conjecture, which is at least probable, but which I have ever wished to be considered only as a conjecture not fundamentally neces sary to my scheme of interpretation.

Another correspondent of yours, who signs himself Philo*, has also attacked my system.

1. He objects that the full of a tenth part of Babylon cannot mean the fall of the ancient French monarchy; but must mean a separation

* Christ. Observ. March 1810. p. 133,

of a tenth part from the communion of Babylon, the downfall of her empire within that district, the falling away in fact of that district from her authority; and he grounds his argument on the expression, Babylon is fallen. I should not see its cogency, even if I admitted the validity of its premises. The question is, not what France may be now, but what it was at the time of the revolution. Now at that time it certainly withdrew itself or fell away from the communion of Babylon; because it renounced popery, and set up atheism in its stead. But I do not think, that this is the proper meaning of the expression. Babylon is the whole idolatrous empire of the beast, both temporal and spiritual, comprising both the first and the second Apocalyptic beasts. When they are both overthrown, Babylon is fallen. The ten streets of the city are the ten horns of the beast. When any one of these is subverted, whether it be for a season or for ever, it is said to have also fallen. Thus Daniel speaks of three horus falling; by which he does not mean, that they fell away from the communion of Babylon, as Philo contends we must understand the falling of the tenth part of the city, but, as be clearly explains himself, that they were subverted or eradicated *. Now, if the ten streets be the ten horns, and if the falling of three of those horns mean their political subversion, I see not why the falling of the tenth part of the city may not mean its political subversion likewise. I repeat it, that the question is not what the state of France may be now, but what it was at the time of the revolution: and I contend, that one of the ten regal horus did then fall, or was overturned, whether I have rightly applied the prophecy or not. The falhag of five of the seven kings, which Philo adduces in support of his opinion, seems to me to make directly against it: for the expression faling is there used in the very

• Compare Dan. vii. 8, 20, 24.

sense, in which I contend it ought to be used in the falling of the tenth part of the city. The present state of France has nothing to do with the question. A horn may fall, and rise again; or it may fall, and never rise again. The prophecy of the fall of the tenth part of the city does not specify, whether it should, or should not, be ever rebuilt. In fact, every one of the ten original horns of the beast has now fallen; but, as Sir Isaac Newton well observes, he is said from the beginning to the end of his career to have ten horns, in allusion to the original number, however that number might vary. Daniel predicts a remarkable fall of three of the horns; and John predicts a remarkable fall of another. Whether I be right in my application of their prophecies may be a matter of dispute: but their abstract meaning seems to me to be sufficiently plain. I equally and uniformly understand the fall of Babylon, the fall of the five heads, the full of the three horns, and the fall of the tenth part of the city, in the sense of subversion: and I see no reason to alter my opinion in favour of the interpretation proposed by Philo, that the fall of the last means, that "one of the ten kingdoms of the beast was annihilated with respect to his power over it." Let any one apply such a plan of exposition to the other instances of falling, and he will immediately see its erroneousness. According to Philo, if he wishes to be consistent, when the three kingdoms fell, nothing more is meant than that they were annihilated with respect to the beast's power over them; and so likewise of the fall of the five kings or forms of government.

2. His objection to my exposition of the remnant being affrighted and giving praise to God, is well founded: but as I have myself antici pated it, and substituted another exposition, in the fourth edition of my work, just published, it is superfluous to say any thing more on the sub ject.