an ambiguity, and a designed ambiguity in this part of the prophecy. The events are not related in the order in which they would exactly occur; and as it may be conjectured, for this very reason, namely, that the meaning of the prophecy might not be prematurely disclosed, till its accomplishment should have taken place. Till "the King" should have come to his end, it was not the purpose of God, that the book should be unsealed; and this designed unchronological disposition of the events related in it, seems to be the only circunstance which could have precluded such a disclosure. So clear and striking was the correspondence between the character and exploits of Napoleon and those of " the predicted King," that nothing would have prevented almost every reader of prophecy, during the last twenty years, from making this application of the passage, had the account of the Egyptian expedition been inserted by the angel at the beginning,

instead of the end of his description. As things were, the eyes of several interpreters were directed to Napoleon as fulfilling, in part at least, the prophetical description; while some did not scruple even to assert that he would live to make a second expedition into the same countries, and thus give, on all points, as they supposed, a complete accomplishment to the prophecy. But the event, as the writer apprehends, has fully cleared up the mystery; and by correcting our erroneous conceptions concerning the place and nature of "his end," has at the same time disclosed to us the mistaken grounds on which those conceptions. were formed.

The preceding note shows, that if, according to the expectation of those who adhere to the strictly chronological arrangement of this part of the prophecy, Napoleon should have lived to make a second expedition into Egypt and Palestine, yet his first expedition, remarkable as it was, is totally unnoticed by the prophet.

62

CHAP. X.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Ir may, perhaps, be further objected to the interpretation which has been here advanced, that Napoleon's expedition to Egypt took place before he had attained to absolute power, and even when he was only a General under orders of the Directory; and, consequently, that as at that time he did not answer to the title of king employed in the vision, so he could not be the person therein predicted. But it may be remarked, in answer to this objection, that it was the individual whom the prophecy was intended to designate. It was with this view that the peculiar features of his character and undertakings were so distinctly pourtrayed, that when the original, whose likeness was repre

sented, should have appeared, he might be clearly recognised. He was to be a man, raised up to answer the description, and to perform the exploits assigned to him: but whether under the title of King or Consul, of Emperor or General, was a matter of no real importance. It would be sufficient that in his single person all the lines of resemblance should be so concentrated, as to identify him with the extraordinary person predicted by the angel. And in truth, by whatever title Napoleon was distinguished, whatever situation he filled, he exhibited, from the very commencement of his career, the same lineaments of character which he displayed to the end. Throughout the whole of his Egyptian expedition we find him, under the name of General, effecting little short of kingly power, and exercising the most absolute authority over the conquered countries, insomuch that his memorialist, before quoted, in detailing his arbitrary and despotic conduct at

Cairo, remarks, that "he was even then playing the part of emperor." And on the supposition that Napoleon was really the person whom the prophecy foretold, and that to designate him was the great object of the prophecy, then it must surely be granted, that not to have seen predicted, among the marks which were to designate him, that one event, which perhaps of all others was the most extraordinary in his whole career, namely, his Egyptian expedition, though undertaken before he was actually seated on the throne of France, would have been a much stronger objection to his being ad mitted as the person described than the one which is now combated. The omission of such a circumstance would, of itself, have been fatal to the application of the prophecy here proposed; and, consequently, the objection under review cannot in the least invalidate the interpretation in question, provided it be established on other sufficient grounds.