Barou of Merchiston. 89 



to explaining the past ; and the greater number of persons 

 who have read his work appear to have concluded that even 

 this was not easy. 



In giving an account of this Commentary of Newton, in 

 the Universal Biography, I expressed some doubt upon the 

 conclusion to which Newton has come, that " the 11th 

 horn of Daniel refers to the Church of Rome." Dr. Brew- 

 ster, in a work of the same kind, (I understand, it to be 

 a work of the same kind as mine), published at London, in 

 1832, has reprimanded me for my facility of doubting, 

 and has affirmed that this interpretation of the 11th horn, 

 as well as others of the same kind, which Newton has given, 

 may be developed, even to a full demonstration. I am, 

 therefore, obliged to ask, humbly, of Dr. Brewster to be 

 pleased to excuse, on this head, the impossibility which 

 must exist in France, of receiving such Anti-Catholic con- 

 clusions. The Scotch biographer of Napier produces, with 

 regret, the expression of repugnance which I have made, 

 inasmuch as, according to him, the Commentary of Napier 

 contains more than nine quarto pages of condensed proofs 

 of this same proposition. Nevertheless, he wishes not to 

 be offended at my blindness. " When M. Biot," says he, 

 " states that he cannot believe the 1 lth horn of Daniel to 

 be the Church of Rome, we are not surprized, in the pre- 

 sent times ; but it was otherwise in the time of Napier ; and 

 to this, we may add, that when Protestants such as Calvin 

 and Scaliger, confess openly that they consider all the 

 Revelation of Saint John as an inexplicable mystery, even 

 the author being problematical, it is a great honour to 

 Scotland, that, in the heart of a country so rude, such a 

 commentary should be produced, worthy of the first eru- 

 dition of the age, and capable, as we shall shew, of instruct- 

 ing even our more enlightened age." If we are allowed to 

 appreciate this conclusion of the biographer, by human 

 intelligence alone, I confess that I cannot see how it follows, 

 from the authorities which he has cited, which rather 

 appear to establish the contrary. But, perhaps, the cha- 

 racter of inspiration in the text extends also to the panegy- 

 rist, in which case, I have no reply to make. 



The Commentary on the Apocalypse was, on the part of 

 Napier, an edifying work, and one produced after deep 



