y
for "want of strict adherence to _unity of symbolical_ interpretation,"
but he inadvertently falls into the same error. Assuming, as he does,
that the two witnesses are the Old and New Testament _Churches_, where
is the "unity of symbolical interpretation" when he tells us that the
witnesses were politically slain in the "disastrous battle of Mulburgh
in the year 1547, by the total route of the protestants under the lead
of the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse?" The _political_
death of two churches in the battle of Mulburgh!--Such language
exemplifies neither the accuracy of historic narrative, nor the "unity
of symbolical interpretation:" nor does it accord with another rule of
the writer, one of his three cardinal rules, namely,--That "no
interpretation of a prophecy is valid, except the prophecy agree _in
every particular_ with the event to which it is supposed to relate."
Mistaking the character of the witnesses, as one of the primary symbols
in the Apocalypse, he is unable to ascertain in history either their
identity or work, their life or their death. Having imagined their
political death in 1547, he supposes their resurrection to political
life in 1550,--"by the accession of Edward the Sixth to the throne of
England!" and "the defeat of the Duke of Mecklenburgh in the October of
that year!!" Of course, these witnesses, according to Mr. Faber's
interpretation, resumed their function of prophesying so soon as they
were restored to political life: but we look in vain for the prophesying
of the mystic witnesses after their ascension to the symbolic heaven,
(Rev. xi. 12.) As we have shown to the readers of these Notes, their
lives and their testimony, or prophesying, terminate together, (ch. xi.
7; xii. 11.)

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

"With regard to the mark of the beast," Mr. Faber "thinks, with Sir
Isaac Newton, that it is _the cross_," (p. 176.) This _thought_ has
indeed been almost universal in the minds of protestants. So deep-seated
is this conviction in the popular belief, that one is deemed chargeable
with temerity, if not something worse, who would call its grounds in
question. Popular opinion, or belief in matters of this spiritual and
mystical nature, is, however, of very little weight in the estimation of
such as are accustomed to "try the spirits." Although the mark was to be
received at the instance and by the authority of the two horned beast of
the earth, it was not enjoined as a mar