giving any opinion respecting Mede's interpretation of the passage referred to; indeed it seems to me to be erroneous; and at all events we have not yet come to it. I only quote Mede to shew that I am warranted in suggesting that the word used in the original is commonly acknowledged and used as one with both the meanings, and that I am not bringing any new invention to meet my view of the case. When Daniel saw the beasts come up from the sea, they must have come all at once or singly, or two or more at a time; and there is no use in our speculating about the matter except so far as to avoid being misled. The impression on my own mind is that they arose at or about the same time; that the first who came to the land was the Lion; that the prophet was occupied in watching him and observing what happened to him, without for some time observing that there was another beast like a bear by his side, or on one side of him; that he then observed what took place with regard to that second beast, and having done so his attention was directed to a third beast like a leopard, and a fourth, which was of some unknown kind.

As to what he thus saw taking place with regard to the three first beasts, I have already observed that the process employed with regard to the Lion seems to me to be quite opposite to humiliation and degradation. The exalting him from his prone condition, and giving him not only the posture and attitude, but the heart, of a man, may surely rather be considered as giving him dominion. And something like it, I imagine, was

done to the Bear.

He was told to "arise," when we are not told that he was lying down, but, on the contrary, the same word is employed to express his previous position. But so we should have said of the Lion, that he was at the first standing (like a quadruped), and afterwards that he was standing (like a man). Historical facts of the same nature are, I believe, supposed by all persons to be symbolized, and therefore we may imagine that something like what was done to the Lion was done to the Bear, though the details are not repeated; and I should be inclined to add to the Leopard also, though in his case it is yet more briefly said that "dominion was given to it." I only suggest this for the reader's consideration, with a belief (and a strong confidence that he will concur with me in thinking) that I do not insult his faith and understanding, as if I merely told him in the words of Bishop Newton, "dominion was given to it; which sheweth, as Jerome saith, that it was not owing to the fortitude of Alexander, but proceeded from the will of the Lord "."

But there is one question which may, I think, arise in the reader's mind, and with reference to which he might have expected more light from commentators than I have been able to gain. Indeed I do not know of one who has alluded to it. I therefore briefly mention it as a matter which I do not profess to be able to explain, but which seems to be worthy of consideration, and enquiry, if we desire to understand the

Vol. I. p. 451.

prophecy. It is this-Daniel tells us that the Lion's wings were plucked. By whom was this done? If we suppose the Lion to represent the Babylonian Empire, and the plucking of its wings to be its humiliation, we should expect to find that work performed by the Bear who was standing by him. Indeed if Daniel remembered the vision of the Image and supposed the Lion and Bear to be equivalent to the Gold and Silver, he must surely have expected the omnivorous Bear to eat up the Lion, and to be, in its turn, eaten up by the Leopard. This he might have expected even on the principles of what some modern interpreters have termed "symbolical decorum", though he had not then seen his vision of the Ram and HeGoat. We know however (though it is somewhat anticipating to refer to it) that when the MedoPersian and Grecian Empires were really and avowedly represented by these two Beasts, the Ram was at first seen by himself, and remained so, and did according to his will, and became great, and then the He-Goat "ran unto him in the fury of his power ", and smote him, and cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him. ch. viii. 2-7. This seems natural and intelligible, and strengthens my conviction that the Bear of the seventh chapter does not symbolize the same thing as the Ram of the eighth; and that the Leopard of the seventh does not correspond with the Goat of the eighth.

But it is our present business to remark that the Bear does not seem to have attacked the Lion, nor the

Leopard to have attacked the Bear. There is nothing that looks like hostility among them, neither is there anything like one succeeding to the dominion of another. They are seen living at the same time, and it is particularly stated that they should all survive the fourth Beast. Moreover, the plucking of the Lion's wings was not all that was done to it-he "was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it." By what agency was this done? Besides, when this had been done to the Lion, and the Bear came under consideration, "they said thus unto it"-who said? It has not I believe been supposed that the language of Daniel's prophecy intimates the presence of any person; and it is unsatisfactory to slip over it with the mere statement that the prophet heard a voice addressing the Bear, as if he did not know whence or from whom it came. And again are we to imagine a mere voice stripping the lion of his wings? His form of speech scarcely allows this-" they said," he tells us, as if we should know without explanation whom he meant. Whoever "they" might be who spake to the Bear, it seems natural to suppose that "they" had plucked the Lion's wings, and raised him from his brute posture. In the latter part of the vision indeed (v. 16) Daniel says, “I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this "—that is, according to the common opinion, I believe, he drew near to one of those who "stood by" the judgment seat of the Ancient of Days, or at least near to the Assembly of

Judgment. It may, however, mean one of those who had been present from the beginning of the vision, and not one of the immense multitude in the presence of the Ancient of Days; and I am much inclined to think that it was so. The point is not perhaps of great importance so far as regards the interpretation of this vision singly considered, but as coupling and connecting it with other prophecies it seems worthy of notice; and it may bring under the reader's view some passages of scripture which, as far as I see, have not received from interpreters as much attention as might have been expected.

We are told at the commencement of the vision before us that "the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea"; and the commentaries in general would lead the reader to think of nothing more than a storm on the Mediterranean. The words however are

which are (allowing for chaldaic ארבע רוחי שטיא

variation) exactly the same as what we find in the sixth chapter of Zechariah. That Prophet says that he "looked and behold there came four chariots." He enquired what they were, and the answer was, "These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth." St. John begins the seventh chapter of the Apocalypse by stating that he "saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth", and adds that they were "the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea when the proper time should arrive; but who were,