Persian empire never was less, but was always equal to, or greater than, the Kingdom of the Chaldæans founded by Nebuchadnezzar.

(3.) If, on the strength of these considerations, we view what have been distinguished as the BABYLONIAN and MEDO-PERSIAN as forming only successive portions of one empire, the GRECIAN empire founded by Alexander will come to be the second. And so situated it seems more in its place; for it does answer that characteristic, which (as has been remarked) the MedoPersian empire did not-namely, of inferiority to its predecessor while it does not answer that very peculiar mark of the third in whose place it has hitherto stood-namely, of universal dominion—it shall “bear rule over all the earth.” (ch. ii. 29.)

(4.) This characteristic of universal sovereignty which does not suit the Grecian, is more suitable to the Roman Empire, than to any other.

This is I believe a fair though brief sketch of the arguments by which Lacunza endeavours to shew that the three first Kingdoms are the Babylonian, Grecian, and Roman. I must, however, add another argument which is to my own mind more convincing than any of them. It is simply this-it seems to be clearly stated that the fourth Empire (whatever it may be) shall exist until the Ancient of Days shall come, and judgment shall be given unto the saints of the Most High; and the time shall come that they shall possess the Kingdom. (ch. vii. 22.) I suppose it will be admitted that the Ancient of Days has not yet come; and that

the time has gone by when the Roman Empire can be said to exist even in the interpretations of prophecy. History tells us that it has long since passed through its decline and fall to absolute extinction.

I fully agree therefore with Lacunza in the opinion that the Roman Empire is not the fourth empire of Daniel; and (as I have already said) I do not know how to answer his arguments respecting the three prior ones; though I am not undertaking to defend all that is contained in them, or deducible from his statements on the subject.

And if the Roman Empire is not, what is the fourth? Lacunza answers, that it began to be formed in the fifth century by the irruption of the barbarians, and is (in short) Europe in the divided state in which it has been from that period and still continues to be. It seems to be a sufficient answer to say, that Europe in its present state cannot be the fourth Kingdom, simply because it is no Kingdom at all. Nothing but the exigency of system could make any interpreter propose such a thing.

What then? are we bound to suppose that the fourth Kingdom has as yet come into existence? I think not. On the contrary, it seems to me to be clearly predicted that Antichrist shall set up a Kingdom, answering more exactly to the predictions of the fourth Empire, than either the Roman, or the fanciful one of divided Europe, can be made to do. This will, I hope, appear in the sequel. In the mean time let us observe what seems to be distinctly stated in

this vision of the IMAGE, which I conceive to be a general outline of the matters contained in the three subsequent Visions.

(1.) It is declared that there should be three other Kingdoms after that of Nebuchadnezzar. ii. 39, 40.

(2.) The specific object being to give the King information respecting what should "be in the latter days" (ii. 28, 29. 45), the second and third, or intermediate, Kingdoms are passed over with the very brief, though important statements that the former should be inferior to that which preceded it, and the latter should bear rule over all the earth. ii. 39.

(3.) The fourth Kingdom, being that which has to do with the period to which the vision refers, is more particularly described.

We seem to learn that at first it shall be strong, undivided, despotic, and destructive; but that at a later period it shall be "divided" (ii. 40, 41); and though the nature of this division is not explained, it seems to be implied in the declaration of what should happen "in the days of those Kings” (v. 44), when no Kings had been expressly mentioned.

(4.) It is stated that “they”—and it appears as if these Kings must be meant-" shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another." v. 43.

(5.) That in the days of those Kings, the God of Heaven will set up a Kingdom which shall break in pieces and consume all others and stand for ever. v. 44.

II.

THE VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS.

Daniel, chap. vii.

With regard to the preceding vision Daniel acted only as interpreter; in this one, which (if we adopt the chronology of our bibles) took place about fortyeight years afterwards, he was the seer. These considerations may warrant our regarding the two visions more in the light of distinct and independent revelations than, owing to their juxta-position in the bible, we have, perhaps, been used to do.

The Prophet in his dream saw the four winds of the heaven striving together on the sea; and four beasts came up from the sea. It does not seem to be necessary, and it may be doubted whether it is right, to consider these four beasts as corresponding to the four portions of the Image. Admitting, for indeed it seems to be quite clear, that the fourth beast represents the Kingdom symbolized by the fourth portion of the Image, yet it does not follow that the head of Gold and the Lion are equivalent symbols, nor the breast of Silver and the Bear, nor the belly of Brass and the Leopard, and commentators might, I conceive, have saved themselves the trouble which they have very unsuccessfully taken to make out correspondences and resemblances between them.

Indeed it is necessary in order to our taking a right view of the case, that we should just glance at the shifts to which interpreters following this scheme have been

6

driven, in the attempt to give it some kind of plausibility. Bishop Newton says, "What was revealed unto Nebuchadnezzar . . . . was again revealed unto Daniel with some inlargements and additions. . . . but there is this difference, that what was exhibited to Nebuchadnezzar in the form of a great Image, was represented to Daniel in the shape of great wild beasts. The reason of which is ingeniously assigned by Grotius, and after him by Mr. Lowth, that this image appeared with a glorious lustre in the imagination of Nebuchadnezzar, whose mind was wholly taken up with admiration of worldly pomp and splendor; whereas the same monarchies were represented to Daniel under the shape of fierce and wild beasts, as being the great supporters of idolatry and tyranny in the world "."" This is what Grotius, according to Lowth", "acutely observes;" but I cannot see the ingenuity and acuteness; and I presume that to do so we must understand that Nebuchadnezzar's vision was the creature of his imagination, and that Daniel's politics were the same as those of Grotius.

Then why is the head of Gold the same as the Lion with eagle's wings? Because the King of Babylon is called a lion, Jerem. iv. 7, and said to fly as an eagle, Jer. xlviii. 40, Ezek. xvii. 3. 12. This may be true and of some weight as far as it goes, which is not very far; and so no doubt Bishop Newton felt when he thought it necessary to add, "The Lion is esteemed