It is needless to say that these opinions are widely different; but it is not unimportant to consider which is right. For my own part, without repeating what I have elsewhere said on the absurdity of attempting to apply the predictions concerning Antichrist to the Pope, I shall at once say, that the doctrine of the Primitive Church on the subject, so far as I have here stated it, appears to me to be correct, and scriptural.

*

I believe that much of the obscurity which rests upon the predictions of Daniel and St. John, arises from their having been considered as chronological prophecies; that is to say, prophecies giving an anticipatory history of the events which should take place in the Christian Church, from the time when they were delivered, until the consummation of all things. On the contrary, I believe that their chief object is to reveal things which are still future ; and their chief subject the HISTORY OF ANTICHRIST —his rise, progress, and destruction. It will be obvious there

fore, that I do not find in the Scripture anything about the ten Gothic kingdoms, or the delusions of Mahomet, the overthrow of the French monarchy, or the Turkish empire. I believe that the prophetic Scriptures do not (unless it may be incidentally) throw any light on the state of things, either in the Church or in the world, previous to the breaking out of the Apostacy. The main subject I believe to be, the great and final struggle between the God of this world, and the God of Heavenbetween the Destroyer, and the Redeemer of man-between Christ, and Antichrist.

As the Apocalypse is called the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" so the book of Daniel appears to me to be (if I may use the expression) the Revelation of Antichrist. There is, to be sure, much revealed respecting Antichrist

• Second Enquiry into the Grounds on which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John has been supposed to consist of 1260 years. p. 90-136.

in the Apocalypse; and his history, and proceedings, form one great subject (or rather, perhaps, are intimately connected with that which does form the great subject) of that revelation; but the prediction of Antichrist, his rise, progress and destruction, appears to be the chief object of the book of Daniel, while the triumph of Messiah is more briefly stated.

It appears to me, that the several visions recorded in the book of Daniel, which (for brevity's sake) I shall call those of the IMAGE (ch. ii.), of the FOUR BEASTS (ch. vii.), of the HE-GOAT (ch. viii.), and (adopting that title from Mr. Faber and other writers) of the INFIDEL KING (ch. xi.), were intended to afford successive developements of the history of Antichrist; and in order to illustrate this opinion (I do not say to prove it-for I propose it as that of which I am not entirely certain) I proceed to make a few remarks on each of these visions.

1. THE VISION OF THE IMAGE.

Daniel, chap. ii. 31-45.

This vision was given to king Nebuchadnezzar, to make known unto him what should be "in the latter days." Verse 28.

It is explained, that the king himself was symbolized by the head of gold, and that the other parts of the Image prefigured three kingdoms which should arise in succession, after that of which he was the ruler.

It seems, therefore, to admit of no doubt, that the first of these four empires was the Babylonian; but whether the other three were, as is commonly supposed, the MedoPersian, the Grecian, and the Roman, empires, may be questioned. The arguments of Lacunza, on this point, I know not how to answer. They may, perhaps, be briefly stated thus

(1.) The Babylonian empire was not destroyed or essentially altered when Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, shook off the yoke of Belshazzar and obtained possession of the capital. Daniel says (ch. v. 30), “ In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldæans slain, and Darius the Mede took the kingdom." Darius taking the kingdom became king of the Chaldæans, as Belshazzar had been; and so Daniel calls him (ch. ix. 1,) "Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldæans."*

Babylon was not destroyed; on the contrary, Darius, Cyrus, and their successors, continued it as the seat of government. In fact, Nehemiah, who was cup-bearer to the successor in this empire a hundred years after the time of Cyrus, calls him simply the "king of Babylon." The empire remained, therefore, one and the same; and even the subsequent removal of the seat of government from Babylon, to Persia which had been one of the vinces, did not cause the empire to lose its identity.

pro

(2.) If we make the second empire that of Persia, beginning with Cyrus, it did not answer the terms of the prediction, which announced, that the second empire should be" inferior" to the first; for this Persian empire, never was less, but equal to, or greater than, the kingdom of the Chaldæans founded by Nebuchadnezzar.

(3.) If we view these, which have commonly been considered as two kingdoms, as forming only one, the Grecian empire, founded by Alexander, will come to be

* To illustrate this by a reference to the history of our own countrywe might say in language very like that of Daniel-"In that day was James the king of the Britons driven out, and William the Dutchman took the kingdom." Whatever difference of opinion might exist as to his right to the throne, I believe there was never any doubt, that it was the throne of the British empire as much after he was seated upon it as it had

been before.

the second; and not, as hitherto, the third; and, in fact, while it answers the characteristic of the second already mentioned, (namely, inferiority to the preceding) it does not answer the characteristic of the third, of which, and of which only, it is declared that it shall "bear rule over all the earth." (ch. ii. 29.)

(4.) The characteristic of universal sovereignty, which does not apply to the Grecian empire, does apply, if not exclusively, at least with peculiar propriety, to the Roman empire.

These arguments of Lacunza, as I have already said, I know not how to answer; but I must add another 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 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.-see also ver. 26, 27). That time has not yet arrived, and the Roman empire has long ceased to exist. Those who are hard-pressed by the exigency of system, may attempt to make a shew of a nominal empire, and, by long habit, the writers and readers of commentaries on the prophecies, have come to give, and receive, very marvellous interpretations, with great gravity; but surely the Roman empire-the empire founded by Romulus, and ruled by Augustus and Constantine, has passed through a regular decline and fall to absolute extinction.

I cannot however agree with Lucunza in supposing that Europe, in its present divided state, is the fourth kingdom. It seems a sufficent answer to say, that Europe thus divided, cannot form the fourth kingdom, because it is contrary to common sense to call it "a kingdom" at all. I suspect, however, that the fourth empire is not yet come into existence, not only because it appears to me that the

predictions respecting the fourth empire have not yet been fulfilled; but, because the prophecies respecting Antichrist seem clearly to declare that he shall attain an universal sovereignty, which (as I think will appear) answers to the predictions respecting the fourth empire.

I proceed however to notice 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 subsequent visions already mentioned.

(1.) It is declared that there should be three other kingdoms after Nebuchadnezzar.

(2.) The object being to inform the king as to what

should take place in the latter days, the second and third kingdoms are slightly passed over ;-it is merely stated that the second shall be inferior to the first, and that the third shall bear rule over all the earth. (3.) The fourth kingdom being that which has to do with the period of the vision, is more particularly described. It is stated that it shall be, at its beginning, strong as iron, but afterwards" divided"-I presume we are to understand "divided" among kings, for it is said (ver. 44,) "In the days of these kings"; but no kings had been previously mentioned, unless it be thus by implication.

(4.) It is added that "they" (I presume these kings) "shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another.

(5.) That in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom, which shall break in pieces and consume all the others, and stand for ever.