whoever they are, should coexist, and the four monarchies, we know, did not, and, since they were each universal, they could not. The verse says, "But they shall not cleave one to another," or, as the margin reads, "this with this." How could they cleave " one to another," or, "this with this," if they were not to coexist?— And, if they were not to coexist, and thereby could not "cleave one to another," why multiply words, without ideas, by saying, "they shall not? Again,-Not the Roman kingdom, for, to designate that kingdom, the pronoun "they" is not used, but the pronoun "it." 40th and 41st verses. "And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter's clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided, but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay." And, more, the Roman kingdom, before it was broken, was universal, and the "seed of men" was that which constituted it. Now, to interpret the 43d verse to mean, that the people of the Roman kingdom should mingle themselves among themselves, and not cleave to themselves, would be curious exposition, truly!-It will not do for those who maintain that the words "these kings" designate the four monarchies, to say that the pronoun "they" refers to the Roman kingdom in its fractured state, for that is the argument of their opponents. When the Roman kingdom was fractured, then it was Christian, and soon, Papal— and it is notorious that the Barbarians fractured it, and that the first ten tribes established the full character of

Papacy. Therefore, to say this, with them, would be to acknowledge what they dispute.

Noting, then, that the pronoun "they" cannot refer to the four monarchies, nor to the fourth monarchy, without declaring what it does refer to, let us remember that it refers to men, not to individual men, but to collect bodies of men.

43d verse. "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." Let us par

aphrase this verse, according to the sense which we have proved the pronoun "they" to bear, and read it with the 44th. And whereas thou sawest the iron, (the emblem of the fourth kingdom,) mixed with foreign matter, (miry clay,) certain collect bodies of men, shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.' "And in the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." . . We see, at once, that the construction refers the words "these kings" directly to those certain collect bodies of men, and calls them kings," in the sense of kingdoms. But the words "these kings" are not the original language. They were adopted in the translation, probably, because the translators supposed the language to refer to the four monarclries, the same error which all others, nearly, through them, have fallen into. The language of the Chaldee is " And in their days shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," &c. And whereas thou sawest the emblem of the fourth kingdom mixed with foreign matter, certain collect bodies of men shall mingle themselves

66

with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.' " AND IN THEIR DAYS shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." Now, who will deny that the pronoun "they," in the 43d verse, and the words "these kings," in the 44th, refer to the same subjects? No one. Well, it has been shown that the pronoun cannot refer to the four monarchies, nor to the fourth monarchy, and, consequently, the words "these kings," cannot refer to the four monarchies, nor to the fourth; and since this is the case, what can we refer them to but to the toes? It is rational to refer them there, forasmuch as it has been shown to be rational, to consider that they represent kingdoms. But, some one has said, 'If you refer them to the toes, you make it possible for the kingdom of the God of heaven to have been set up more than 1300 years ago.' Before I close, I hope to show that the remark is incorrect, and that the true reference is even more definite and strict, than the false one.

In the latter part of the 45th verse we read-"The great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter." These words are a part of the last sentence, in Daniel's address. My inquiry, in connection with them is, What had the God of heaven made known, and by what means? Every one must see, that what had been made known was,-the fall of the Babylonian kingdom-the rise and fall of a second and of a third-and the rise of a fourth, to continue unto a fifth, which should break all the preceding "to pieces together," and stand forever-and must see, also, that the information was given by means of the visions of an image and of a stone. That the information was thus

given, i. e. by the means of the Image and the Stone, and not by either the one or the other, singly and alone, is fully recognized by Daniel's introduction, in various ways.

1. From the 28th and 29th verses we read-" Thy dream and the visions, (plural,) of thy head upon thy bed, are these-As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came up upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter." Here the information is connected with the "dream," which certainly was of the image, as well as of the stone, and with the "visions" of the king's head, which were of the image and the stone.

2. In the 26th-28th verses we read-"The king answered and said unto Daniel, whose name was Beltechazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? Daniel answered, in the presence of the king, and said— "The secret, (i. e. the dream,) which the king hath demanded, cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and (Chaldee,) hath made known to the king, Nebuchadnezzar, what shall be in the latter days." Here, again, the information is connected with the dream, and Daniel in the 36th verse, after having described, first, the image, and then the stone, says-"This is the dream."

3. Again, Daniel says, latter part 29th verse and beginning 30th "He that revealeth secrets, maketh known to thee what shall come to pass; but, as for me, this secret is not revealed to me, for any wisdom that I have," &c., still connecting the information with the "secret,” i. e. the dream.

From these expressions, and also from a very cursory examination of the prophecy, it appears that the teaching of what should come to pass thereafter, was effected by the use of the image and the stone, conjointly-but the 45th verse reads, "Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it break in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter,”—thereby referring the means of instruction entirely to the stone!Now, "the scripture cannot be broken," says our Saviour, (1 John x. 35,) but, if the 45th verse gives the sense of the Spirit, it surely is broken, among itself, for one part of this scripture ascribes the means of information to several emblems, and another part, entirely to one! What is the difficulty? The trouble is not in the 'Holy Writ,' but in the division which has been made of it. The translators having introduced, in the former part of the 45th verse, the words, “these kings,” in order to sustain the reference, which they thought to be correct, i. e. to the four monarchies, found it necessary to introduce another word in the latter part, viz. “but”and also, to cut off the verse at the words, "for ever”making the division which we now have in our bibles. This performance was absolutely necessary, in order to sustain, in appearance, the reference which they had adopted; for, to take the words exactly as they occurred, was fatal to their opinion. Hence we see that one error called for another to support it, and that for a third, and that the three, together, were sufficient to darken the sensé, and make error invisible! Ah, how far may the least departure from the strict sense of God's word,