itself, that emblem of royalty so hated and abhorred by the ancient Romans.

Speaking of Augustus and Dioclesian, Mr. Gibbon says, "It was the aim of the one to disguise, and the object of the other to display, "that unbounded power which the emperors

66

66

possessed over the Roman world." A sure indication, I presume, of the confidence which the former had in his own strength, and the suspicion which the latter could not but feel in the heterogeneous compound of his extended but ill-jointed empire.

2

But the question still remains, whether this symbol embraces the whole of imperial Rome, pagan and Christian, or whether it is to be confined to only one of these periods, and to which. The 44th verse I think will clear up a part of this question: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed."

This kingdom, I presume, is indisputably the kingdom of the Messiah. Jesus Christ was born in the reign of Augustus Cæsar; imperial pagan Rome then is certainly symbolized. This is a most important point; and as it is so, I must consider it with some strictness. To the phrase "In the days of these kings" I have given an

66

66

application more particular than what is commonly understood. Bp. Newton interprets it to mean, in the time of the last of the four kingdoms. I have no other objection to this, but that it is too general, and does not mark the time of Christ's kingdom with sufficient precision; and I think the context will bear me out in my particular application of it to the feet and toes, ver. 42. "And as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom "shall be partly strong and partly broken." The feet and toes then are the kings. Again, ver. 43. They shall mingle with the seed of "men," that is, the things signified by the feet and toes shall mingle. Again, ver. 44. "And "in the days of these kings shall the God of "heaven set up a kingdom." In the days of the feet and toes then was Christ's kingdom set up; the feet and toes must of consequence represent the heathen emperors, which is the point contended for. But it may be said, that as the feet and toes symbolize the Roman emperors, they may represent them throughout the whole continuance of the empire, Christian as well as pagan. I think a change of religion, a conversion to Christianity would have been noticed. I see no mark of diversity upon them, like that remarkable diversity which distinguishes Daniel's fourth beast from the other three; and the little

2

horn from the other ten: and which I shall in due time endeavour to shew is a religious diversity.

I am well aware that learned commentators have universally applied and confined the ten toes to ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire was to be divided after its fall; and it is with the deepest sense of diffidence that I feel myself constrained to controvert that opinion; but I conceive it to be the groundwork of much confusion, and many mistakes. The precise and definite number of ten Christian kingdoms is ideal, and they have found it so; for no two commentators have agreed in the particular kingdoms into which it was so divided. From these premises then I conclude that pagan Rome is to be understood in this part of the dream.

And it was the paganism of Rome and of the Roman world which was destroyed by the stone cut out without hands, when it smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. For let it be observed, that the stone strikes the image on its feet and toes, and destroys the whole. What is this, but the destruction of paganism by the conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity? The toes were crushed before the empire was Christian.

And further let it be observed, that this is the only instance in the book of Daniel where monarchies or kingdoms, or powers of any description are represented by an image. They are all either beasts of some sort or other, or horns. St. John has followed in the same train of symbols. What is the meaning of this exception to the general rule? What does the image in particular symbolize? Beasts we find, and horns will aptly enough symbolize oppressive, tyrannical powers: this is something more, and to be more particularly marked. And we may reasonably suspect that something particular is designed; it seems evident to me that the quality of the symbol will lead us to a right solution. The quality of an image in Scripture is idolatry; that of wild beasts, fierceness, tyranny, and oppression. Accordingly, when the symbol of the image is used, idolatry is the prominent feature: it was the heathen idolatry of these kingdoms which was to be destroyed, which destruction we see at this day has taken place in them all. When the symbol of the beasts is used, tyranny is its leading characteristic; and we know, that. however tyrannical these kingdoms were over the church of God, their idolatry was in the back ground; it made no impression upon the church; so far from it, that it was itself ameliorated, and softened

down, and at last converted, by its connection with the church. Thus again, an image as a symbol is but once produced by St. John, and it is at the very time, when idolatry or image worship was established in the Church of Rome, as will appear, when I come to the second beast of the Apocalypse: from hence I conclude, that the image of Daniel is a symbol, and the symbol of idolatry; it is a most important point, and I wish to have it well considered. An image then, I conceive, is a fit emblem of idolatry and heathen worship. It is the paganism of these kingdoms which is here portrayed, and it is their paganism which the prophet had here in view; he says nothing of their tyranny afterwards, when he brings them forward under the similitude of beasts, their tyranny then stands prominent, and their religion is only hinted at, under the term of diversity: all then that is circumscribed within the image is pagan-pagan from the crown to the toe.

I am aware that Bishop Newton considers the image as a fit emblem of human power. "It ap❝pears," says he, (vol. i. p. 233.) "from ancient "coins and medals, that cities and people were "often represented by figures of men and 66 women. A great and terrible human figure

66

was therefore not an improper emblem of "human power and dominion." But in the first