mation; and ten also in the year 1706.* The ten horns of the Roman beast are certainly the ten primary kingdoms enumerated by Machiavel; and, since three of the first horns were to be plucked up before the little horn, we must seek for those three horns among the ten primary kingdoms: how the empire was afterwards divided is a matter of no great moment; its subsequent political revolutions affect not in the slightest degree the accuracy of the prophecy.

CHAPTER V.

Concerning the vision of the ram and the he-goat, and the little horn of the he-gout.

to

NEBUCHADNEZZAR's dream of the image, and Daniel's vision of the four beasts and the little horn of the fourth beast, contain predictions relative to the four great empires and the domineering tyranny of the Papacy. These matters so important to the Church having been clearly set forth, the Holy Spirit, now purposing to describe the exploits of another great enemy Christianity; recalls, in the vision of the ram and the hegoat, the attention of Daniel to the second and third empires, whose prophetic history had been already detailed, for the purpose of introducing another little horn, which was to come out of one of the principal horns of the Macedonian beast, as the former little horn sprung up among the ten horns of the Roman beast.

In Daniel's vision of the ram and the he-goat, the ram symbolizes the same power as the bear mentioned in the preceding vision; and the he-goat, the same power as the leopard. The ram therefore, standing before the river, is the Medo-Persian empire; and his two horns are the two kingdoms of Media and Persia: the higher one,

See Bp, Newton's Dissert. xiv.

which came up last, being Persia, the head of the empire; and the lower one, which came up first being Media, united with, though subjected to, Persia. The ram extended his conquests westward, northward, and southward: westward, as far as the extreme limits of Asia; northward, over Armenia, and Cappadocia ; and southward, over Egypt, and as far as the Persian gulph. Eastward he made comparatively but little progress, being stopped by the vast deserts of Tartary, and the mighty empire of Hindostan.

In the plenitude of his power however, and at the very time when no other beast could stand before him, he was attacked by an unexpected enemy, the he-goat, or the Macedonian empire. Moving with unexampled rapidity from the West, the founder of this mighty sovereignty soon completely overthrew the ram, and broke his two horns. After this daring exploit, the he-goat "waxed very great," extending his arms even into Hindostan, as well as subjugating Egypt and all the other dominions of the ram. But, notwithstanding this sudden and astonishing asquisition of power, his great horn was destined to be broken even in the very height of his strength. Accordingly, the imperial dynasty of the great horn lasted no more than fifteen years after the death of Alexander; within which short space of time his successors, Philip Aridèus, Alexander Egus, and Hercules, were all murdered. After them the empire was divided into four kingdoms, typified by the four horns of the goat, and the four heads of the leopard mentioned in the preceding vision. Cassander held Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace and Bithynia; Ptolemy made himself master of Egypt; and Seleucus obtained Syria and the East. Thus exactly was fulfilled the prophecy, that four kingdoms should arise out of Alexander's empire, governed by princes of his own nation, though neither of his own family, nor with power equal to that which he had possessed.

Hitherto all commentators are agreed; but there has been the same discrepancy of opinion respecting the little horn of the he-goat, as the little horn of the fourth beast whose prophetic history we last considered. Bp. Newton

observes, that the generality of expositors, both ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian, have referred the exploits of this second little horn to Antiochus Epiphanes ;* but this opinion has been so amply refuted both by himself and Sir Isaac Newton, that it would be superfluous for me to do more than barely mention that it has existed. I am inclined to think however, that these two eminent writers have been more successful in combating the formerly received interpretation, than in establishing their own. They both contend, that the little horn, is the Roman empire; and that it became the little horn of the he-goat by subduing Macedon and Greece: that this supposition is strengthened by the progress of the Roman conquests from Macedon; which, like those of the little horn, extended towards the south, the cast, and the pleasant land and that lastly it is decidedly established by the circumstance of the little horn being represented as standing up against the Prince of princes, as taking away the daily sacrifice, and as planting the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary, which our Lord himself refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans.

I readily allow, that these points of resemblance are very striking; nevertheless it will be found upon examination, that there are insuperable objections, principally of a chronological nature, to this exposition of the prophecy.

1. The first objection, that may be urged against it, is the improbability, that the same power, which in the former vision was represented under the symbol of a great and terrible beast, should now be described under that of only a little horn. In prophetic imagery there is to the full as exact a discrimination of ideas as in ordinary language; otherwise, as I have already sufficiently proved, there could be no definiteness and precision in any of the symbolical predictions. Accordingly we shall find, that an universal empire is never symbolized by a horn,† but

* See Bp. Newton's Dissert. xv. and Pol. Synop. in loc.

It may perhaps be thought, that the great born of the be-goat is an exception to this rule, inasmuch as it represents, not a kingdom springing out of the Macedonian empire, but the imperial dynasty of Alexander which presided over the whole empire. This objection however will vanish, when we consider, that,if a beast be described with

always by a beast; and, on the other hand, that a kingdom, springing out of such an empire when it comes to be divided, is never symbolized by a beast, but always by a horn. On these grounds, I can scarcely think it possible, that the Roman empire should be represented, in one vision, as a fourth distinct beast; and, in another, as only a little horn of the he-goat, which typifies the same power as the leopard, or third beast, of the former vision. I know, that Sir Isaac and Bp. Newton argue, that, when the Romans conquered Macedon, they became in that capacity a little horn of the third or Macedonian beast; while, in the mean time, so long as we consider them confined to Italy and the West, they are to be accounted a distinct fourth beast. But, if this mode of interpretation be allowable, the confusion, which it must introduce, will be endless: for, upon the same principle, as soon as the Greeks have conquered a single Persian province, we must begin, in a similar manner, to reckon them a horn of the second, or Persian beast: whence it will necessarily follow, that the two Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt being originally provinces of Persia, must for that reason be accounted horns of the same second beast; not, as they are represented by the prophet, horns of the third, or Macedonian beast.

2. Another objection against it is, that it renders Daniel liable to the charge of unvarying repetition. In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the history of the four empires is simply detailed, without the introduction, if I may use the expression, of any episodical matter. In the vision of the four beasts, the history of the same four empires is repeated, for the purpose of introducing the exploits of the little horn of the fourth beast. In the vision of the ram and the he-goat, the history of the second and third empires is again repeated, for the similar purpose of noticing in its proper place the tyranny of the only one born, that born must necessarily be identified with the beast itself; because, as the circumstance of there being more than one horn shews that the empire is in a divided state, so the circumstance of there being no more than one horn shews that the empire is in an undivided state. When a beast therefore has more horns than one, those borns typify kingdoms; but, when a beast has no more than one horn, it is evident, that that born cannot signify a kingdom, because the empire is yet undivided: it remains consequently, that the single born must be identified with the beast, and signify the dynasty by which he is governed.

third beast's little horn. And, in the last of Daniel's visions, a detailed account is given of the wars between the Greek kings of Syria and Egypt, and of the Roman conquests in the East, in order that we may be conducted in strict chronological succession to the super-eminent wickedness of the king, who was to exalt himself above every god. From this statement then it is evident, that, if the little horn of the he-goat or third beast be the Roman empire, the vision of the ram and the he-goat is a mere repetition of the greater part of the vision of the four beasts; the only additional circumstance that is mentioned being the sacking of Jerusalem, which itself. is repeated in the subsequent vision, if we adopt the opinion, that the abomination or transgression of desolation, predicted by Daniel in each of these visions, signifies in both cases the Roman profanation of the Jewish temple.

3. The last and most serious objection however against the interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton and the Bishop is, that it cannot be reconciled with Daniel's chronological numbers. The prophet, as I have just observed, mentions the abomination or transgression of desolation in two successive visions; that of the ram and the he-goat, and that of the things "noted in the Scripture of truth :”* and he afterwards speaks of it yet a third time in connection with certain chronological numbers.† Now our Lord declares, that the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, relates to the sacking of Jerusalem and the authority of such an expositor of prophecy who shall presume to question? The state of the case then is, as follows the phrase of abomination or transgression of desolation occurs three times in the book of Daniel: did our Lord mean to intimate, that, wherever it occurred in this book, it always related to the sacking of Jerusalem; or that it was only to be referred to that event in one or in two instances out of the three? This question must be resolved by a careful comparison of these several prophecies of Daniel with each other.

When Daniel speaks of arms, like those of a man, (an apt symbol of a powerful and warlike state,) standing up

VOL. I.

Dan. viii. 13. and xi. 31,

20

↑ Dan. xii. 11, 12.