"From these considerations, this third rule of interpretation may be thus expressed :—

"3. That as the kingdom of Christ, the object of the Apocalyptic prophecies, is spiritual, so they are to be understood in a spiritual sense. Spiritual things are to be compared with spiritual, as says St. Paul (1 Cor. ii. 13). A fourth general rule of interpretation has been also adopted in the prosecution of this work. Not to attempt the particular explanation of prophecies which remain yet to be fulfilled.”—Preface to Annotations, pp. xvi—xxiii.

LECTURE II.

Page 25, Note 3.-Josephus thus gives the interpretation by Daniel of Nebuchadnezzar's vision. "The head of gold signified thee, and the Babylonian kings which were before thee; and the two hands and shoulders indicate that your empire shall be dissolved by two kings: and their empire shall another (conqueror) destroy, coming from the west, clad in brass; and the strength of this empire shall another put an end to, which shall be like unto iron, and shall have power over all, because of the strength of iron, inasmuch as it is more firm than gold, and silver, and brass. Daniel also explained to the king concerning the stone; but I have not thought fit to relate this, my business being to give a history of things past and done, and not to write of things future. But if any one, eager after truth, will not give over concerning himself about it, so as to be desirous to learn concerning things obscure whether they will happen, let him carefully read the book of Daniel, which he will find among our sacred writings."—Antiq. Jud. lib. x. cap. 10, 4. It is sufficiently clear, from the reserve which Josephus shews, what he understood by the fourth empire. Evidently, as Bp. Chandler observes," he had a better reason than he gave he feared to offend the power in being, whose protection he needed, and which, he foresaw, must be offended, if he should publish the hope of his captive

D d

nation, one day to subdue their conquerors."-Defence of Christianity, p. 105.

Page 27, Note 9.-Theodoret thus proceeds :-" Some writers, then, (τινὲς τοίνυν τῶν συγγραφέων) have said that the fourth kingdom, that is the iron, is Alexander the Macedonian; and that the feet, and toes of the feet, composed of iron and clay, are the Macedonians who reigned after him, of the lines of Ptolemy, and Seleucus, and Antiochus, and Demetrius, of whom some held sway feebly, and some with great power, and made intermarriages, and embraced mutual alliance. But they ought to have perceived, in the first place, that the head of gold he declared to be Nebuchadnezzar, that is, the kingdom of the Babylonians or Assyrians. And this was succeeded by the kingdom of the Persians and Medes at once; for Cyrus was sprung from both nations, and ruling over the one and the other, having destroyed (karaλúσaç) the kingdom of the Babylonians, ruled over the Persians. And the kingdom of the Persians, being the second, Alexander the Macedonian destroys (Karaλúε); and of him the blessed Daniel speaks as ruling over the whole earth. This kingdom he named the third, and it was succeeded by none other than that of the Romans. They ought, therefore, in the first place, from the number, and from the further circumstances which are shewn, to have understood and perceived, that the kingdom of the Macedonians, that is the brass, is the third, and that of the Romans the fourth. And even if these points appeared to them to be less certain, at least from the event they ought to have discerned plainly the whole prediction. For, immediately after having shewn the weak and clayey end of the iron kingdom, he added (v. 44,) And in the days of those kings,' &c."

Page 30, Note 8.-The objections which have been made to the use of this passage from Sulpicius Severus in illustration of Nebuchadnezzar's vision (see Todd's Discourses, p. 51, Note), are met by the distinction, which must be carefully observed, between the two ideas, of the

division of the empire, in the sense in which it is said to be "divided" (Dan. ii. 41) in regard to its component elements, as being "part of potter's clay and part of iron," and its division, in another sense, and at a later period, into ten kingdoms.

Page 32, Note 3.-With the passages quoted from St. Jerome and St. Cyril (sup. pp. 27, 28; cf. pp. 66, 67), testifying to the general tradition, and also the quotations from Irenæus (ibid.) and Hippolytus (pp. 29. 352), compare Tertullian, de Resurr. Carnis, cap. 24: (" Donec de medio fiat quis, nisi Romanus status? cujus abscessio in decem reges dispersa Antichristum superducet.") Also S. Chrysost. in 2 Thess. ii., Ephrem Syrus, Serm. Ascet. Op. t. i. p. 44. &c.

Page 33, Note 7.- We find, in the sixth century, Cosmas Indicopleustes opposing the received interpretation (Christian. Opinio de Mundo, lib. ii. ap. Montfaucon. Collect. Nov. Pat. t. ii. pp. 145, 146). But his writings give proof that he is no authority on questions of interpretation of prophecy; while some of his views anticipate those which have been, unhappily, too prevalent in modern times.

❝ to

Page 36, Note 4.-The question is, Which are the kings referred to, when it is said, "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," &c.? "This is explained," says Dr. Todd (Discourses, p. 53), signify that, in the days of the kings who shall be at the head of its several subdivisions," i. e. the ten subdivisions. of the fourth kingdom, "the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom,' &c." He adds, in a note, "So verse 44 is generally understood, if we adopt the reading of the present Chaldee text. Dr. Gill," whom he goes on to quote, says:

66

"And in the days of these kings, &c.] Not of the Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian kings, nor indeed of the old Roman kings or emperors; but in the days of these ten kings or kingdoms into which the Roman em

pire is divided, signified by the ten toes of different power and strength.'- Gill on the Prophets, Vol. ii. p. 273, col. 2. fol. Lond. 1758."

6

For this interpretation, however, I do not find any authority. The general consent of interpreters would seem rather to understand the words to mean, " during the succession of these four monarchies, and in the times of the last of them." (Lowth.) Dr. Maitland ("Attempt," &c. p. 7) observes of the fourth kingdom, that “it is stated that it shall be, at its beginning, strong as iron, but afterwards 'divided,” adding, “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." From the fact, which Dr. Maitland notices, that "no other kings had been mentioned" but the four (see Lecture), it seems to me the natural and legitimate conclusion, that those four are intended. Of interpreters I will only quote St. Chrysostom, who gives his undoubting interpretation of the words έv Taïs ημépais τῶν βασιλέων ἐκείνων—τῶν Ῥωμαίων δηλονότι. He proceeds to answer the question, πῶς τὰς ἤδη σβεσθείσας βασιλείας καθαιρεῖ;—ἀλλὰ τὸ καθαιρεῖν ἑτέρας ἐν αἷς αἱ τοιαῦταί εἰσιν, εἰκότως ἐμποιεῖ. Op. tom. vi. p. 216.

Page 39, Note 4.-In Matt. xxi. 44 (cf. Luke xx. 18), the language of the former clause (καὶ ὁ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον τοῦτον, συνθλασθήσεται) would recal to mind that of Isai. viii. 14, 15; xxviii. 13; but then follows, ip' ov d'âv téon, Aikμñoɛ avτóv. Schleusner (Lex. N. T. in voc.) gives as the sense of Auxμáw, "1) propriè : ventilo triticum, ita ut minutæ partes in auras dispergantur, frumentum purgo, cribro, glumas et paleas à frumento ventilando separo, à λikμòç, oũ, ô, ventilabrum, vannus. In hac significatione respondet apud Alexandrinos Hebr. ven

a

tilavit frumentum. Ruth iii. 2..2), metaphoricè contero, comminuo et instar palearum dissipo, disjicio, et ex adjuncto: penitus perdo, deleo. Bis tantum legitur in N. T. Matt. xxi. 44, ἐφ ̓ ὃν δ ̓ ἂν πέσῃ, λικμήσει αὐτόν, . . . . Luc. xx. 18. In utroque loco sermo est de interitu ac pœnis adversariorum religionis Christianæ, maxime Judæorum. Dan. ii. 44, λεπτυνεῖ καὶ λικμήσει πάσας τὰς βασιλείας, ubi Chald. consumo, respondet." Cf. Lex. Vet. Test. in voc. Aukμáw. The sense of the words Aukμnσε aúróv in the two evangelists, is, in fact, that which is fully developed in the words in Daniel (ver. 35), "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them."

Page 40, Note 5.-So Rosenmüller (Schol. in loc.) who, however, observes, "Interpretum plures, et Judæi et Christiani, quarto hoc regno Romanum intelligunt, quam sententiam nostra ætate pluribus commendavit Io. Casp. Velthusen in Animadverss. ad Dan. ii. 27-45, Helmstad. 1783, repet. in Commentatt. Theol. a Kuinoelio editis, Vol. v. p. 361, seqq." Rosenmüller, however, mentions another quite novel hypothesis, proposed by Harenberg, who would make the succession of kings to be the sons and grandsons of Nebuchadnezzar, his successors in the empire of Babylon, and the stone which smote the image to be Cyrus. "Quam sententiam," he says, sese probasse miror Doederleinio in Notis ad Grotii Annotatt. vs. 34, et Scharfenbergio in Animadverss. in Daniel.' p. 35. Quatuor partium statuæ, quæ Nebucadnezari in somnio apparuit, eadem est ratio, qualis quatuor animalium, quæ Daniel in somnio vidit, cap. vii. Iis autem non quatuor singulos reges, sed quatuor imperia significari, perspicuum est ex vss. 23, 24, illius capitis."

66

In regard to the four empires, and the Catholic Church viewed as a kingdom, see Archdeacon Wilberforce's interesting volume, "The Five Empires."