II.] Objections examined. 43 monarchy to the Roman empire is altogether disputed, there is, at the same time, a difference of opinion amongst the objectors in regard to its positive interpretation; the first proposer of this view 5 of the prophecy understanding the fourth monarchy to be the kingdoms of modern Europe; whereas those who have adopted it among ourselves, interpret it of a future kingdom of Antichrist. The objections thus alleged seem formidable, in their combination, and I have put them together, in order to give them their full force; but they all, I think, admit of a satisfactory answer. With regard, in the first place, to the Medo-Persian empire in relation to the Babylonian, the general impressionderived from the prophecies which describe the fall of Babylon and the conquests of the Persian'; or from the separate symbols employed in the book of Daniel, especially in the vision of the ram and the he-goat; or again, from ancient historians, such as Herodotus, Xenophon, or Justin, or the ordinary histories which are in every one's hands,-would certainly be that the Medes and Persians founded a new and distinct kingdom in the world. And, with reference to the inferiority of this empire to the Babylonian, we must observe, that it has been commonly explained of inferiority in wealth and splendour, or in internal strength, or the character of its kings, rather than in mere extent of dominion; though, even in 5 Lacunza. 68, and Note. See Todd, p. strongly, pp. 61, 62. 84, 85. 6 Dr. Maitland "cannot agree with Lacunza" on this point, and suspects "that the fourth empire is not yet come into existence." Dr. Todd pronounces the same opinion more ' Comp. Isa. xxi. 1. 10. Jer. 1. and li., &c. 44 Character of the third kingdom. [LECT. this respect it was inferior; if it be true, as the historians referred to by Bp. Newton' report, that Nebuchadnezzar carried his arms into Spain and Africa. And, as regards the third kingdom, the description of its bearing" rule over all the earth," seems to correspond closely with the terms in which the Macedonian conqueror is described in the 11th chapter2, as a "mighty king" that should "stand up," and “rule with great dominion;" or again, in the first book of Maccabees, where we read how he "slew the kings of the earth, and went through to the ends of the earth, and took spoils of many nations, insomuch that the earth was quiet before him3." And, in the passages which have been quoted by expositors from ancient historians, we are told how that, "having received empire, he commanded that he should be called King of all lands and of the world;" and that ambassadors came to him from almost all the habitable world, to congratulate him upon his success, or to submit to his empire: "and then especially,' says the historian, did "Alexander appear, both to himself and to those about him, to be master both of the earth and sea." I do not dwell upon the vision of the four beasts, which has generally been regarded as parallel with the vision before us; because this also has lately been disputed, and I propose to con 1 دو Dissert. xiii. 1, 2. Vol. i. Note, who, differing from him pp. 410. 412 (ed. 1759). 2 Ver. 3. 1 Macc. i. 2, 3. This passage is referred to in the marginal references on the words in ver. 39, concerning the third kingdom, "which shall bear rule over all the earth." 66 in the interpretation of the vision of the four beasts, is, at the same time, disposed to believe that the first three beasts are not to be considered identical with the gold, the silver, and the brass of Nebuchadnezzar's image, although," he adds, "the fourth beast is undoubtedly the iron or fourth Lacunza, ap. Todd, p. 78, kingdom (p. 77). 4 Bp. Newton, Diss. xiii. 3. pp. 413, 414. 11.] Character of the fourth. 45 sider this question on a future occasion; but there also, it is emphatically said of an empire which, I think, may clearly be identified with the Macedonian, “dominion was given unto it.” Thus, then, we are brought, through the succession of empires, to that which came into the place of the Macedonian, viz. the Roman. And surely in the dominion of Rome the general consent of mankind would recognize the characteristics which the vision assigns to the fourth kingdom. The infidel historian, who, it will be allowed, had well studied the genius and character of the Roman empire, and who had certainly no prejudice in favour of Inspired Prophecy, has told us how, from their "institutions of peace and war," an ancient historian had "deduced the spirit and success of a people, incapable of fear, and impatient of repose";" how "the ambitious design of conquest, which might have been defeated by the seasonable conspiracy of mankind, was attempted and achieved; and the perpetual violation of justice was maintained by the political virtues of prudence and courage. The arms of the republic," he tells us, "sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the Ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to repre 46 The iron kingdom. 8 [LECT. sent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome"." He refers, in a note, to the prophecy before us; observing that "the remainder of the prophecy (the mixture of iron and clay) was accomplished, according to St. Jerome, in his own time'." The passage referred to from Jerome has already been quoted2, and the historian does not question its correctness. But the character of the Roman, in the view of that Divine and omniscient Spirit with whose word we have to do, seems to be drawn, in colours very similar to those before us, in the book of Deuteronomy. We find described there "a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young3." There was indeed "moderation," doubtless,—but there was withal relentless tyranny concealed behind it; there was "toleration,"-yet, as the Christians found, Rome could be a bitter persecutor; "there was gentle government of the nations that submitted to their sway"-but, withal, an iron sceptre for those that submitted not. "Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento; 8 The italics are the historian's own. 9 Decline and Fall. "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West," subjoined to chap. 38. vol. iii. pp. 630, 631. (ed. 4to.) It has been said, that writers on prophecy are apt to quote Gibbon for what is, after all, merely rhetoric and metaphor: but, in the instance before us, it is something much more. 1 "See Daniel ii. 31-40. 'And the fourth kingdom shall 4 Virg. Æn. vi. 852–854. Heyne's note on the last line is to our purpose. 'Parcere subjectis; nam volebant Romani videri clementes et moderati erga victos, et erga socios benigni et liberales; scilicet si nihil ab ipsis metuerent, et ab opibus eorum auctis utilitatem sibi ipsis promittere possent." II.] Its divided state. 47 It was "strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these," did it "break in pieces and bruise 5." 66 But, as the prophet went on to declare, the kingdom was to be "divided." He is not here speaking, it would appear, of the division into the separate kingdoms, which are commonly supposed to be represented by the toes on the feet of the image; but of the division of the component materials of the feet, "part of iron and part of clay "-describing a kingdom partly strong and partly broken,” or rather, as it is in the margin, "brittle"." "Whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' 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 as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not 6 5 Davison well observes, "We must take notice that one especial object in the prediction is the superior strength, the paramount solidity and force of their empire, as compared with the others which had preceded it. Theirs was to be the iron power, breaking down, and bruising all things.' So it was foretold; so it was. The solid and well-cemented fabric of its military despotism, the overwhelming force, and the continued impression, of its reiterated wars and victories, held the world in stronger chains, and subdued it to a more hum |