Daniel 7:28

Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me and my countenance changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart. The first clause here is in the LXX . joined to the preceding verse, and rendered, "And all power shall be given to him, and they shall obey him to the end of the matter"—a connection that in many ways is suitable. The difficulty is thrown further back. To whom is this power to be given, and whom are all to obey? The Septuagint clearly takes the reference to be to the little horn, as "end" is rendered by καταστροφή . The more common view is that of Kliefoth, Keil, and others, and is that the reference here is to the Son of man as the Head or the embodiment of the Messianic kingdom. The remaining portion of the verse is rendered, "I Daniel was exceedingly overcome with astonishment, and my habit (ἕξις) was changed to me, and the word I confirmed in my heart"—a translation that does not seriously differ from the Massoretic. Theodotion and the Peshitta render from a text practically identical with the Massoretic. As for me Daniel , my cogitations much troubled me. The prophet himself did not understand the revelation that had been made to him, even after he had received the explanation. Further, there was the thought of the distress that would befall his own people. And my countenance changed in me. "My splendour," "brightness." Daniel was now an old man; but yet there might be a certain brightness, the remains of his former personal beauty. He becomes pale and emaciated as he meditates on what he has seen. But I kept the matter in my heart. Thus Mary retained in her heart all the wonders she had seen regarding her Son. This statement is introduced as a guarantee that the vision is correctly recorded. Daniel retained the vision in his mind, and so was ready to recognize the fulfilment of a portion.

Excursus on the Four Monarchies of Daniel.

Among the visions in Daniel, two are conspicuous as being all but universally acknowledged to be parallel to each other—to be twofold symbols of the same great truth. They have this peculiarity, that they are parts of the Aramaic portion of Daniel, which is otherwise mainly historical. The first of these visions is given to Nebuchadnezzar, and is intensified to him by the fact that after he had forgotten it, or had bound himself not to tell it, it is recalled to him by the grace of God, who had given it in a new vision to Daniel. The king dreams of a colossal image, with head of gold, arms and chest of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet partly of iron and partly of clay. Then suddenly a stone, cut out of the mountains without hands, smites the image on the feet, and it falls and becomes as the small dust of the threshing-floor, and is carried away of the wind, while the stone becomes a great mountain and fills the earth. This is interpreted of four successive monarchies, the first of these being the Babylonian. This vision is narrated in the second chapter, which forms the beginning of the Aramaio portion of Daniel.

The second vision is given to Daniel himself, and is related in the seventh chapter, which forms the conclusion of the Aramaic portion of Daniel. This is a vision of four beasts that successively rise out of the great sea, presumably the Mediterranean. The first beast was like a lion, and had wings like an eagle; its wings were plucked, and a man's heart was given to it. The second beast was like a bear, that raised itself up on one side, and had in its jaws three ribs. The third beast was like a leopard which had four wings. The fourth beast was great and terrible, unlike any of the former beasts, breaking in pieces and trampling under foot. It had ten horns. In the midst of its horns another, an eleventh horn, sprang up, and there were rooted out before it three of the former horns. At this point the end of the solemn drama is placed—God, the Ancient of Days, appears to judgment. Then comes a Son of man in the heavens, and the dominion is given to him. Thus the judgment here described is not the final judgment. The fourth beast is burnt up with fire; the other beasts have their dominion taken away. The interpretation follows, which makes the four beasts four kings, or four monarchies. The fourth is to be diverse from all its predecessors, and to make war against the people of God.

Such, then, are the visions, the interpretation of which we would now essay. It has generally been assumed that these two visions are really two aspects of one and the same great scheme of history. Two different interpreters, proceeding on totally distinct lines, deny the identity of the meaning of these two visions. The first is Hitzig, who, while he makes the two series terminate at the same point, makers a difference between them in regard to the earlier members. According to his scheme, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream the first two portions—the golden head, and the silvern shoulders—are the two monarchs Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, whereas the latter two are empires; the third, the Medo-Persian; and the fourth, the Greek. He, however, takes the second series of symbols, that of the beasts in the seventh chapter, as all monarchies. Hitzig assigns no very clear reason for his change in view—for taking the four beasts as four distinct monarchies, and splitting the Medo-Persian into the Median and Persian. The other interpreter, who divides the two visions, is Dr. Bonnar, of East Kilbride, in his book 'The Great Interregnum.' He maintains that the vision of the seventh chapter represents history posterior to that symbolized by the vision of Nebuchadnezzar. His main argument for this is that the same truth would not be present in two different sets of symbols. That difficulty would not be urged by any one who had studied the non-canonical apocalypses; there repeatedly are there double sets of symbols, £ The number of the kingdoms, being four, points to an identity, as also the fact that both assert that the Messianic kingdom—the terminus ad quem of all apocalypse—will be revealed after the setting up of the fourth kingdom without any intercalated power. We shall, then, assume these two visions to present the same scheme of universal history under different aspects.

When we look at this double vision, the first thing that strikes us is the unique breadth of view exhibited. If we may for the nonce accept the traditional interprs-teflon, we see the whole course of history, from the days of Nimrod down to the present time, portrayed; nay, beyond the present, on to the millennium and the last judgment. It seems difficult to imagine that a nameless Jew, living in the days of Epiphanes, could devise such a scheme of universal history. It may be answered that, according to the critical hypothesis, he brought down his scheme only to the days of Epiphanes, and that he expected the advent of the Messiah during the persecution of those days. This does not lessen the marvel, but really increases it, that a man, intending to portray in symbol history up only to his own day, has given a pictorial representation which has been interpreted by the great majority of those following him—some as near as the very century following that in which he lived—as referring to events that were not in the faintest degree showing above the horizon in his day. On the hypothesis that he was an inspired prophet, and spoke words full of a significance which he did not grasp himself, this is easily explicable. Only, if this explanation be granted, there is no need for placing Daniel so late as the clays of the Maccabees. If the scheme of history he unfolds applies to centuries beyond the days of the Maccabees, these events so portrayed beforehand would be as invisible to the critical pseudo-Daniel living b.c. 160 as to the real Daniel living b.c. 560.

We ought not scientifically to assume, without proof, that prophecy that foretells is impossible. Yet this is the assumption of the critical school. If the critics do venture to take up that position, they have to explain the universal belief in something akin to this foretelling prophecy. Herbert Spencer explains instinctive beliefs of this kind as the inherited result of experience. If we apply this to the belief in prophecy, then we must maintain that some earlier generations have had experience of foretelling prophecy. If, then, prophecy did exist at one time, we may not assume its non-existence at any given time. We find from Deuteronomy 18:22 that the Jews believed in foretelling prophecy. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously." The early Christians believed in prophecy that foretold; their whole argument against the Jews was the recital of what the prophets had spoken. To deny that prophecy foretells is to assert that Christianity is founded on a gigantic blunder. Closely connected with this is the belief that the prophets did not necessarily comprehend the meaning of their own words, as in 1 Peter 1:11 we are told that they had to "search what, and what manner of time the Spirit which was in them did signify." This is involved in the primitive idea of prophecy and inspiration, as may be seen by the oracles. The priestess that gave the enigmatic answer at Delphi was not supposed to know what was the meaning of her own words. The whole critical assumption that the words of a prophet were absolutely conditioned by his environment, is utterly unscientific, as all unproved assumptions are. On the ground of that gratuitous assumption, critics have no right to assert that no more can be in a prophecy than the prophet who uttered it could have fully understood.

We would make another preliminary observation. Apocalypse was a mode of composition of which we have many examples—one other besides Daniel being canonical. To understand Daniel, then, we ought to apply the canons of interpretation which may be deduced from other apocalypses, especially from the Book of Revelation. One of these that is of special importance is the way numbers are used as marks by which identities are indicated. Thus in Revelation the dragon, the beast that came out of the waters, and the scarlet beast on which the woman sat, are recognized to be all symbols of one and the same antichristian power—Rome, by the fact that always we have the seven heads and ten horns prominent. Towards God it is diabolism, towards the saints it is a devouring beast, and to the world at large the "harlot." On the other hand, the beast that came out of the earth, that had two horns, is different.

If we apply this principle to Daniel, we can maintain the identity of the two visions—before us: first, because each had four members; next, we can identify the fourth kingdom in each series by the facts that there are ten toes to the feet of the image, and ten horns upon the fourth beast—the prominence of the number ten proves the identity of the two. The second empire in the image has duality as its ruling mark—there are the two shoulders; and the bear raises itself up on one side, implying the other. This twofoldness is intensified in the vision of the "ram" and "he-goat;" the ram has two horns. The third monarchy has no number prominent in the image-vision, but has four wings as the third beast. When we pass to the next vision, we find that, when the "he-goat" loses his notable horn, .four others spring up. And in the eleventh chapter the empire of Alexander was divided to the four winds of heaven.

While this is an affirmative principle, it is also a negative one. On the ground of the identity of prominent numbers, we may assume the identity of the thing symbolized, though symbolized by diverse symbols; on the other hand, where prominent numbers are diverse, notwithstanding a general resemblance, we can assume a diversity in the thing symbolized. Thus the little horn of the eighth chapter is very like, superficially, to the eleventh horn of the seventh chapter: but the difference of numerical relations compells us to regard, them as symbols of different things. It was the identity here assumed that led Delitzsch to abandon the traditional view of the fourth monarchy, and give in his adhesion to the critical view. When, however, we look at the numerical relations of the two, we find they are wholly different. In the seventh chapter the eleventh horn does not belong to any of the previous horns, and dispossesses three of them; on the other hand, the little horn of the eighth chapter springs out from one of the four horns—it is not an independent horn, but a sprout from one of the extant horns. Further, there are no horns dispossessed or uprooted before it These prominent differences override the resemblance of the one having a mouth speaking great things and making war with the saints, and the other being a king that understood dark sentences, and made war against Messiah the Prince. Notwithstanding this superficial resemblance, we are compelled to maintain the real difference. Surely more than one tyrant made war against the saints and persecuted them. At all events, this must be said—that the numerical difference renders it illegitimate to draw any argument from the purely superficial resemblance above referred to.

Having considered these preliminaries, let us look now at the various interpretations that have been put forward of these visions. First, there is the common, as it may be called, the traditional view, which, as we all know, makes the first empire the Babylonian, the second the Medo-Persian, the third the Greek, and the fourth the Roman. This view is repudiated with one consent by all critics; to admit that the Roman was intended would be to admit that prophecy foretold, and that, Scripture notwithstanding, is tacitly assumed to be impossible. Mere negation is not enough; it is necessary to replace the ancient view by some other that will enable the interpreter to say that not the Roman, but the Greek, is the fourth empire.

The problem before critical interpreters, then, is to show how there can be tour mornarchies beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and ending with the Greek, or at all events the Seleucid Empire. We may neglect a scheme referred to Ewald by Pusey, but which in his Commentary on Daniel Ewald does not adopt, namely, that the Ninevite monarchy is the first, and the Babylonian the second. This interpretation contradicts the words of Daniel when he interprets the dream to Nebuchadnezzar. He says to Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art this head of gold." This hypothesis belongs to the theory that Daniel was taken captive from the northern kingdom, and dwelt in Nineveh, not in Babylon. It is utterly without evidence. Neglecting this fanciful view, there are other three schemes. It is obvious that, if three of the four monarchies of the traditional view are to be made out to be four, this can only be done by splitting one of these monarchies into two. We shall classify these views in accordance with this, and take them up in the order of the monarchies they divide.

The first is Hitzig's theory with regard to the interpretation of the image-dream. He splits up the Babylonian kingdom, and makes "the head of gold" apply only to Nebuchadnezzar personally, and says that the shoulders of silver are the symbol of the reign of Belshazzar. The Medo-Persian is the third monarchy, and the fourth monarchy is the Greek. As we hays already said. Hitzig does not apply this to the later vision of the four beasts coming out of the sea: this itself would go far to condemn his view. But when we examine the vision, we find many things in it that do not suit with this interpretation. There is, in the first place, a decided want of symmetry in it. The "head of gold" is Nebuchadnezzar personally; the arms and breast of silver symbolize Belshazzar as a person; but the belly and thighs of brass are the symbol of the Medo-Persian Empire, and the legs of iron the Greek Empire. Here are two individuals and two monarchies made co-ordinate. Usually historians become more diffuse and particular the nearer they come to their own date; but if the author of Daniel lived in the days of the Maccabees, then on this hypothesis he was more diffuse and particular in an age removed from him by three centuries. Further, the twofoldness implied in the two arms which form the symbol of the second kingdom has no meaning in regard to Belshazzar, unless Hitzig were prepared to admit the reference to the fact that Belshazzar reigned along with Nabunahid his father—a view which contradicts his assumption that Belshazzar is the literal son of Nebuchadnezzar. We may dismiss Hitzig's view of the interpretation of the image-vision as unsatisfactory. Further, we may assume that the first monarchy is the Babylonian.

The great mass of critical commentators divide the second empire of the traditional interpretation into two, and maintain that the author of the Book of Daniel believed that there was a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian. Of this Mr. Bevan declares, with the modesty peculiar to the critical school, that "there can be no doubt it is correct." This is the view maintained by Porphyry and Ephrem Syrus. It is deduced from the fact that Ephrem Syrus holds it, that it must have been known to the Jews of the fourth century. With these exceptions, all ancient authorities support what we have called the traditional view. We will not plead against this critical view the fact that no such empire did actually come between Cyrus's conquest and the fall of the Babylonian Empire. All that we will endeavour to do is to see whether the Book of Daniel assumes such an interpolated empire or not—whether it does not persistently assume a dual empire of Medes and Persians.

The first thing we would note is that invariably the symbol of this second empire implies duality. The two arms of the image show it clearly. Dr. Davidson, in his short article on Bevan's 'Daniel' in the Critical Review , remarks that the second beast which lifted itself up on one side implied that same duality. When we turn to the eighth chapter, we find a ram with two horns, the one of which that came up last outgrew the one that sprang up earlier. There we find the same duality in unity as symbolized in the other symbols. That one of the two elements should be the more powerful is implied in the bear that raised itself up on one side. Mr. Bevan thinks the two horns indicate two successive empires. To apply Mr. Bevan's own words to himself, "No one who had not a hopeless cause to defend" would use such an argument. In the he-goat there are horns too. Mr. Bevan does not think that there are two different kinds of empire symbolized by the one horn and the four . If it had been said, in regard to the ram, that the earlier horn bad been rooted up before that which came up later, Mr. Bevan might have had some greater show of argument for his position, though even then the fourth beast has three horns rooted out, and he does not maintain that a new race enters into a position of prominence. Like other critics, Mr. Bevan is apt to forget a canon when it does not suit him to apply it. Let Mr. Bevan endeavour to frame a symbolic animal figure which shall represent one empire in which there are two ruling races, kindred yet distinct, one of which had from a position of inferiority gained the superiority. He would be compelled to devise something that would be very like the two-horned ram, and liable to the same misinterpretations as those he has made in regard to it. No one can deny that the Persian Empire presented a dual aspect to those outside. In Herodotus and Thucydides Μηδίζειν is to side with the Persians. While Herodotus calls the great Persian war τά Περσικά, Thucydides always speaks of it as τά Μηδικά; he calls the battle of Marathon, ἡ ἐν Μαραθῶνι μάχη Μήδων πρὸς Ἀθηναίους. At the same time, Herodotus knows the distinction of the races. AE schylus, who encountered the Persians at Salamis, in 'The Persae' begins the Persian Empire with a Mede, Astyages or Cyaxares—

Μῆδος γάρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμῶν στρατοῦ

As late as the days of Horace , this freedom of use of the words "Mede" and "Persian" was common. Such being the case, the natural thing for a Jew living in the days of the Maccabees, whose sources of information in regard to ancient foreign history were mainly, if not exclusively, Greek, would be to identify the Median and Persian monarchies. Certainly the existence of an independent empire of Medes succeeding that of Babylon, and overthrown by Cyrus, is not hinted at in other Scriptures. The critical hypothesis is that the author of the Book of Daniel was well acquainted with Jeremiah and Kings, and made up the book before us in accord with them. What led him to make this division, if he made it? We should need very conclusive evidence that the author, whoever he was, did make the distinction. To bring forward as evidence the statement that "Darius the Mede received the kingdom," "was made king ," appears to prove the writer incapable of apprehending the nature of evidence. When a man receives a kingdom, or is made king , this implies a higher power, as in Luke 19:12 . As to the fact that קְבַל in the pael means "receive," not "take," we may appeal to Ewald, who translates it by erupting ; to Levy, in whose Aramaic dictionary all the references to the Targumic use of the word show that it means "receive," not "take," as Numbers 35:3 , תְּקַבְלון מַמוֹן אֵינָשׁ קְטוֹלו לא . Mr. Bevan does not dispute this, but attempts to get round it by asserting that the phrases in question mean that he, Darius, was made king by God. That, however, is without justification: in such case the real agent would be mentioned in the immediate context, as in the example Mr. Bevan takes from Daniel 5:28 , "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and the Persians;" in Daniel 5:26 it is said, "God hath numbered thy kingdom." Professor Bevan says there is an instance in a Syriac historian, whom he does not name, where the same words are used of the accession of Julian the Apostate. That a Christian writer should use קִבַּל of Julian the Apostate's accession is nothing to the point. Christianity has emphasized the supremacy of Providence. Further, Julian, expecting to have to conquer the throne, by the unexpected death of Constantius received it as an inheritance.

But the proofs of the unity of the empire of the Medes and the Persians are numerous in Daniel. When Daniel interpreted the inscription on the wall, be had before him Upharsin , "and fragments;" he sees in this that the Babylonian kingdom would be broken by the Persians—an interpretation that involves a play on the words פְרַס , "to divide," and פְרַס , "a Persian;" there is nothing about Medes in the inscription. Yet Daniel says the kingdom is given to the Medes and the Persians. Further, the prophecy which declared that the Babylonian Empire would be overthrown by the Persians is regarded as fulfilled when Darius the Mede receives the kingdom. Again, when Darius publishes the decree that condemns Daniel to the lions' den, he is moved to establish the decree "according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not." When Darius would rescind the decree, he is met by this immutability of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. If the empire was Median , why was the name Persian appended thus? If it be objected that Medes is placed before Persians , Dr. Pusey rightly remarks that this is in all likelihood due to the court politeness of those about a Median satrap, or king. Boys in Scotland often play at a game which they invariably call "Scotch and English," never "English and Scotch," yet the disparity in population, extent, and influence is greater between England and Scotland than that between Persia and Media. If one had no end to serve by denying it, it would seem impossible to deny that the Persian Empire was regarded as a dual empire by the author of the Book of Daniel; and that, in his view, in this empire the Merle had almost an equal place with the Persian; that, in short, in the Persian Empire the Medes occupied much the same position as the Scotch do in the English.

A subsidiary argument for making the second empire the Median as distinct from the Persian, is the fact that the second empire is declared to be inferior to the first. It is gratuitously assumed that tiffs means inferiority in extent of dominion, and thus it is alleged that this independent Median Empire which succeeded the Babylonian was inferior in extent to it. One can assert anything of an empire that never existed. Mr. Bevan seems to lay stress on the fact that the word אַרְעָא , " inferior ," is only used of the silver kingdom, and holds that the idea of inferiority is not carried forward. Had Mr. Bevan not determined beforehand to make the division in question between Modes and Persians, and seen that, to maintain this, he had to assume the inferiority as only applicable to the first, he would have recognized that the word in question is merely explanatory of the relative inferiority of the metal used to symbolize the second kingdom, and its louver position in the figure. That being so. he would not have failed to see that if silver is inferior to gold, then brass is inferior to silver, and iron to brass, and clay to iron. In fact, there is a progressive degradation in the metals, which harmonizes with the lower and lower position in the figure assigned to each. No one could regard the Persian Empire as inferior in extent to the Babylonian. Still less could any one regard the Greek as inferior in extent to the Persian. As the inferiority of the successive empires is not in extent of territory, this affords no shadow of proof that there was a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian. We may, then, assume this theory as disproved.

A third set of critics divide the Greek monarchy. They assume that the third monarchy is that of Alexander the Great, and that the fourth is that of the Diadochi. It is perfectly true that the four wings on the back of the leopard signify rapidity of movement, and this was the pre-eminent characteristic of Alexander's conquest. Certainly, also, there was great division among the successors of Alexander which might be symbolized by the ten horns, though the separate kingdoms never approached that number. But no one could say of the empire of the Diadochi that it was utterly diverse from what had preceded. The various dynasties that succeeded Alexander really continued his influence. No one could say that as iron breaketh in pieces, and subdueth all things, so the feeble kingdom of the Diadochi subdued all kingdoms. If it is restricted to the Seleucids in Syria, it is still less true. Parthia broke away from them, and Baetria formed a separate kingdom. If, latterly, they secured Coele-Syria from the Lagids, it was only towards the end of the reign of Antiochus the Great. Before that they had been beaten back again and again. Further, this scheme lacks symmetry; the first and second as also the fourth beasts , symbolize empires; the third, only the reign of one individual monarch. We must, then, declare this third hypothesis as untenable.

We may neglect the interpretation quoted by Mr. Bevan, which made the fourth monarchy Islam, and reduced the monarchies to four, either by combining the Babylonian and Persian monarchies, or the Greek and the Roman. Islam did not dispossess the empire of Rome. Roman imperialism exists yet. The Emperors of Austria and Germany claim to be successors of the Emperors of the West, and the Czar of Russia asserts himself the successor of the Emperors of the East. We may also neglect Dr. Bonnar's hypothesis, that makes the four beasts symbolize—tile first, the Holy Roman Fmpire; the second, Napoleon the Great; the third, the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon race in Britain and America; the fourth, the anarchists.

Let us look at the despised traditional view. It starts, like all the others, with the Babylonian. We are told that Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold. The winged lion with human heart was a meet symbol of that Assyrian power which, alike in Nineveh and Babylon, rejoiced in winged, human-headed animal figures. The second empire has duality for its numerical note—two arms two sides, and, in the case of the ram, two horns. This is a natural symbol for the Medo-Persian power. The animal that symbolizes it—the bear, with its relatively slow movements—represents well the comparatively slow progress of Persian conquests, compared with those either of Nebuchadnezzar or of Alexander. What seems to us to demonstrate the correctness of this view is the fact that the ram, which symbolizes the Medo-Persian Empire in the eighth chapter, has, as we have said, the numerical note two.

The third empire is the Greek. It has four as its numerical note. The leopard has four wings. The goat that symbolizes Greece in the eighth chapter has four horns. These wings are the symbol of rapidity of movement. As a matter of history, the conquests of Alexander were made with extreme rapidity. He ascended the throne of Macedonia, a youth of twenty, in b.c. 336. In two years he had subdued the whole Balkan peninsula. In b.c. 334 he crossed the Hellespont, and in ten years he had conquered Asia to the Oxus and the Indus, and Egypt to the cataracts of the Nile. Cyrus, after a reign of more than twice the length, had not made nearly as extensive conquests. On the ground of the suitability of the symbol to the facts of the Greek conquest, we would say that the third empire is that of Alexander and his successors. The symbol in the image-vision is not so clear, but the metal, bronze, was one that was much used by the Greeks for armour, and, moreover, was eminently suitable for artistic purposes; hence it was a suitable symbol for the Greek power.

On this traditional theory the fourth empire is the Roman. Mr. Bevan tells us, as we have said, that Ephrem Syrus, in the fourth century, held that the Greek Empire was the fourth. He "doubtless," says Mr. Bevan, "derived it"—this view—"from Jewish tradition." We have evidence that the common Jewish belief, much earlier than the fourth century, the time of Ephrem Syrus, was that the fourth empire was the Roman. The Fourth Book of Esdras, which is dated by most critics a.d. 90, though by some put more than a century earlier, describes the Roman power as an eagle, and tells of the various emperors, and expressly identifies this with the fourth beast of Daniel.

We have spoken of the New Testament .Apocalypse. There are three beasts introduced with ten horns; two of these are certainly Rome, and the fourth beast in Daniel has ten horns. Evidently, then, the Apostle John had no doubt as to the reference of Daniel's beast with ten horns The Apocalypse of Baruch was probably written in b.c. 60. and there the Roman power is expressly designated as the fourth kingdom. Here is direct evidence, coming down to little more than a century after the critical date of Daniel, that in Jewish opinion the fourth empire in Daniel was the Roman.

We admit there are difficulties in interpreting the features of this fourth monarchy. In approaching this part of our subject, we would lay it down as a principle that, in interpreting apocalyptic writings, we are to be guided by notes of interpretation to be found in them. One of these notes of interpretation we find in Revelation 17:9 , "The seven heads are seven mountains, and. they are seven kings." Here we find the numerical note which points out the city of Rome. The number seven has two meanings: " mountains ," the seven hills of Rome; and " seven kings," presumably the seven rulers of Rome, Nero being the seventh and Pompey the first. There may be a reference to the seven kings of Rome. Whatever the interpretation here, at all events this much is clear—the symbols carry double. This is directly in the teeth or the assumption of the critical school, that if a symbol means one thing, it cannot at the same time mean another. With this principle, let us approach this symbol of the ten horns. The magistracies of Rome were, roughly speaking, ten—two consuls, originally two praetors, two censors, and four tribunes. The imperial power was utterly unknown to the Roman constitution; but it, coming up after the others, absorbed the power of three of these magistracies—the tribunitian, the praetorian, and censorial. Certainly the imperial dignity had a month speaking great things. Not only was the emperor regularly deified on his decease, but even during 'his life he was saluted as a present deity. Temples were erected to Augustus during his lifetime, and Caius Caligula could hardly be restrained from compelling the Jews to worship his statue. But these horns may not only be co-ordinate and contemporary, but also successive. From the standpoint of Judaism, what was the greatest injury inflicted on the holy people by Rome? Was it not indubitably the capture of Jerusalem by Titus under the auspices of his father Vespasian? Now, if we include in the rank of rulers Pompey, who certainly had burned in his personality upon the Jews by his profanation of the temple, and certainly bulked more largely in the eye of every one, Romans or foreigners, than any preceding Roman, as we may see by reading Cicero, ' Pro Lege Manilia,' then Vespasian was the eleventh ruler, and before him three emperors, Galba, Vitellius, Otho, had been removed.

The interpretation is not yet exhausted. It has been recognized that the two legs represent the twofold division of the empire into eastern and western Although this was only made actual by Diocletian, the division existed in reality from the first between the subjects speaking Latin and those speaking Greek. Taking this as our starting-point, there could easily be enumerated ten powers, Eastern and Western, that may form the ten toes of the image. The number ten is not to be taken with arithmetical exactness. The imperial power of Russia may be symbolized as that which, arising beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire and of the kingdoms formed from it, seems likely to overstep her present limits, and, it may well be, shall swallow up three other powers. This latter interpretation we merely throw out as suggestive.

The critical school have some difficulty in making out their ten rulers, who are symbolized by the ten horns. Porphyry drew on the Egyptian Ptolemies to fill out the deficiencies of the Seleucids. That is evidently an illicit process. The more general scheme now is to start with Alexander the Great, then take the successive Seleucids; as they are not enough, Helio-dorus, who never was king, is inserted. If, however, the fourth beast is the Greek power, and Alexander is to be taken as the first monarch, then all his successors, Lagids, Antegonids, and Attalids, as well as Seleucids, have to be reckoned—a number to be counted by scores rather than tens. Were it not for the necessity they are under to make the fourth monarchy the Greek, this attempt would have been acknowledged to be a failure.

Before we leave this, we must consider this point—the growing degradation of the powers that succeed the Babylonian. In what sense could Babylon be the head of gold, while Persia was silver, Greece bronze, and Rome iron? It is evident that this inferiority is not one of extent of territory; for the successive monarchies were each more extensive geographically than its predecessor. In what, then, consists the inferiority? The only suggestion that seems to me at all to meet the case, is one made by Dr. Bonnar of East Kilbride, in his ingenious book, 'The Great Interregnum.' In looking at this question, we must begin by divesting ourselves of all our preconceived notions of representative government and freedom of the people, in fact, all our Western ideas, and look at monarchy with the eyes of an Oriental. To an Oriental that monarchy is highest that is likest Divine sovereignty. Only the most absolute monarch can at all, in idea, represent Divine sovereignty. The Babylonian government had this absoluteness—the king's will was law, without cheek or limits-ion. This, as the likest to the Divine government, was the head of gold. The Persian monarch had the seven nobles—so to say, peers of the crown—that limited his authority. The hereditary satraps formed a further limitation. This was silver, not gold. This monarchy had still much of the Divine absoluteness in it, but not so much as the Babylonian, The Greek Empire still retained many of the features of Oriental absoluteness, as many of the features of Oriental magnificence, but they limited their own authority by the introduction of autonomous cities all over their dominions. Along with the Greek city life there was a certain independence and freedom assigned to the individual, that limited the action of the monarch. He was no longer removed from all men by an immense distance; with all his absoluteness, he was a Greek among Greeks. Still, the idea of the monarchy was kept up. There is thus a further degradation—the age of bronze is reached; the age of gold is past, and even that of silver. With Rome, the empire that was diverse from all others, the monarchical idea disappeared. The emperor was simply Imperator of a republic. He might be deified in his lifetime, might wield absolute power in actuality, but in idea he was but the servant of the Roman Republic. The bronze had given place to iron. If we carry cur eyes down the ages to the kingdoms that have succeeded the Roman Empire, monarchy has ceased to have much power at all. The iron now is mingled with the miry clay. The progress of constitutional history all over the world has been the lessening of government authority, and setting the individual free. The stone cut out of the mountain, so far as material goes, is at a still lower level in regard to value than the iron mingled with the miry clay. Individualism becomes absolute in Christianity when the believer, in exercise of his absolute personal right over himself, surrenders himself absolutely into the hands of Christ.

The Messianic kingdom, foreseen by the prophet, and foretold in the stone in the vision of the image, and in the Son of man in that of the four beasts, looks forward to a time beyond the present, when all civil governments will have ceased, when the Church shall be manifest as the true state, when Christ, the Anointed of the Lord, alone shall reign. This prophecy is not fulfilled in Christ's coming in weakness as the Babe at Bethlehem, nor in his life of sorrow and death, of shame and suffering. No; it is in his coming the second time unto salvation. It is failure to realize this that leads Bishop Westcott to maintain the fourth monarchy to be the Greek. He somehow thinks that the fourth kingdom must have passed away before the Messiah comes. But in the image-vision the stone was cut out of the mountain before the image had disappeared. When a person approaches this subject with a set of presuppositions, he is all the less likely to reach a true conclusion. Looked at in the way it presents itself to us, this sublime scheme of universal history terminates only when the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ; when the promise made to the Son by the Father, that he should have the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, shall be fulfilled. Only some such time of universal peace can adequately conclude history and fulfil prophecy.

HOMILETICS