In regard to this statement, while the general facts are correct, there are some additional statements which should be made, to determine as to its real bearing on the case. The act of detaching Apollonius to attack Jerusalem was not, as is stated in this extract, when Antiochus was on his way to Egypt, but was on his return from Egypt, and was just two years after Jerusalem had been taken by Antiochus. Prideaux, III. 239. The occasion be better fitted to represent that than the character of Antiochus Epiphanes. Comp. Prideaux, Con. III. 213, 214. (b) His arrogance and blasphemy — 'speaking of his detaching Apollonius, was thai! t words insfc tho Mogt Hi L> Antiochus was enraged because he had. Nothi.. b fl tofindwhatwould been defeated in Egypt by the Romans,', f jt,, „,,... and resolved to vent all his wrath upon! bA° * foment of this m the character of the Jews, who, at that time, had given: Antiochus— in his sacrilegious entrance him no particular offence. When, two: mto the most holy places; m his setting up years before, Antiochus had himself taken! the statue of Jupiter; in his offering a Jerusalem, he slew forty thousand per-! swine as a sacrifice on the great altar; in sons; he took as many captives, and sold his sprinkling the broth of a swine on the them for slaves; he forced himself into | temple in contempt of the Hebrews and the temple, and entered the most holy | their worship, and in his causing the daily place; he caused a great sow to be offered. sacrifice at the temple to cease, (c) His on the altarof burnt-offering, to show his ' making war with the 'saints,' and 'wearcontempt for tho temple and the Jewish, ing out the saints of the Most High' — religion; he sprinkled the broth over all this could be found accomplished in every part of the temple for the purpose! the wars which Antiochus waged against of polluting it; he plundered the temple the Jews in the slaughter of so many of the altar of incense, the show-bread thousands, and in sending so many into table, and tho golden candlestick, and hopeless slavery, (d) His attempt to then returned to Antioch, having sip- ' change times and laws' — this could bo pointed Philip, a Phrygian, a man of a found to have been fulfilled in the case cruel and barbarous temper, to be gov- ' of Antiochus — in his arbitrary character, ernor of the Jews. Prideaux, iii. 231. and in his interference with the laws of When Apollonius again attacked the city, the Hebrews, (e) The time, as above two years afterwards, he waited quietly ' stated, is the most remarkable coinciuntil the Sabbath, and then made his as- dence. If this is not to be regarded sault. He filled the city with blood, set as referring exclusively to Antiochus it it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled d^wn the walls, built a strong fortress over against the temple, from which the garrison could fall on all who should at tempt to go to worship. From this time 'the temple became deserted, and the daily sacrifices were omitted,' until the service was restored by Judas Maccabeus, three years and a half after. The time must be explained on one of two sup positions — either that it is one of those coincidences which will be found to hap pen in history — as coincidences happen in dreams; or as having a double refer ence — intended to refer primarily to An tiochus, but in a secondary and more im portant sense referring also to other events having a strong resemblance to during which this continued was, in fact, this; or, in other words, that the language just three years and a half, until Judas j was designedly so couched as to rebate to Maccabeus succeeded in expelling the j two similar classes of events. It is not heathen from the temple and from Jeru- to be regarded as very remarkable, howsalem, when the temple was purified, and ever, that it is possible to find a fulfil- was solemnly reconsecrated to the wor ship of God. See Prideaux, Con. III. 240, 241, and the authorities there cited. Now, in reference to this interpretation, supposing that the prophecy relates to Antiochus, it must be admitted that there ment of these predictions in Antiochusr though it be supposed that the design was to describe the Papacy, for some of the expressions are of so general a char acter that they could be applied to many events which have occurred, and, from are coincidences which are remarkable, the nature of the case, there were strong and it is on the ground of these coinci- I points of resemblance between Antiochus dences that the prophecy has been ap- and the Papal power. It is not absoplied to him. These circumstances arejlutely necessary, therefore, to suppose such as the following: (a) The general j that this had reference to Antiochus Epicharacter of the authority that would ex-! phanes, and there are so many oljectioni ist as denoted by the 'little horn,' as to this view as to make it, it seems to me, that of severity and cruelty. None could morally impossible that it should have had such a reference. Among these ob jections are the following:
(1) This interpretation makes it neces sary to divide the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and to consider them two kingdoms, as Eichhorn, Jahn, Dereser, De Wette, and Bleek, do. In order to this interpretation, the following are the king doms denoted by the four beasts — by the first, the Chaldee; by the second, the Medish; by the third, the Persian; and by the fourth, the Macedonian, or the Mace donian-Asiatic kingdom under Alexander the Great. But to say nothing now of any other difficulties, it is an insuperable objection to this, that so far as the king doms of the Medes and Persians are men tioned in Scripture, and so far as they play any part in the fulfilment of pro phecy, they are always mentioned as one. They appear as one; they act as one; they are regarded as one. The kingdom of the Medes does not appear until it is united with that of the Persians, and this remark is of special importance when they are spoken of as succeeding the king dom of Babylon. The kingdom of the Medes was contemporaneous with that of Babylon; it was the Medo-Persian king dom that was in any proper sense the suc cessor of that of Babylon, as described in these symbols. The kingdom of the Medes, as Hengstenberg well remarks, could in no sense be said to have succeeded that of Babylon any longer than during the reign of Cyaxares II., after the taking of Baby lon; and even during that short period of two years, the government was in fact in the hand of Cyrus. Die Authentic des Daniel, p. 200. Schlosser, p. 243, says 'the kingdom of the Medes and Persians is to be regarded as in fact one and the same kingdom, only that in the change of the dynasty another branch obtained the authority/ See particularly Rosenmuller, Alterthumkunde, i. 200, 201. These two kingdoms are in fact always blended — their laws, their customs, their religion, and they are mentioned as one. Comp. Esther i. 3, 18, 19; x. 2; Dan. v. 28; vi. 8, 12, 15.
(2) In order to this interpretation, it is necessary to divide the empire founded by Alexander, and instead of regarding it as one, to consider that which ex isted when he reigned as one, and that of Antiochus, one of the successors of Alexander, as another. This opinion is maintained by Bertholdt, who supposes that the first beast represented the Baby lonian kingdom; the second, the king dom of the Medes and Persians; the third, that of Alexander, and the fourth the kingdoms that sprang out of that. In order to this it is necessary to sup pose that the four heads and wings, and the ten horns, equally represent that king dom, or sprang from it — the four heads, the kingdom when divided at the death of Alexander, and the ten horns powers that ultimately sprang up from the same dominion. But this is contrary to the whole representation in regard to the Asiatic-Macedonian empire. In ch. viii. 8, 9, where there is an undoubted refer ence to that empire, it is said "the hegoat waxed very great, and when ho was strong the great horn was broken, and from it came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the South," &c. Here is an undoubted allu sion to Alexander, and to his followers, and particularly to Antiochus, but no mention of any such division as is necessary to be supposed if the fourth beast represents the power that succeeded Alexander in the East. In no place is the kingdom of the successors of Alexander divided from his in the same sense in which the kingdom of the Medes and Persians is from that of Babylon, or the kingdom of Alexander from that of the Persians. Comp. Heng stenberg, as above, pp. 203—205.
(3) The supposition that the fourth beast represents either the kingdom of Alexander, or, according to Bertholdt and others, the successors of Alexander, by no means agrees with the character of that beast as compared with the others. That boast was far more formidable, and more to be dreaded, than either the others. It had iron teeth and brazen claws; it stamped down all before it, and broke all to pieces, and manifestly re presented a far more fearful dominion than either of the others. The same is true in regard to the parallel representa tion in ch. ii. 33, 40, of the fourth kingdam represented by the legs and feet of iron, as more terrific than either of those denoted by the gold, the silver, or the brass. But this representation by no means agrees with the character of the kingdom of either Alexander or his suc cessors, and in fact would not be true of them. It would agree well, as wo shaU
Bee, with the Roman power, even as con trasted with that of Babylon, Persia, or Macedon, but it is not the representation which would, with propriety, be given of the empire of Alexander, or his suc cessors, as contrasted with those which view, that these are lists of successive kings — rising up one after the other; whereas the representation of the ten horns would lead us to suppose that they existed simultaneously; or that somehow there were ten powers that sprang out of preceded them. Cornp. Hengstenberg, the one great power represented by the as above, pp. 205 — 207. Moreover, this does not agree with what is expressly said of this power that should succeed that of Alexander, in a passage un doubtedly referring to it, in ch. viii. 22, where it is said, " Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four king doms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power"
(4) On this supposition, it is impossible to determine who are meant by the ' ten horns' of the fourth beast (ver. 7), and the ' ten kings' (ver. 24,) that are repre sented by these. All the statements in
(5) Equally difficult is it, on this sup position, to know who are intended by the ' three horns' that were plucked up by the little horn that sprang up among the ten, ver. 8. Grotius, who regards the 'little horn' as representing Antiochus Epiphanes, supposes that the three horns were his elder brothers, Seleucus, Deme trius the son of Seleucus, and Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. But it is an insuperable objection to this that the three kings mentioned by Grotius are not all in his list of ten kings, neither Pto-
Daniel that refer to the Macedonian I lemy Philometor (if Philometor be meant), kingdom (ch. vii. 6, viii. 8, 22), imply j nor Demetrius being of the number. — that the Macedonian empire in the East, j Newton on the Proph., p. 211. Neither when the founder died, would be divided into four great powers or monarchies — in accordance with what is well-known to have been the fact. But who are the ten kings or sovereignties that were to exist under this general Macedonian power, on the supposition that the fourth beast re presents this? Bertholdt supposes that the ten horns are ' ten Syrian kings,' and that the eleventh little horn is An tiochus Epiphanes. The names of these kings, according to Bertholdt, (pp. 432, 433,) are Seleucus Nicator, Antiochus Soter, Antiochus Theos, Seleucus Callinicus, Seleucus Ceraunos, Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, lleliodorus, Ptolemy Philometor, and Deme trius. So also Prof. Stewart, Com. on Dan. p. 208. But it is impossible to make out this exact number of Syrian kings from history, to say nothing now were they plucked up by the roots by An tiochus, or by his order. Seleucus was poisoned by his treasurer, Heliodorus, whose aim it was to usurp the crown fee himself, before Antiochus came from Rome, where he had been detained as a hostage for several years. Demetrius lived to dethrone and murder the son of Antiochus, and succeeded him in the kingdom of Egypt. Ptolemy Philopator died king of Egypt almost thirty years before Antiochus came to the throne of Syria; or if Ptolemy Philometor, as is most probable, was meant by Grotius, though he suffered much in the wars with Antiochus, yet he survived him about eighteen years, and died in possession of the crown of Egypt. Newton ut supra. Bertholdt supposes that the three kings were Heliodorus, who poisoned Seleucus Philopator, and sought, by the help of of the improbability of supposing that I party, to obtain the throne; Ptolemy Phitheir power was represented by the lometor, king of Egypt, who, as sister's fourth beast. These kings were not of the same dynasty, of Syria, of Mace donia, or of Egypt, but the list is made up of different kingdoms. Gro tius (in loc.) forms the catalogue of ten kings out of the lists of the kings of Syria and Egypt — five out of one, and five out of the other; but this is mani festly contrary to the intention of the son to the king, laid claim to the throne; and Demetrius, who, as son of a former king, was legitimate heir to the throne. But there are two objections to this view: (a) That the representation by the pro phet is of actual kings — which these were not; and (b) that Antiochus ascended the throne peaceably; Demetrius, who would have been regarded as the king of Syria, prophecy, which is to represent them not being able to make his title good, and as springing out of one and the same | was detained as a hostage at Rome, power. It is a further objection to this! Hengstenberg, pp. 207, 208. Prof. Stuart,
Com. on Dan., pp. 208, 209, supposes that the three kings referred to were Heliodorus, Ptolemy Philometor, and Deme trius I.; but in regard to these it should be observed, that they were mete pretend ers to the throne, whereas the text in Daniel supposes that they would be actual kings. Comp. Hengstenberg, p. 208.
(6) The time here mentioned, on the supposition that literally three years and a half (ver. 25) are intended, does not agree with the actual dominion of Antio chus. In an undoubted reference to him in ch. viii. 13, 14, it is said that 'the vis ion concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation/ would be 'unto two thousand and three hun dred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed;' that is, one thousand and forty days, or some two years and ten months more than the time mentioned here. I am aware of the difficulty of explaining this (see Prof. Stuart, Hints on the Interpre tation of Prophecy, p. 98, seq.), and the exact meaning of the passage in ch. viii. 13, 14, will come up for consideration hereafter; but it is an objection of some force to the application of the ' time, and times, and dividing of a time' (ver. 25) to Antiochus, that it is not the same time which is applied to him elsewhere.
(7) And one more objection to this ap plication is, that, in the prophecy, it is said that he who was represented by the 'little horn,' would continue till 'the An cient of days should sit,' and evidently till the kingdom should be taken by the one in the likeness of the Son of Man, vs. 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 26. But if this re fers to Antiochus, then these events must refer to the coming of the Messiah, and to the setting up of his kingdom in the world. Yet, as a matter of fact, Antio chus died about 164 years before the Sa viour came, and there is no way of show ing that he continued until the Messiah came in the flesh.
These objections to the opinion that this refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, seem to me to be insuperable
II. The question whether it refers to the Roman empire and the Papal power. The fair inquiry is, whether the things referred to in the vision actually find such a correspondence in the Roman empire and the Papacy, that they would fairly represent them if the symbols had been made use of after the events occurred. Are they such as we might properly use now as describing the portions of those events that are passed, on the supposi tion that the reference was to those events? To determine this, it will be proper to refer to the things in the sym bol, and to inquire whether events cor responding to them have actually occurred in the Roman empire and the Papacy. Recalling the exposition which has been above given of the explanation furnished by the angel to Daniel, the things there referred to will find an ample and a strik ing fulfilment in the Roman empire and the Papal power.
(1) The fourth kingdom, symbolized by the fourth beast, is accurately represented by the Roman power. This is true in regard to the place which that power would occupy in the history of the world, on the supposition that the first three re ferred to the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian. On this sup position there is no need of regarding the Medo-Persian empire as divided into two, represented by two symbols; or the king dom founded by Alexander — the Asiatic- Macedonian — as distinct from that of his successors. As the Medo-Persian was in fact one dominion, so was the Macedonian under Alexander, and in the form of the four dynasties into which it was divided on his death, and down to the time when the whole was subverted by the Roman conquests. On this supposition, also, everything in the symbol is fulfilled. The fourth beast, so mighty, so terrific, so powerful, so unlike all the others — armed with iron teeth, and with claws of brass — trampling down and stamping on all the earth — well represents the Roman dominion. The symbol is such an one as we would now use appropriately to represent that power, and in every respect that empire was well represented by the symbol. It may be added, also, that this supposition corresponds with the obvious interpretation of the parallel place in chapter ii. 33, 40, where the same empire is referred to in the image by the legs and feet of iron. See Notes on that pas sage. It should be added, that this fourth kingdom is to be considered as prolonged through the entire continuance of the Roman power, in the various forms in which that power has been kept up on the earth — alike under the empire, and when broken up into separate sovereignties, and when again concentrated and embodied under the Papacy. That/«»rf£ power or dominion was to \>Q continued, according to the prediction here, until the establish ment of the kingdom of the saints. — Either, then, that kingdom of the saints has come, or has been set up, or the fourth kingdom, in some form, still remains. The truth is, that in prophecy the entire Roman dominion seems to be contem plated as one — one mighty and formida ble power trampling down the liberties of the world; oppressing and persecuting the people of God — the true church; and maintaining an absolute and arbitrary do minion over the souls of men — as a mighty domination standing in the way of the progress of truth, and keeping back the reign of the saints on the earth. In these respects the Papal dominion is, and has been, but a prolongation, in an other form, of the influence of heathen Rome, and the entire domination may be represented as one, and might be sym bolized by the fourth beast in the vision of Daniel. When that power shall cease, we may, according to the prophecy, look for the time when the 'kingdom shall be given to the saints/ or when the true kingdom of God shall be set up all over the world.
(2) Out of this one sovereignty, repre sented by the fourth beast, ten powers or sovereignties, represented by the ten horns, were to arise. It was shown in the exposition, that these would all spring out of that one dominion, and would wield the power that was wielded by that; that is, that the one great power would be broken up and distributed into the number represented by ten. As the horns all appeared at the same time on the beast, and did not spring up after one another, so these powers would be simultaneous, and would not be a mere succession; and as the horns all sprang from the beast, so these powers would all have the same origin, and be a portion of the same one power now divided into many. The question then is, whether the Roman power was in fact distributed into so many sovereignties at any period such as would be represented by the springing up of the little horn — if that refers to the Papacy. Now, one has only to look into any his torical work, to see how in fact the Ro man power became distributed and broken up in this way into a large number of kingdoms, or comparatively petty sove reignties, occupying the portions of the world once governed by Rome. In the
[ decline of the empire, and as the new (power, represented by the 'little horn/ arose, there was a complete breaking up of the one power that was formerly wielded, and a large number of states and kingdoms sprang out of it. To see that there is no difficulty in making out the number ten, or that some such distri- I bution and breaking up of the one power is! naturally suggested, I cast my eye on the historical chart of Lynian, and found the following kingdoms or sovereignties spe cified as occupying the same territory which was possessed by the Roman em pire, and springing from that, viz: The Vandals, Alians, Suevi, Heruli, Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Lom bards, Britons. The Roman empire as such had ceased, and the power was dis tributed into a large number of compara tively petty sovereignties — well repre sented at this period by the ten horns on the head of the beast. Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms, (Calmet on Rev. xiii. 1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiaveli (Hist, of Flor. 1. i.), with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no re collection of it, has mentioned these names: — 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. the Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. the Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. the Vandals in Africa; 5- the Franks in Fran< e; 6. the Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. the Heruli and Turingi, in Italy; 8. the Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. the Huns in Hungary; 10. the Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy. The arrangement j proposed by Sir Isaac Newton is the fol lowing: 1. the kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa; 2. the kingdoms of the Suevians in Spain; 3. the kingdom of the Visigoths; 4. the kingdom of the Alans in Gallia; 5. the kingdom of the Burgundians; 6. the kingdom of the Franks; 7. the kingdom of the Britons; 8. the kingdom of the Huns; 9. the kingdom of the Lombards; 10. the kingdom of Ravenna. Comp. also Duffield on the prophecies, pp. 279, 280. For other arrangements constituting _the number ten, as embracing the ancient power of the Roman empire, See Newton on the prophecies, pp. 209, 210. There is some slight variation in the arrange ment proposed by Mr. Mede, Bishop Lloyd, and Sir Isaac Newton, but still it is remarkable that it is easy to make out that number with so good a degree of cer tainty, and particularly so that it should have been suggested by a Romanist him self. Even if it is not practicable to make out the number with strict exact ness, or if all writers do not agree in regard to the dynasties constituting the number ten, we should bear in remem brance the fact that these powers arose in the midst of great confusion; that one kingdom arose and another fell in rapid succession; and that there was not that entire certainty of location and boundary which there is in old and estab lished states. One thing is certain, that there never has been a case in which an empire of vast power has been broken up into small sovereignties, to which this description would so well apply as to the rise of the numerous dynasties in the breaking up of the vast Roman power; and another thing is equally certain, that if we were now to seek an appropriate symbol of the mighty Roman power — of its conquests, and of the extent of its dominion, and of the condition of that empire about the time that the Papacy arose, we could not find a more striking or appropriate symbol than that of the terrible fourth beast with iron teeth and brazen claws — stamping the earth beneath his feet, and with ten horns springing out of his head.
(3.) In the midst of these there sprang up a little horn that had remarkable char acteristics. The inquiry now is, if this does not represent Antiochus, whether it finds a proper fulfilment in the Papacy. Now, in regard to this inquiry, the slight est acquaintance with the history and claims of the Papal power will show that there was a striking appropriateness in the symbol — such an appropriateness, that if we desired now to find a symbol that would represent this, we could find no one better adapted to it than that em ployed by Daniel, (a) The little horn would spring up among the others, and stand among them — as dividing the power with them, or sharing or wielding that power. That is, on the supposition that it refers to the Papacy, the Papal power would spring out of the Roman empire; •would be one of the sovereignties among which that vast power would be divided, and share with the other ten in wield ing authority. It would be an eleventh power added to the ten. And who can be ignorant that the Papal power at the beginning, when it first asserted civil au thority, sustained just such a relation to the crumbled and divided Roman empire as this? It was just one of the powers into which that vast sovereignty passed. (6) It would not spring up contemporane ously with them, but would arise in their midst, when they already existed. They are seen in vision as actually existing to gether, and this new power starts up among them. What could be more strik ingly descriptive of the Papacy — as a power arising when the great Roman authority was broken to fragments, and distributed into a large number of sove reignties? Then this new power was seen to rise — small at first, but gradually gain ing strength, until it surpassed any one of them in strength, and assumed a posi tion in the world which no one of them had. The representation is exact. It is not a foreign power that invaded them; it starts up in the midst of them — spring ing out of the head of the same beast, and constituting a part of the same mighty domination that ruled the world, (c) It would be small at first, but would soon become so powerful as to pluck up and displace three of the others. And could any symbol have been better chosen to describe the Papal power than this? Could we find any now that would better describe it? Any one needs to have but the slightest acquaintance with the his tory of the Papal power, to know that it was small at its beginnings, and that its ascendency over the world was the conse quence of slow bat steady growth. In deed, so feeble was it at its commence ment, so undefined was its first appear ance and form, that one of the most diffi cult things in history is to know exactly when it did begin, or to determine the ex act date of its origin as a distinct power. Different schemes in the interpretation of prophecy turn wholly on this. We. see, indeed, that power subsequently strongly marked in its character, and ex erting a mighty influence in the world — having subjugated nations to its control; we see causes for a long time at work tending to this, and can trace their gra dual operation in producing it, but the exact period when its dominion began, what was the first characteristic act of the Papacy as such, what constituted its precise beginning as a peculiar power blending and combining a peculiar civil and ecclesiastical authority, no one is able with absolute certainty to determine. Who can fix the exact date? Who can tell precisely when it was? It is true that there were several distinct acts, or the exercise of civil authority, in the early history of the Papacy, but what was the precise bee/inning of that power, no one has been able to determine with so much certainty as to leave no room for doubt. Any one can see with what pro priety the commencement of such a power would be designated by a little horn springing up among others, grow to be mighty, for the thus grew to be so powerful as to pluck up three of the horns of the beast. Of the growth of the power of the Papacy, no one can be ignorant who has any ac quaintance with history. It held na tions in subjection, and claimed and exercised the right of displacing or dis tributing crowns as it pleased. (e) It would subdue 'three kings;' that is, three •of the ten represented by the ten horns. The prophet saw this at some point in its progress when three fell before it, or were overthrown by it. There might have been also other points in its history when it might have been seen as having over thrown more of them — perhaps the whole ten, but the attention was arrested by the fact that, soon after its rise, three of the ten were seen to fall before it. Now, in regard to the application of this, it may be remarked, (1) that it does not apply, as already shown, to Antiochus Epiphanes — there being no sense in which of certainty in the history of the Pa pacy. If applicable to the Papal power, what seems to be demanded is, that three of these ten kingdoms, or sovereign ties, would be rooted up by that power; that they would cease to exist as sepa rate sovereignties; that they would be added to the sovereignty that should spring up; and that, as distinct kingdoms, they would cease to play a part in the history of the world. The three sove reignties thus transplanted, or rooted up, are supposed by Mr. Mede to have been the Greeks, the Longobards, and the Franks. Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lom bards, and the senate and dukedom of Rome. The objections which may be made to this supposition, may be seen in Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 216, 217. The kingdoms which he supposes are to be referred to, were the following: First. The Exarchate of Ravenna. This of right belonged to the Greek emperors. This was the capitol of their dominions in Italy. It revolted at the instigation of the Pope, and was seized by Aistulphus, king of the Lombards, who thought to make himself master of Italy. The Pope in his exigency applied for aid to Pepin, king of France, who marched into Italy, besieged the Lombards in Pavia, and forced them to surrender the Exar chate and other territories in Italy. These were not restored to the Greek emperor, as they in justice should have been, but, at the solicitation of the Pope, were given to St. Peter and his succes- for perpetual says Platina, possession. "And "the name of the
Exarchate, which had continued from he overthrew three of the princes that the time of Narses to the taking of Ra- occupied the throne in the succession from Alexander, to say nothing of the fact that these were contemporaneous kings or kingdoms. (2) There is no other period in history, and there are no other events to which it could be applied except either to Antiochus or the Papacy. (3) In the confusion that existed on the 'breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the Papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfilment of the vision. Yet (4) it is possible to make out the fulfilment of this with a good degree venna, one hundred and seventy years, was extinguished." Lives of the Popes. This, according to Sigonius, was effected in the year 755. See Gibbon, Dec. and Fall, II. 224, III. 332, 334, 338. From this period, says Bp. Newton, the Popes, being now become temporal princes, no longer date their epistles and bulls by the year of the emperor's reign, but by the years of their own ad vancement to the Papal chnir. Second. The kingdom of the Lombards. This kingdom was troublesome to the Popes. The dominions of the Pope were in vaded by Desiderius, in the time of Pope Adrian I. Application was again made to the king of France, and Charles the Great, the son and successor of Pepin, invaded the Lombards, and de sirous of enlarging his own dominions, conquered the Lombards, put an end to their kingdom, and gave a great part of their territory to the Pope. This was the end of the kingdom of the Lombards, in the 206th year after their obtaining possessions in Italy, and in the year of our Lord 774. See Gibbon, Dec. and Fall. III. 335. Third. The Koman States subjected to the Popes in a civil sense. Though subject to the Pope spiritually, yet for a long time the
Gaussen (Discourse on Popery, Geneva, 1844), supposes that the three kings or kingdoms here referred to were the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards. According to Bower (Lives of the Popes, II. 108, Dr. Cox's Edition, Note), the temporal dominions granted by Pepin to the Pope, or of which the Pope became possessed in consequence of the inter vention of the kings of France, were the following: (1) The Exarchate of Ra venna, which comprised, according to Sigonius, the following cities: Ravenna, Bologna, Imola, Fienza, Forlimpoli, Forli,
Roman people were governed by a Cesena, Bobbio, Ferrara, Commachio, Senate, and retained many of their old! Adria, Servia, and Secchia. (2) The privileges, and elected both the Western! Pentapolis, comprehending Rimini, Peemperors and the Popes. This power, I saro, Concha, Fano, Sinigalia, Ancono, however, as is well known, passed into j Osimo, Umona, Jesi, Fossombrone, Monthe hands of the Popes, and has been re- i teferetro, Urbino, Cagli, Lucoli, and Eutained by them to the present time, the | gubio. (3) The city and dukedom of Pope having continued to bo the civil as I Rome, containing several cities of note, well as the ecclesiastical head. See Bp. which had withdrawn themselves from Newton, pp. 319, 320. All semblance of all subjection to the emperor, had sub- the freedom of ancient Rome passed away, and this Roman dominion, as such, ceased to be, being completely absorbed in the Papacy. The Saxons, the Franks, &c., continued their independence as civil mitted to St. Peter ever since the time of Pope Gregory II. See also Bower, II. 134, where he says, " The Pope had, by Charlemagne, been put in possession of the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and powers; these States passed entirely into the dukedom of Spoleti," [embracing the the dominion of the Pope, and, as in- city and dukedom of Rome]. And again, dependent kingdoms or sovereignties, on the same page (Note). " The Popo ceased to be. This is the solution in re- possessed the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, gard to the 'three horns' that were to be | and the dukedom of Spoleti, with the plucked up, as given by Bp. Newton, city and dukedom of Rome." It should Absolute certainty in a case of this kind be remembered that these statements are is not to be expected in the confusion made by historians with no reference to and indefiniteness of that portion of his tory, nor can it be reasonably demanded.
any supposed fulfilment of this prophecy, and no allusion to it, but as matters of
If there were three of these powers planted I simple historical fact, occurring in the in regions that became subject to the Papal power, and that disappeared or were absorbed in that one dominion con stituting the peculiarity of the Papal dominion, or which entered into the Ro man Papal state, considered as a sove reignty by itself among the nations of the earth, this is all that is required. Mr. Faber supposes the three to have been these: the Ilerulo-Turingic, the Ostrogothic. and the Lombardic, and says of them, that they " were necessarily eradi cated in the immediate presence of the Papacy, before which they were geogra phically standing — and that the temporal principality which bears the name of St. Peter's patrimony, was carved out of the mass of their subjugated dominions."
regular course of history. The material fact to be made out in order to show that this description of the 'little horn' is applicable to the Papacy is, that at the commencement of what was properly the Papacy — that is, as I suppose, the union of the spiritual.and temporal power, or the assumption of temporal authority by him who was Bishop of Rome, and who had been before regarded as a mere spi ritual or ecclesiastical ruler, there was a triple jurisdiction assumed or conceded; a three-fold domination; or a union un der himself of what had been three sove reignties, that now disappeared as inde pendent administrations, and whose dis tinct governments were now merged in the one single sovereignty of the Pope. Now, that there was, just at this time, or
even a generous enemy, -would have been less impatient to divide the spoils of the Barbarian; and if the emperor had en trusted Stephen to solicit in his name the restitution of the Exarchate, I will not absolve the Pope from the reproach of treachery and falsehood. But, in the
at the beginning of the Papacy, or when it had so increased that it could be re cognized as having a place among the temporal sovereignties of the earth, such a united domination, or such a union of three separate powers under one, will be apparent from an extract from Mr. Gib bon. He is speaking of the rewards con- | rigid interpretation of the laws, every one ferrcd on the Pope by the Carlovingian j may accept, without inquiry, whatever race of kings, on account of the favour • his benefactor may bestow without injusshown to them in his conferring the. tice. The Greek emperor had abdicated crown of France on Pepin the Mayor of; or forfeited his right to the Exarchate; the palace — directing in his favour over; and the sword of Astolphus was broken Childeric, the descendant of Clovis. j by the stronger sword of the Carlovingian. Of this transaction, Mr. Gibbon ob- j It was not in the cause of the Iconoclast serves, in general (III. 336), that "The j that Pepin had exposed his person and mutual obligations of the Popes and j army in a double expedition beyond the the Carlovingian family, form the im- Alps; he possessed and he might lawportant link of ancient and modern, of | fully alienate his conquests; and to the civil and ecclesiastical history." He then ' importunities of the Greeks he piously reproceeds, I. to specify the gifts or favours plied that no human consideration should which the Popes conferred on the Carlo vingian race, and II. those which, in re turn, Pepin and Charlemagne bestowed on the Popes. In reference to the latter, he makes the following statement (III.
338): " The gratitude of the Carlovingi-
ans was adequate to these obligations, and their names are consecrated as the prerogatives
saviours and benefactors of the Roman
Church. Her ancient patrimony of farms
and houses was transformed by their
bounty into the temporal dominion of cities and provinces, and the donation of the
Exarchate was the first fruits of the contempt him to resume the gift which he had conferred on the Roman pontiff for the remission of his sins and the salva tion of his soul. The splendid donation was granted in supreme and absolute do-
quests of Pepin. Astolphus [king of the Lombards] with a sigh relinquished his prey; the keys and the hostages of the principal cities were delivered to the French ambassador; and in his master's name he presented them before the tomb of St. Pt'.er. The ample measure of the Exarchate might comprise all the provinces of Italy which had obeyed
minion, and the world beheld for the first time a Christian bishop invested with the of a temporal prince, the choice of magistrates, the exercise of justice, the imposition of taxes, and the wealth of the palace of Ravenna. In the dissolution of the Lombard kingdom, the inhabitants of the duchy of Spoleti sought a refuge from the storm, shaved
their heads after the Ravenna fashion, de clared themselves the servants and sub jects of St. Peter, and completed by this voluntary surrender, the present circle of the Ecclesiastical State." The following
things are apparent from this extract: (a) That here, according to Mr. Gibbon, was the beginning of the temporal power of the Pope, (b) That this was properly, the emperor or his vicegerent; but its in the view above taken, the commencestrict and proper limits were included in ment of the Papacy as a distinct and pethe territories of Ravenna, Bologna, and culiar dominion, (c) That in this there Ferrara; its inseparable dependency was was a three-fold government, or three the Pentapolis, which stretched along the ' temporal sovereignties united under him,
Adriatic from Remini to Ancona, and advanced into the midland country as far as the ridge of the Apennine. In this transaction, the ambition and avarice of the Popes had been severely condemned. Perhaps the humility of a Christian priest should have rejected an earthly kingdom, which it was not easy for him to govern without renouncing the virtues of his profession. Perhaps a faithful subject, or
and constituting at that time, in the lan guage of Mr. Gibbon, "the present circle of the ecclesiastical state." There was first the Exarchate of Ravenna: second, the Pentapolis, 'which,' he says, was its 'inseparable dependency;' and third, the ' duchy of Spoleti/ which, be says, ' completed the present circle of the ecclesias tical State.' This was afterwards, Mr. Gibbon goes on to say, greatly ren- larged,' but this was the form in -which large number of separate and independent the Papal power first made its appear- sovereignties — most naturally and obviance among the temporal sovereignties j ously described by ten, or such as would of Europe. I do not find, indeed, that | appear in a prophetic vision to be ten, and the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is such as is actually so represented by histocommonly stated, among the number of | rians having no interestin the fulfilment of the temporal sovereignties that became the prophecy, and no designed reference to subject to the authority of the Popes, but what may be symbolized by the 'ten horns;' I do find that there were three distinct '• (3) that there was another peculiar and distemporal sovereignties that lost their in-, tinct power that sprang out of them, and dependent existence, and that were united i that grew to be mighty — a power unlike under that one temporal authority — con- the others, and unlike any thing that had stituting by the union of the spiritual before appeared in the world — combining and temporal power that one peculiar kingdom. In Lombardy the power re mained in the possession of the kings of the Lombards themselves, until that king dom was subdued by the arms of Pepin and Charlemagne, and then it became qualities to be found in no other sove reignty — having a peculiar relation at tho same time to the one original sovereignty, and to the ten into which that was divided — the prolongation, in an important sense, of the power of the one, and springing up subject to the crown of France, though i in a peculiar manner among the othersfor a time under the nominal reign of its j that peculiar ecclesiastical and civil power See Gibbon, iii. 334, 335, — the Papacy — well represented by the
338. If it should be said, that in the in terpretation of this passage respecting the * three horns' that were plucked up, or the three kingdoms that were thus destroyed, it would be proper to look for them among the ten into which the one great kingdom was divided, and that the three above re ferred to— the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Pentnpolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti and Rome, were not properly of that num ber, according to the list above given, it is necessary in reply to this, to advert only to the two main facts in the case: (1) that the great Roman power was ac tually divided into a large number of sovereignties; that sprang up on its ru ins — usually, but not in fact exactly, re presented by ten; and (2) that the Papacy began its career with a conceded domin ion over the three territories above referred
'little horn;' (4) that in fact this one power absorbed into itself three of these sove reignties — annihilating them as independ ent powers, and combining them into one most peculiar dominion — properly repre sented by 'plucking them up;' (5) that aa a proper symbol, or emblem of some such domination, a crown or diadem is still worn, most naturally and obviously suggesting such a three-fold absorption of dominion; (6) that all this is actually prefigured by the symbols employed by the prophet, or that the sj^mbols are such as would be naturally employed on the supposition that these events were de signed to be referred to; and (7) that there have been no oilier historical events to which these remarkable symbols could bo naturally and obviously applied. And if these things are so, how are they to be to — a part, in fact, of the one great do- explained except on the supposition that minion constituting the Roman power, j Daniel was inspired? Has man any natand are the same territory. It is a re- | ural sagacity by which such symbols repmarkable fact, that the Popes to this day | resenting the future could be suggested? wear a triple crown — a fact that exists in i (/) It would be arrogant and proud, regard to no other rnonarchs — as if they had absorbed under themselves three se parate and distinct sovereignties, or as if they represented three separate forms of dominion. The sum of what is said in the exposition of these verses may be thus expressed: — (1) That there was ori ginally one great sovereignty represented here by the 'fourth beast' — the Roman empire. (2) That, in fact, as is abund antly confirmed by history, this one great *nd united power was broken up into a
'speaking great words against the Most High.' No Protestant will doubt that this is true of the Papacy; no one ac quainted with history will presume to call it in question. The arrogant preten sions of the Papacy have been manifested in all the history of that power, and no one can doubt that its assumptions have been, in fact, by fair construction, 'a speaking of great words against God.' The Pope has claimed, or allowed to be conferred on him, names and preroga- lives which can belong only to God. See this fully shown in the Notes on 2 Thess. ii. 4. The facts there referred to are all that is necessary to illustrate this passage, on the supposition that it refers to the Papacy. Comp. also the ' Literalist,' vol. i. pp. 24—27. (</) This would he a perse cuting power — 'making war with the saints/ and ' wearing out the saints of the Most High.' Can any one doubt that this is true of the Papacy? The Inqui sition; the 'persecutions of the Waldenses;' the ravages of the Duke of Alva; the fires of Smithfield; the tortures at Goa — indeed, the whole history of the Papacy may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If any thing could have 'worn out the saints of the Most High' — could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, it would have been the persecutions of the Papal power. In the year 1208, a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III. against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million of men perished. From the be ginning of the order of the Jesuits, in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inqui sition in thirty years. In the Low coun tries fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, and buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V., against the Protestants, to the peace of Chateu Cambreses in 1559. Eighteen thousand suffered by the hand of the executioner, in the space of five years and a half, during the administra tion of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Papacy, will convince any one that what is here said of 'making war with the saints' (ver. 21), and 'wearing out the saints of the Most High' (ver. 25), is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history. There have been, indeed, other persecuting powers, but none to which this language would be so applicable, and none which it would so naturally suggest. In proof of this, it is only necessary to refer to the history of the Papacy, and to what it has done to extirpate those who have pro fessed a different faith. Let any one re call (a) the persecution of the Waldenses; (6) the acts of the Duke of Alva in the Low countries j (c) the persecution in
England under Mary; (d) the Inquisi tion; (e) the attempts, too successful, to extinguish all the efforts at Reformation in Italy and Spain in the time of Luther and Calvin (see McKrie), and (/) the at tempts to put down the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, all which were either directly originated or sanctioned by the Papacy, and all for the same end, nnd he will see no reason to doubt that the language here is strictly applicable to that power, and that there has been no government on earth which would be so naturally suggested by it. Cunninghame, in the Literalist, i. 27, 28. Indeed, who can number up all that have perished in the Inquisition alone? (h) It would claim legislative power — ' thinking to change times and laws.' The original Chaldee here may be rendered, as is done by Gesenius and De Wette, set times, stated times, or festival seasons. The word here, says Gesenius (Lex.), is 'spoken of sacred seasons, festivals,' and there can be no doubt that in this place it refers to religious institutions. The meaning is, that he would claim control over such in stitutions or festivals, and that he would appoint or change them at his pleasure. He would abolish or modify existing in stitutions of that kind, or he would insti tute new ones, as should seem good to him. This would be applicable, then, to some power that should claim authority to prescribe religious institutions, and to change the laws of God. No one, also, can fail to see a fulfilment of this in the claims of the Papacy, in setting up a ju risdiction over seasons of festival and fast; and in demanding that the laws of kingdoms should be so moulded as to sustain its claims, and modifying the laws of God as revealed in the Bible. The right of deposing and setting up kings; of fixing the boundaries of nations; of giving away crowns and sceptres; and of exercising dominion over the sacred seasons, the customs, the amusements of nations — all these, as illustrated under the Papacy, will leave no doubt that all this would find an ample fulfilment in the history of that power. The Pope has claimed to be the head of the church, and has asserted and exercised the right of appointing sacred seasons; of abolishing ancient institutions; of introducing num berless new festival occasions, practically abrogating the laws of God on a great va riety of subjects. Wo need only refer, in illustration of thu, (a) to the claim of in fallibility, by which, an absolute jurisdic tion is asserted that covers the whole ground; (6) to all the laws pertaining to image-worship, so directly in the face of the laws of God; (c) to the celibacy of the clergy, rendering void one of the laws of heaven in relation to marriage; (d) to the whole doctrine respecting purgatory; (e) to the doctrine of transubstantiation; (/) to the practical abolition of the Chris tian sabbath by appointing numerous saints' days to be observed as equally sacred; (g) to the law withholding the cup from the laity — contrary to the com mandment of the Saviour, and (h) in general to the absolute control claimed by the Papacy, over the whole subject of religion. Indeed, nothing would better characterize this power than to say that it asserted the right to 'change times and laws/ And to all this should be added another characteristic (ver. 8), that 'it would have the eyes of a man;' that is, would be distinguished for a far-seeing sagacity. Could this be so appropriately applied to anything else as to the deep, the artful, and the far-reaching diplomacy of the court of Rome; to the sagacity of the Jesuit; to the skilful policy which Bubdued the world to itself?
These illustrations will leave no doubt, it seems to me, that all that is here said will find an ample fulfilment in the Pa pacy, and that it is to be regarded as having a reference to that power. If so, it only remains
III. To inquire what, according to this interpretation, we are to expect will yet occur, or what light this passage throws on events that are yet future. The origin, the growth, the general charac ter and influence of this poner up to a distant period, are illustrated by this in terpretation. What remains is the in quiry, from the passage before us, how Jong this is to continue, and what wo are to anticipate in regard to its fall. The following points, then, would seem to be clear, on the supposition that this refers to the Papal power.
It is to continue a definite period from its establishment, ver 25. This duration is mentioned as 'a time, and times, and the dividing of a time:' — three years and a half — twelve hundred and sixty days — twelve hundred and sixty years. See the Notes on that verse. The only diffi culty in regard to this, if that interpreta- 28* tion is correct, is to determine the time when the Papacy actually began — the terminus a quo — -and this has given rise to all the diversity of explanation among Protestants. Assuming any one time as the period when the Papal power arose, as a date from which to calculate, it is easy to compute from that date, and to fix some period — terminus ad quem — to which this refers, and which may be looked to as the time of the overthrow of that power. But there is nothing more difficult in history than the determination of the exact time when the Papacy pro perly began: — that is, when the peculiar domination which is fairly understood by that system, commenced in the world; or what were its first distinguishing acts. History has not so marked that period that there is no room for doubt. It has not affixed definite dates to it; and to this day it is not easy to make out the time when that power commenced, or to designate any one event at a certain period that will surely mark it. It seems to have been a gradual growth, and its commencement has not been so definitely characterized as to enable us to demonstrate with absolute certainty the time to which the twelve hundred and sixty years will extend.
Different writers have assigned differ ent periods for the rise of the Papacy, and different acts as the first act of that power; and all the prophecies as to its termination depend on the period which is fixed on as the time of its rise. It ia this which has led to so much that is conjectural, and which has been the oc casion of so much disappointment, and which throws so much obscurity now over all calculations as to the termi nation of that power. In nothing is the Scripture more clear than that that power shall be destroyed; and if we could ascertain with exactness the date of its origin, there would be little danger of erring in regard to its close. The dif ferent periods which have been fixed on as the date of its rise, have been princi pally the following: (1) An edict pub lished by Justinian (A. D. 533), and a letter addressed by him at the same time to the Pope, in which he acknowledged him to be the head of the churches, thus conferring on him a title belonging only to the Saviour, and putting himself and empire under the dominion of the Bishop of Rome. Duffield on the Prophecies, p. 281. (2) The decree of lie emperor | larged, but in that junction of the two, Phocas (A. D. 606), confirmi Jg what had when, in virtue of a pretended divine been done by Justinian, 'and giving his right, a temporal dominion grew up, that sanction to the code of laws promulgated ultimately extended itself over Europe, by him: a code of laws based on the I claiming the authority to dispose of acknowledged supremacy of the Pope, j crowns; to lay kingdoms under interdict, and which became the basis of European [ and to absolve subjects from their allelegislation for centuries; and conferring giance. If we can find the beginning of on him the title of ' Universal Bishop/ '. this claim — the germ of this peculiar kind
(3) The act of Pope Stephen, by which, \ of domination — we shall doubtless have when appealed to by the claimant to the found the commencement of the Papacy — crown of France, he confirmed Pepin in the terminus a quo — as it was seen by the the kingdom, and set aside Childeric III., prophets— the point from which we are and, in return, received from Pepin the j to reckon in determining the question of Exarchate of Ravenna and the Penta- j its duration.
polis. See Ranke's Hist, of the Papacy, [ With this view, then, of the nature of vol. I. 23. This occurred about A. D. 752. j the Papacy, it is proper to inquire when
(4) The opinion of Mr. Gibbon (IV. 363,) j it commenced, or which of the periods that Gregory the Seventh was the true, referred to, if either, can be properly refounder of the Papal power. " Gregory garded as the commencement.
the Seventh," says he, " who may be | (I) The Edict of Justinian, and the adored or detested as the founder of the j letter to the Bishop of Rome, in which Papal monarchy, was driven from Rome, j he acknowledged him to be the head of and died in exile at Salerno." Gregory j the church, A. D. 533. This occurred became Pope A. D. 1073. These different i under John II., reckoned as the fiftydates, if assumed as the foundation of the \ fifth Bishop of Rome. The nature of this Papal power, would, by the addition to application of Justinian to the Pope, and each of the period of 1260 years, lead re- the honour conferred on him, was this: spectively to the year 1793, 1866, 2105, On an occasion of a controversy in the and 2333, as the period of the termination church, on the question whether " one of the Papal dominion. As this is a! person of the Trinity suffered in the point of great importance in the expla nation of the prophecies, it may be pro per to examine these opinions a little flesh," the monks of Constantinople, fear ful of being condemned under an edict of Justinian for heresy in denying this, more in detail. But in order to this, it is i applied to the Pope to decide the point, necessary to have a clear conception of | Justinian, who took great delight in inwhat the Papacy as a distinct domina- j quiries of that nature, and who maintion is, or what constitutes its peculiarity, j tained the opposite opinion on that subas seen by the sacred writers, and as it ject, also made his appeal to the Pope, has in fact existed, and does exist in the j Having, therefore, drawn up a long creed, world; and in regard to this there can j containing the disputed article among be little difference of opinion. It is not the rest, he despatched two bishops with a mere ecclesiastical power — not a mere ] it to Rome, and laid the whole matter spiritual domination — not the control of before the Pope. At the same time he a bishop as such over a church or a dio- wrote a letter to the Pope, congratulating cese — nor is it a mere temporal dominion, him on his election, assuring him that but it is manifestly the union of the two: the faith contained in the confession that peculiar domination which the Bishop | which he sent him was the faith of the of Rome has claimed, as growing out of; whole eastern church, and entreating his primacy as the head of the church, \ him to declare in his answer that he reand of a temporal power also, asserted at! ceived to his communion all who profirst over a limited jurisdiction, but ulti- 1 fessed that faith, and none who did not. mately, and as a natural consequence, j To add weight to the letter, he accornover all other sovereignties, and claim-! panied it with a present to St. Peter, ing universal dominion. We shall not j consisting of several chalices, and other find the Papacy, or the Papal dominion! vessels of gold, enriched with precious as such, clearly, in the mere spiritual rule i stones. From this deference to the Pope, of the first Bishop of Rome, nor in that j on the part of the emperor, and this subticro epiritual dominion, however en- j mitting to him, as the head of the church, of an important question to be determined, it has been argued that this was properly the beginning of the Pa pacy, and that the twelve hundred and tions to our regarding this as properly the commencement of the Papacy as such. For (a) this was not the beginning of that peculiar domination, or form of power, sixty years are to be reckoned from that. | which the Pope has asserted and main-
But against this opinion the objections are iusupenible: for (a) there was here nothing of that which properly constitutes the Papacy — the peculiar union of the temporal and spiritual power; or the peculiar domination which that power has exerted over the world. All that occurred was the mere deference which an emperor showed to one who claimed to be the spiritual head of the church, and Avho had long before claimed that. There was no change — no beginning, pro perly so called — no commencement of a new form of domination over mankind, such as the Papacy has been, (b) But, as a matter of fact, there was, after all, little real deference to the Pope in this case. " Little or no account," says Bower, "ought to be made of that extraordinary tained. If this title were conferred, it im parted no new power; it did not change the nature of this domination; it did not, in fact, make the Roman bishop different from what he was before. He was still, in all respects, subject to the civil power of the emperors, and had no control beyond that which he exercised in the church, (b) And even this little was withdrawn by the same authority which granted it — the au thority of the emperor of Constantinople — though it has always since been claimed and asserted by the Pope himself. See Bower, I. 427. It is true that, as a con sequence of the fact that this title was conferred on the Popes, they began to grasp at power, and aspire to temporal dominion; but still there was no formal grasp of such power growing out of the deference [the deference shown by car- j assumption of this title, nor was any such rying this question before the Pope], temporal dominion set up as the immedi- Justinian paid great deference to the ate result of such a title. The act, there- Pope, as well as to all other bishops, when I fore, was not sufficiently marked, distinct, they agreed with him; but none at all and decisive, to constitute an epoch, in when they did not; thinking himself, at the beginning of an era, in the history of least, as well qualified as the best of them, j the world, and the rise of the Papacy canand so ho certainly was, to decide con troversies concerning the faith; and we not with any propriety be dated from thai. This was undoubtedly one of the stem bv shall soon see him entering the lists with which that peculiar power rose to its
II. The second date which has been arrogance, and its pride; but it is doubtful whether it was so important an event characterizing the Papacy as to be re garded as the origin, or the terminus a quo in ascertaining the time of its continu ance.* It was, however, in view of this,
*Mr. Hallam (Middle Ages, 1, 420, Note) urges the following arguments substantially, against the supposition that the Papal suprem acy had its rise from this epoch, and is to be dated from the concession of the title of Uni versal Bishop made by Phocas to Boniface III.
assigned to the origin of the Papacy, is the decree made by the emperor Phocas (A. D. 606), by which, it is said, he confirmed the grant made by Justinian. This act was the following: Boniface III., when he had been made bishop of Rome, rely ing on the favour and partiality which Phocas had shown him, prevailed on him to revoke the decree settling the title of ' Universal Bishop' on the bishop of Con stantinople, and obtained another settling that title on himself and his successors.; pcars more than questionable. (2) "But if the I he decree of Phocas, conferring this j strongest proof could be advanced for the autitle, has not indeed come down to us; j thenticity of this circumstance, we may well but it has been the common testimony of! deny its importance. The concession of Phocas historians that such title was conferred.!?°uld have,be(:n of no yalidity in.Lombardy, See Mosheim I. 513, Bower I. 426. The fact asserted here has been doubted, and Mosheim supposes that it rests on the authority of Baronius. " Still," says he, " it is certain that something of this kind occurred." But there are serious objec-
France, and other western countries, where nevertheless, the Papal supremacy was incom parably more established than in the east." (3) " Even within the empire it could have had no efficacy after the violent death of that usurp er, which occurred soon afterwards." (4; " The title of Universal Bishop i3 not very intelligible, but whatever it means the patriarchs of Coa-
and with this considered as properly the origin of the Papacy, that the Rev. Rob ert Fleming, in his work on the ( Rise and Fall of the Papacy/ first published in 1701, uttered the following remarkable lan guage, as based on his calculations re specting the continuance of that power:
" If we may suppose that Antichrist be gan his reign in the year 606, the addi tional one thousand two hundred and sixty years of his duration, were they Julian or ordinary years, would lead down to the year 1866, as the last period of the seven-headed monster. But seeing they are prophetical years only [of 360 days], we must cast away eighteen years in or der to bring them to the exact measure of time that the Spirit of God designs in this book. And thus the final period of the Papal iisurjyations (supposing that he did indeed rise in the year 606) must con clude with the year 1848." P. 25. Ed.
New York. Whether this be considered as merely a haf>py conjecture — the one successful one among thousands that have failed, or as the result of a proper calcu lation respecting the future, no one in comparing it with the events of the year 1848, when the Pope was driven from Rome, and when a popular government was established in the very seat of the Papal power, can fail to see that it is re markable considered as having been ut tered a century and a half ago. Whether it is the correct calculation, and that tem porary downfall of the Papal Government is to be regarded as the first in a series of events that will ultimately end in its destruction, time must determine. The reasons mentioned above, however, and those which will be suggested in favour of a different beginning of that power, make it, at present, more probable that a different period is to be assigned as its close.
III. The third date which has been assigned as the beginning of the Papacy,
stantinople had borne it before, and continued to bear it afterwards." (5) " The preceding Popes, Pelagius II. and Gregory I., had constantly dis claimed the appellation; nor does it appear to have been claimed by the successors of Boniface, at least for some centuries." (6.) " The Popes had undoubtedly exercised a species of supremacy for more than two centuries before this time, •which had lately reached a high point of au thority under Gregory I." (7.) "There are no sensible marks of this supremacy making a more rapid progress for a century and a half »fter the pretended grant of this emperor."
is the grant of Pepin above referred to, A. D. 752. This grant conferred by Pe pin was confirmed also by Charlemagne and his successors, and it was undoubt edly at this period that the Papacy began to assume its place among the sovereign ties of Europe. In favour of this opin ion — that this was properly the rise of the papacy — the terminus a quo of pro phecy, the following considerations may be urged: (a) We have here a definite act — an act which is palpable and apparent, as characterizing the progress of this domi nation over men. (6) We have here pro perly the beginning of the temporal do minion, or the first acknowledged exercise of that power in acts of temporal sove reignty — in giving laws, asserting domin ion, swaying a temporal sceptre, and wearing a temporal crown. All the acts be fore had been of a spiritual character, and all the deference to the Bishop of Rome had been of a spiritual nature. Hence forward, however, he was acknowledged as a temporal prince, and took his place as such among the crowned heads of Eu rope, (c) This is properly the beginning of that mighty domination which tho Pope wielded over Europe — a beginning, which, however small at first, ultimately became so powerful and so arrogant as to claim jurisdiction over all the kingdoms of the earth, and the right to absolve sub jects from their allegiance, to lay king doms under interdict, to dispose of crowns, to order the succession of princes, to tax all people, and to dispose of all newly discov ered countries, (d) This accords better with the prophecies than any other one eventwhich has occurred in the world — es pecially with the prophecy of Daniel of tho springing up of the little horn, and the fact that that little horn plucked up three others of the ten into which the fourth kingdom was divided. And (e) it should be added that this agrees with tho idea all along held up in the prophecies, that this would be properly the fourth empire prolonged. The fifth empire or kingdom is to be the reign of the saints, or tho reign of righteousness on the earth: the fourth extends down in its influences and power to that. As a matter of fact, this Roman power was thus concentrated in the Papacy. The form was changed, but it was the Roman power that was in tho eye of the prophets, and this was contem plated under its various phases, as hea then and nominally Christian, until the reign of the saints should commence, or the kingdom of God should be set up. But it was only in the time of Stephen, and by the act of Pepin and Charlemagne, that this change occurred, or that this dominion of a temporal character was set tled in the Papacy — and that the Pope was acknowledged as having this temporal power. This was consummated indeed in Hildebrand, or Gregory VII. (Gibbon iii. 353, iv. 363), but this mighty power properly had its origin in the time of Pepin.
IV. The fourth date assigned for the origin of the Papacy is the time of Hil debrand, or Gregory VII. This is the period assigned by Mr. Gibbon. Respect ing this, he remarks (vol. iv. p. 363), "Gregory the Seventh, who may be adored or detested or* the founder of the Pajial monarchy, was driven from Rome, and died in exile at Salerno." And again (vol. iii. p. 353), he says of Gregory,
"After a long series of scandal, the apos tolic See was reformed and exalted, by the austerity and zeal of Gregory VII. That ambitious monk devoted his life to the execution of two projects: I. To fix in the college of Cardinals the freedom and independence of election, and for ever to abolish the right or usurpation of the emperors and the Roman people. II. To bestow and resume the Western empire as a fief or benefice of the church, and to extend his temporal dominion over the kings and kingdoms of the earth. After a contest of fifty years, the first of these designs was accomplished by the firm support of the ecclesiastical order, whose liberty was connected with that of the chief. But the second attempt, though it was crowned with some appa rent and partial success, has been vig orously resisted by the secular power, and finally extinguished by the improve ment of human reason."
If the views above suggested, however, are correct; or if we look at the Papacy as it was in the time of Hildebrand, it must be apparent that this was not the rise or origin of that peculiar domination, but was only the carrying out and com pleting of the plan laid long before to set up a temporal dominion over mankind.
It should be added, that whichever of the three first periods referred to be re garded as the time of the rise of the Papacy, if we add to them the prophetic period of 1260 years, we are now in the midst of scenes on which the prophetic eye rested, and we cannot, as fair interpreters of prophecy, but regard this mighty domi nation as hastening to its fall. It would seem probable, then, that according to the most obvious explanation of the sub ject, we are at present not far from the: termination and fall of that great power, and that events may be expected to oc cur at about this period of the world which will be connected with its fall.
(B) Its power is to be taken away aa by a solemn judgment — as if the throne was set, and God was to come forth to pronounce judgment on this power to overthrow it, vs. 10, 11, 26. This de struction of the power referred to is to be absolute and entire — as if the " beast were slain, and the body given to the burning flame" — "and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and de stroy it unto the end." This would de note the absolute destruction of this pe culiar power — its entire cessation in the world; that is, the absolute destruction of that which had constituted its peculi arity — the prolonged power of the beast of the fourth kingdom — concentrated and embodied in that represented by the little horn. If applied to the Roman power, or the fourth kingdom, it means that that power, which would have been pro longed under the dominion of that repre sented by the little horn, would wholly cease — as if the body of the beast had been burned. If applied to the power represented by the ' little horn' — the Pa pacy — it means that that power which sprang up amidst the others, and which became so mighty — embodying so much of the power of the beast, would wholly pass away as an ecclesiastico-civil power. It would cease its dominion, and as one of the ruling powers of the earth would disappear. This would be accomplished by some remarkable divine manifesta tion — as if God should come in majesty and power to judgment, and should pro nounce a sentence; that is, the overthrow would be decisive, and as manifestly the result of the divine interposition, as if God should do it by a formal act of judg ment. In the overthrow of that power, whenever it occurs, it would be natural, from this prophecy, to anticipate that there would be some scenes of commo tion and revolution bearing directly on it, as if God were pronouncing sentence on it; «<>me important changes in the nations that Tiad acknowledged its au thority, as if the great Judge of nations •was coming forth to assert his own power, and his own right to rule, and to dis pose of the kingdoms of the earth as he pleased.
(C) It is to be anticipated that the power referred to, will be destroyed on account of its pride and arrogance. See Notes on ver. 11. That is, whatever power there is upon the earth at the time referred to that shall be properly that of the fourth beast or kingdom, will be taken away on account of the claims set up and maintained by the 'little horn:' — " I beheld because of the voice of the great •words which the horn spake; I beheld till the beast was slain," <fcc., ver. 11. On the supposition that this refers to the Papacy, what is to be expected would be, that the pride and arrogance of that power as such — that is, as an ecclesiasti cal power claiming dominion over civil things, and wielding civil authority, would be such that the Roman power — the lin gering power of the fourth kingdom — would be taken away, and its dominion over the world would cease. That vast Roman domination that once trod down the earth, and that crushed and oppressed the nations, would still linger, like the prolonged life of the beast, until, on ac count of the arrogance and pride of the Papacy, it would be wholly taken away. If one were to judge of the meaning of this prophecy without attempting to ap ply it to particular passing events, he would say that it would be fulfilled by some such events as these: — if the peo ple over whom the prolonged Roman civil power would be extended, and over whom the ecclesiastical or Papal sceptre should be swayed, would on account of the pride and arrogance of the Papacy rise in their might, and demand liberty — that would be in fact an end of the pro longed power of the fourth beast; and it would be on account of the 'great words which the horn spake/ and would be in all respects a fulfilment of the language of this prophecy. Whether such an end of this power is to occur, time is to de termine.
(D) Simultaneously with this evebi, as the result of this, we are to anticipate •inch a spread of truth and righteousness, and such a reign of the saints on the earth, as would be properly symbolized Sy the coming of the Son of Man to the
Ancient of days to receive the kingdom, vs. 13, 14. As shown in the interpreta tion of those verses, this does not neces sarily imply that there would be any visi ble appearing of the Son of Man, or any personal reign (see the Notes on these verses), but there would be such a mak ing over of the kingdom to the Son of Man and to the saints, as would be pro perly symbolized by such a representa tion. That is, there would be great changes; there would be a rapid pro gress of the truth; there would be a spread of the gospel; there would be a change in the governments of the world, so that the power would pass into the hands of the righteous, and they would in fact rule. From that time the ' saints' would receive the kingdom, and the af- | fairs of the world would be put on a new I footing. From that period it might bo I said that the reign of the saints would commence; that is, there would be such, changes in this respect thai, that would constitute an epoch in the history of the world — the proper beginning of the reign of the saints on the earth — the setting up of the new and final dominion in the world. If there should be such changes — such marked progress — such facilities for the spread of truth — such new me thods of propagating it — and such cer tain success attending it, all opposition giving way, and persecution ceasing, as would properly constitute an epoch or era in the world's history which would be connected with the conversion of the I world to God, this would fairly meet the interpretation of this prophecy j this oc curring, all would have taken place which could be fairly shown to be implied in the vision.
(E) We are to expect a reign of righte ousness on the earth. On the character of what we are fairly to expect from the words of the prophecy, see Notes on ver. 14. The prophecy authorizes us to anti cipate a time when there shall be a gen eral prevalence of true religion; whet the power in the world shall be in the hands of good men — of men fearing God; when the divine laws shall be obeyed — being acknowledged as the laws that are to control men; when the civil institu tions of the world shall be pervaded by religion, and moulded by it; when there shall be no hindrance to the free exercise of religion, and when in fact the reign ing power on the earth shall bo the kingdom which the Messiah shall set up. There is nothing more certain in the fu ture than such a period, and to that all things are tending. Such a period would fulfil all that is fairly implied in this wonderful prophecy, and to that faith and hope should calmly and confidently look forward. For that they who love their God and their race should labour and pray; and by the certain assurance that such a period will come, we should be cheered amidst all the moral darkness that exists in the world, and in all that now discour ages us in our endeavours to do good.
THIS chapter contains an account of a vision seen by the prophet in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar. The prophet either was, or appeared to be, in the city of Shushan — after wards the capital of the Persian empire, in the province of Elam. To that place, then an im portant town, there is no improbability in supposing that he had gone, as he was then uncon nected with the government, or not employed by the government (ch. v.), and as it is not un reasonable to suppose that he would be at liberty to visit other parts of the empire than Baby lon. Possibly there may have been Jews at that place, and he may have gone on a visit to them. Or perhaps the scene of the vision may have been laid in Shushan, by the river Ulai, and that the prophet means to represent himself as if he had been there, and the vision had seemed to pa?s there before his mind. But there is no valid objection to the supposition that he was actually there, and this seems to be affirmed in ver. 2. While there, he saw a ram with two horns, one higher than the other, pushing westward, and northward, and southward, so powerful that nothing could oppose him. As he was looking on this, he saw a he-goat come from the West, bounding along, and scarcely touching the ground, with a single remarkable horn between his eyes. This he-goat attacked the ram, broke his two horns, and overcame him entirely. The he-goat became very strong, but at length the horn was broken, and there came up four in its place. From one of these there sprang up a little horn that became exceeding great and mighty, extending itself toward the South, and the East, and the pleasant land — the land of Palestine. This horn became so mighty that it seemed to attack ' the host of heaven' — the stars; it cast some of them down to the ground; it magnified itself against the Prince of the host; it caused the daily sacrifice in the temple to cease, and the sanctuary of the Prince of the host was cast down. An earnest inquiry was made by one saint to another how long this was to continue, and the answer was, unto two thousand and three hundred days, and that then the sanctuary would be cleansed. Gabriel is then sent to explain the vision to the prophet, and he announces that the ram with the two horns represented the kings of Media and Persia; the goat the king of Greece; the great horn between his eyes the first king; the four horns that should spring up after that was broken, the four dynasties into which the kingdom would be divided, and the little horn a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, and that would stand up against the Prince of princes, and that would ultimately be destroyed. The effect of this was, that Daniel was overcome by the vision for a certain time; afterward he roviveJ, and attended to the business of the king, but none understood the vision.
This is one of the few prophecies in the Scriptures that are explained to the prophets themselvo3, and it becomes, therefore, important as a key to explain other prophecies of a similar character. Of the reference to the kingdom of Media and Persia, and to the kingdom of Greece, there is an express statement. The application of a portion of the prophecy to Alexander the Great, and to the four monarchies into which his kingdom was divided at his death, is equally certain. And there can be as little doubt of the application of the remainder to Antiochus Epiphanes, and in this nearly all expositors are agreed. Indeed, so striking and clear is the application to this series of historical events, that Porphyry maintained that this, as well as other portions of Daniel, were written after the events occurred. One of two things, indeed, is certain — either that this was written after the events here referred to occurred; or that Daniel •yas inspired. No man by any natural sagacity could have predicted these events with so much accuracy and particularity.
The portion of Daniel which follows is in pure Hebrew. The portion of the book from tho fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter was written in Chaldee. On this point see Intro. g4. III. (1).
1 In the third year of the reign of kingBelshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
1. In the third year of the reign of ^Bel shazzar. In regard to Belshazzar, see Intro, to ch. v. $ 2. ^[ A vision appeared unto me. This vision appears to have occurred to him when awake, or in an ecstacy; the former one occurred when he was asleep, ch. vii. 1. Comp. vs. 17, 18, of this chapter, where the prophet represents himself as overpowered, and as falling down to the earth on account of the vision. The representation would seem to have heen made to pass before his mind in open day, and when he was fully awake. Comp. the case of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 4: "Which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, out having his eyes open." ^ After that which appeared unto me at the first. That occurred in the first year of Belshazzar, ch. vii. 1.
2. And I saw in a vision, I looked as the vision appeared to me; or I saw cer tain things represented to me in a vision. On the word vision, see Notes on ch. i. 17. The meaning hero would seem to bo that a vision appeared to Daniel, and that he contemplated it with earnestness to un derstand what it meant. ^ That I was at Shushan. As remarked in the intro duction to this chapter, this might mean that he seemed to be there, or that the vision was represented to him as being there, but the most natural construction is to suppose that Daniel was actually there himself. Why he was there, he has not informed us directly, whether he was on public business, or on his own. From ver. 27, however — 'Afterward I rose up, and did the king's business' — it would seem most probable that he was then in the service of the king. This supposition will not conflict with the statement in ch. v. 10, 11, in which the queen of Belshazzar, when the hand writ ing appeared on the wall of the palace, informs the king that there was " a man in his kingdom in which was the spirit of the holy gods," Ac. — from which it might be objected that Daniel was at that time unknown to the king, and could not have been in his employ, for it might have been a fact that he was in the employ of the
2 And I saw in a vision; and it
came to pass, when I saw, that I was at » Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I king as an officer of the government, and yet it may have been forgotten that he had this power of disclosing the meaning: of visions. He may have been employed i in the public service, but his services to j the father of the king, and his extraordi nary skill in interpreting dreams and vis- I ions may not at once have occurred to the i affrighted monarch and his courtiers. ' Shushan, or Susa, the chief town of Susiana, was the capitol of Persia after the time of Cyrus, in which the kings of Per sia had their principal residence. Neh i. 1. I Esther i. 2 — 5. It was situated on the 1 Eulaeus or Choaspes, probably on the spot l now occupied by the village Shus. Ren-! nel, Geog. of Herodotus; Kinneir, Mem.! Pers. Empire; K. Porter's Travels, II. I 4, 11 j Bitter, Erdkunde, Asien, ix. 294. j Pict. Bib. in loc. At Shus there are exi tensive ruins, stretching perhaps twelve miles from one extremity to the other, and consisting, with tho other ruins in that country, of hillocks of earth, and rubbish, covered with broken pieces of brick and coloured tile. At the foot of these mounds is the so-called tomb of Daniel, a small building erected on the spot where the! remains of Daniel are believed in that re- | gion to rest. It is apparently modern,! but nothing but the belief that this was! the site of the prophet's sepulchre could have led to its being built in the place where it stands. Malcom, Hist, of Per sia, i. 255, 256. The city of Shus is now a gloomy wilderness, inhabited by lions, hyenas, and other beasts of prey. Kitto, Cyclop. Art. Shushan. Sir John Kin neir says that the dread of these animals compelled Mr. Monteith and himself to take shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel's tomb. Of that tomb, Sir John Malcolm says, "It is a small building, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes who watch the remains of the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims, who visit the holy sepulchre. The dervishes aid now the only inhabitants of Susa; and every species of wild beast roams at large over the spot on which some of the proudest palaces ever raised by human art once saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before
Bib. in Inc. This city was about 450 Ro-r-;: ""T."'•' —••""•» — -, «, man miles from Seleucia, and was built, i castle> a fortlfied P^ace. Gesenius. See according to Pliny, 6. 27, in a square of i Neh- l- l- Esth- *• 5 i »• 5 j viii. 14; ix. about 120 stadia. It was the summer! 6, 11, 12. It would seem to have been residence of the Persian kings, (Cyrop.! given to the city because it was a forti- 8, 6,10), as they passed the spring in j fied place. The word applied not only to Ecbatana, and the autumn and winter in j the palace proper, a royal residence, but Babylon. See Lengerke, in loc. It was j to the whole adjacent city. It is not nein this city that Alexander the Great cessary to suppose that Daniel was in the married Stateira, daughter of Darius Codomanus. The name means a lily, and was probably given to it on account of its beauty. Lengerke. Rosenmiiller sup poses that the vision here is represented to have appeared to Daniel in this city be cause it would be the future capitol of Per sia, and because so much of the vision per tained to Persia. See Maurer, in loc. The annexed cut represents the present palace proper, but only that he was in the city to which the name was given. f Which is in the province of Elam. See Notes on Isa. xi. 11. This province was bounded on the east by Persia proper, on the west by Babylonia, on the north by Media, and on the south by the Persian Gulf. It was about half as large as Per sia, and not quite as large as England. Kitto's Cyclo. It was probably con quered by Nebuchadnezzar, and in tlie j sa, and fell into the united stream of the time of Belshazzar was subject to the! Tigris and the Euphrates. It is called
Babylonian dominion. Shushan had been doubtless the capitol of the kingdom of Elam while it continued a separate king dom, and remained the capitol of the province while it was under the Babylo- by Pliny (Nat. Hist. vi. 81) Eulaens; but it is described by Greek writers generally under the name of Choaspes. Herod, v. 49. Strabo, xv. p. 728. It is now known by the name Kerah, called by the Turks nian yoke, and until it was subdued as a! Keraso. It passes on the west of the rupart of the empire, by Cyrus. It was ins of Shus (Susa), and enters the Shatthen made one of the capitals of the j ul-Arab about twenty miles below Korna united Medo-Persian empire. It was | Kinneir. Geog. Mem. of the Persian em- when it was the capitol of a province that it was visited by Daniel, and that he saw the vision there. Possibly he may have dwelt there subsequently, and died there. ^ And I jcas by the river of Ulai. This river flowed by the city of Shushan or Su-
And saw in vision, or there seemed to be before me. IT There stood before the river. On the bank of the river. ^ A ram, which had two horns. There can be no the river a ram which hac two horns: | before him, neither was there and the two horns were high; but I that could deliver out of his hand;
one was higher than the 'other, and the higher came up last.
4 I saw the ram pushing west ward, and northward, and south ward; so that no beast might stand * second.
5 And as I was considering, be hold, a he-goat ccame from the west on the face of the whole earth, and
error in explaining the design of this sym- | 5. And as I was considering. As I was bol, for in ver. 20, it is expressly said that j looking on this vision. It was a vision it denoted the two kings of Media and Per-; which would naturally attract attention, sia. The united power of the kindom was | and one which would not be readily undenoted by the rain itself; the fact that derstood. It evidently denoted some there were two powers or kingdoms com bined by the two horns of the ram. ^[ And the two horns were high. Both indicating great power. ^[ But the one was higher than the other, and the higher came vj) last. The higher horn springing up last denotes Persia, that became the more mighty power of the two, so that the name Me dia became finally almost dropped, and the united kingdom wag known in Gre cian history as the Persian. The Median or Assyrian power was the older, but the combined power that was attempting conquest, but we are not to suppose that Daniel would readily understand what was meant by it. The whole scene was future — for the Medo-Persian power was not yet consolidated in the time of Belshazzar, and the conquests represented by the ram continued through many years, and denoted by the he-goat ex tended still much further into futurity. ^[ Behold, a he-gnat came from the w>ent. In ver. 21, this is called the 'rough-
4. / saw the ram pushing icestward, and j application of this, for in ver. 21, it is exnorthwardf and southward. Denoting the pressly said conquests of the united kingdom. The Grecia.' The east is not mentioned, for none of the con quests of the Medo-Persian empire ex tended in that direction. Yet nothing could better express the conquests actu ally made by the Medo-Persian empire than this representation. On the west the conquests embraced Babylonia, Mes- power represented is that of Greece when it was consolidated under Alexander the Great, and when he went forth to the subjugation of this vast Per sian empire. It may serve to illustrate this, and to show the propriety of repre senting the Macedonian power by the symbol of a goat, to remark that this opotamia, Syria and Asia Minor; on the symbol is often found, in various ways, north, Colchis, Armenia, Iberia, and the in connection with Macedon. and that, regions around the Caspian sea; and on j for some reason, the goat was used as the south, Palestine, Ethiopia, Egypt, and i emblematic of that power. A few facts, Lybia. Lengerke. This Medo-Persian j furnished to the Editor of Calmet's Diepower is represented as coming from the | tionary, by Taylor Combe, Esq., will east, Isa. xli. 2: " Who raised up the show the propriety of this allusion to righteous man from the east," Ac. Isa. Macedonia under the emblem of a goat, xlvi. 11: " Calling a ravenous bird and that the allusion would be readily from the east, <fcc. f He did according to! understood in after times. They aro his will, and became great. This expresses ' condensed here from his account in Taywell also the character of the Medo-Per- j lor's Calmet, V. 410—412. (1) Caranus, Bian empire. It extended over a great i the first king of the Macedonians, com part of the known world, subduing to it- menccd his reign 814 years before tho self a large portion of the earth. In its Christian era. The circumstance of his early conquests it met with no successful being led by goats to the city of Edessa, opposition, nor was it stayed until it was the name of which, when he established subdued by Greece — as at Leuctra and | there the seat of his kingdom, he con- muneris, ^Egas, populnm sEgeadas. Jus tin Lib. vii. c. 1. The adoption of the goat as an emblem of Macedon, would have been early suggested by an important event in their history. (2) Bronze figures of a goat have been found as the symbol of Macedon. Mr. Combe says, " I have lately had an opportunity of procuring an ancient bronze figure of a goat with one horn, which was the old symbol of Macedon. As figures representing the types of ancient countries are extremely rare, and as neither a bronze nor marble symbol of Macedon has been hitherto noticed, I beg leave to trouble you with the few following observations," &c. He then says, " The goat which is sent for your inspection, was dug up in Asia Minor, and was brought, together with other antiquities, into this country by a poor Turk." The following cut is a re presentation of this figure. The slightest nearly 300 years after Caranus, and about 547 years before Christ, the Macedonians, upon being threatened with an invasion/ became tributary to the Persians. In one of the pilasters of Persepolis, this very event seems to be recorded in a manner that throws considerable light on this subject. A goat is represented with an immense horn growing out of the middle of his forehead, and a man in a Persian dress is seen by his side, hold ing the horn with his left hand, by which is signified the subjection of Macedon. The following is the figure referred to, and it strikingly shows how early this inspection of this figure will show the propriety of the representation before us. Mr. Combe then says, "Not only many of the individual towns in Mace don and Thrace employed this type, but the kingdom itself of Macedon, which is the oldest in Europe, of which we have any regular and connected history, was represented also by a goat, with this peculiarity, that it had but one horn." (3) In the reign of Amyntas the first, symbol was used. In the reign of Arcbelaus of Macedon, B. C. 413, there occurs, on the reverse of a coin of that king, the head of a goat baring only ona horn. Of this coin, so remarkable for the single horn, there are two varieties, the Florentine collection, which, as it con firms what has been already said, and has not hitherto been understood, I think worthy of mention. It will be seen by the drawing of this gem that nothing more or less is meant by the ram's head with two horns, and the goat's head with one, than the kingdoms of Persia and Macedon, represented under their appro priate symbols. From the circumstance, however, of these characteristic types being united, it is extremely probable that the gem was engraved after the con quest of Persia by Alexander the Great."
These remarks and illustrations will show the propriety of the symbol used here, and show also how readily it would be understood in after times. There is no | evidence that Daniel understood that this ever had been a symbol of Macedonia, or that, if he had, he could have conjectured, by any natural sagacity, that a power re presented by that symbol would have become the conqueror of Media and Per sia, and every circumstance, therefore, connected with this, only shows the more clearly that ho was under the influence of inspiration. It is affirmed by Josephus (Ant. B. xi. ch. viii.) that when Alexander was at Jerusalam, the pro phecies of Daniel respecting him were! shown to him by the high priest, and i that this fact was the means of his conj ferring important favours on the Jews. | If such an event occurred, the circum stances here alluded to show how readily Alexander would recognize the reference to his own country, and to himself, and how probable the account of Josephus is, that this was the means of conciliating him towards the Jewish people. The credibility of the account, which has been called in question, is examined in New ton on the Prophecies, pp. 241—246. f On the face of the lohole earth. He seemed to move over the whole world — well representing the movements of Alex-
6 And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
ander, who conquered the known world, and who is said to have wept because there were no other worlds to conquer. f And touched not the ground. Marg., none touched him in the earth. The translation in the text, however, is more correct than that in the margin. He seemed to bound along as if he d touch the ground — denoting the rapidity of his movements and conquests. A similar description of great beauty occurs in Virgil, J£n. vii. 806, seq. of Camilla: