5. Daniel speaks of the fourth kingdom, as being ereas, the generals of Alexander, after many bloody ided the empire into four kingdoms. 6. Daniel says ne that was cut out of the mountain struck the image upo t; but the kingdoms which succeeded Alexander's, were oyed before Christ made his appearance. "In the day se kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. rist's kingdom was to be established in the days of " gs," it is absurd to suppose that the Greek kings were int as the last remains of these kingdoms were years be dued by the Romans.

S:

On the other hand, the Adventists take the opposite extr posing that the kingdom symbolized by the stone, refer e not yet established. This cannot be, for the following 1. The stone smote the image upon his feet. If iro me, whatever is symbolized by smiting the feet, must ce while Rome is yet in existence. 2. In the days of t gs shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom. By u term "these kings," the attention is especially called gs, before mentioned, but only four are alluded to, which nmon consent are understood to be the kings of Baby sia, Greece and Rome. 3. Some have attempted to show term—“ these kings"-has reference to the kingdoms s ized by the toes of the image. Nothing is gained by position. (1) Daniel says nothing of the kind. (2) gdoms which sprang into existence during the decline of the Roman empire, were weak, feeble, and short-liv

not one of them is now in existence. (3) No less than thirty distinct kingdoms sprang into existence while Rome was falling, and these were succeeded by twice as many more in a few centuries. Nothing but the most absurd fanaticism could prompt any one to suppose that any part of this properly is yet unfulfilled, except that part which refers to filling the earth with the kingdom of God.

Mr. Cowles has the following concerning the kingdom symbolized by the stone, which we introduce, as it serves the double purpose of illustrating his style and of forcibly starting an important doctrine.

6

"In regard to this fifth kingdom, specially described in verse 44, observe that in the opinion of all intelligent commentators, our divine Lord and his forerunner, John the Baptist, take their current and oft used phrases, kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven, from this passage. Daniel says the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom!. Hence it might be called either The kingdom of God' or 'The kingdom of heaven.' In fact both these designations are used frequently. John began his preaching, saying, 'Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (Matt. 3: 2.) Jesus began with the same text. (See Matt. 4: 17). According to Mark, (chap. 1—15) Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.' Luke has it, The kingdom of God, (chap. 4: 43, and 8: 1); 'I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also.' Showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God!-I quote only a part of these numerous cases, yet enough to show (1) that Daniel's fifth kingdom is precisely the gospel kingdom of the New Testamnet, our divine Lord himself being the highest authority for this identity, and (2) (2) that its time was then fulfilled;' it was at hand and was set up during that generation. (The proof of this last point will be more fully adduced in my notes on Dan. 7.) This identification of the fifth kingdom is a point of the greatest importance. Especially should it be noticed that both Jesus Christ and his inspired apostles, by taking up these words of Daniel and applying them to the reign of Christ became themselves so far forth the interpreters of Daniel's prophecy, certifying to us, that, in their view, the Spirit, who spake by Daniel, meant by this fifth kingdom that of the gospel age whose king was Jesus the Messiah."

6

و

II. The attention is next invited to the vision of the four wild beasts: Dan. 7. These same great kingdoms which in the second chapter are symbolized by four kinds of metals in the great image, are in this chapter symbolized by four wild beasts viz. a winged lion, a bear, a four-bearded, four-winged leopard, and a nondescript beast of terrible appearance. A labored attempt is made to show that the fourth beast here described, symbolizes the kingdoms of Alexander's successors, instead of Rome as has been believed by the mass of Biblical students. His signal failure goes not a little way in confirming the received opinion. A few points will be sufficient to show the error of Mr. Cowles. 1. A beast signifies one kingdom, not two or more. The lion symbolizes Babylon; the bear, Persia, and the leopard, Greece. Shall we now violate this law of Scripture exegesis and say this fourth beast symbolizes two or more kingdoms, Syria and Egypt? If such license as this be allowed, no adequate conception can be formed as to the variety of absurdities into which expositors may fall. Besides Daniel has given his own interpretation to these symbolical beasts : verse 17"These great beasts which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth." Also verse 23. "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms and it shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it to pieces." This ought to be sufficient to show that one king or kingdom,-the prophet uses these terms interchangeably-and not four is meant. 2. Neither Syria nor Egypt was great enough to fulfil the symbol employed. More attention is paid to this beast than to the three others which precede it. Each of the others are dismissed with a single verse, while nearly a whole chapter is given to this. Mr. Cowles thinks the "terrible" of the beast lay chiefly in the "little horn," but this is not wholly true. The seventh verse describes the fourth beast, before the appearance of the notable horn, as being "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great iron teeth;' it devoured and break in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it. Such language as this could not have been applied to either of the feeble kingdoms which arose on the breaking up of Alexan

der's. Neither Syria nor Egypt could be called "dreadful and terrible and strong exceedingly," when contrasted with Babylon, Persia and the empire of Alexander. No nation of antiquity could bear the weight of this description but Rome. Nor yet does the suggestion of Mr. Cowles, that this greatness and terribleness have reference to the Jewish people, relieve his exegesis of its embarrassment. Babylon completely subjugated the Jews, destroyed their city, demolished their temple, and reduced them to servitude for seventy years;-with the exception of a few halcyon days under the sway of the earlier emperors. Persia kept the Jews under the abjectest servitude; and Rome held them under her iron heel until they were utterly destroyed from being a nation; whereas, Syria allowed them ever to remain in their own land, never so much as threw down their temple, and only for three years suspended their daily worship in the temple. Mr. Cowles objects to the introduction of Rome into this series of kingdoms, on account of its European origin and character, the rest being Asiatic. He overlooks three important points. (1) Greece, which he introduces, is European in origin and character. (2) Daniel says nothing as to where these kingdoms should originate. (3) But as to character he says, "This shall be diverse from all kingdoms." 3. The assertion of the prophet that this kingdom "should devour the whole earth," ought forever to drive us out of Syria or Egypt for the fulfilment of this part of the vision. 4. Mr. Cowles succeeds no better when he considers the "ten horns that were in his head, and the other which came up, before whom three fell.” "The ten horns are ten kings." He restricts the term "kings" to its literal meaning, and proceeds to identify them in the calendar of Egyptian and Syrian kings. But Syria alone had twenty-five kings. Why then take five from each and pretend that this is the fulfilment of Scripture? The judgment fell upon the little horn,which thought to change times and laws,-Antiochus Epiphanes,-according to Mr Cowles. But no less than seventeen Syrian kings reigned after him. This is all the more disastrous to the exegesis under consideration, from the fact that Daniel observes, that this beast was slain and his body given to the burning flame,

while the lives of the rest were prolonged for a season and time, The history of Antiochus affords not the least show of evidence that he ever succeeded in plucking up three kingdoms, or even kings. He seems rather to have failed in all his enterprises, to have strengthened the kingdoms he attacked, and damaged seriously only his own.

The comments of Mr. Cowles upon the judgment scene, (Dan. 7: 9-14), are well timed and worthy of due consideration. The reader will pardon the length of the quotation in view of the importance of the subject and the masterly manner in which it is handled.

"The vital question on this passage is; Does it refer to the final and general judgment; or to the providential judgments in time, for the destruction of the fourth beast and his horns? I adopt the latter view and defend it on the following grounds. (1) The general final judgment is not in place here; would have no connection with the subject in hand; is not indicated by any thing said in the context, or by the nature of the subject. On the contrary, an allusion to God's providential judgments upon guilty nations is in place here, precisely so, being the very thing that such blasphemous hostility to his kingdom and people calls for and should lead us to expect. (2) In the government of God over men, individuals will be judged at the end of this world, and punished or rewarded in the next; but nations can be punished only in time-only in this world, for the sufficient reason that they exist only as nations here. They are not known as nations after this life. The awards made at the final judg ment are upon individuals only; the retributions of eternity are on individuals alone. Hence if this judgment falls on the fourth beast and his horns, it must be in this world, it cannot be at and after the end of it. (3) The declared result and out-come of this judgment is that this fourth beast is destroyed, and his body given to the burning flame." (v. 11.)

Conclusive to the same point is v. 26. The judgment shall sit (i. c., on the little horn-king, then representing the fourth beast), "and they shall take away his dominion to consume and destroy it" utterly,-what could be more decisive? A nationality swept away. . . . But if this were the judgment scene of the last day, the results and out-come ought to be like that of