Daniel, and are very generally understood to designate the successive rise of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, to an universal or chief dominion in the civilized world; and we must bear in mind there was to be no fifth monarchy, but that of "the Saints of the Most High."

Now, the last of these four empires, which is so much the subject of prophecy, is so delineated as to afford every characteristic of the last invading enemy.

66

Was he to come from Chittim? such is the position of Rome. Was the developement of an apostacy from true religion with the exaltation of a wicked one" to take place in the combination of that power which should prove the last foe of restored Israel? Daniel and St. John, interpreted by the events of history, have made the application of all this very clear to the state and situation of the great western empire in these latter days. Was it, however, though located in Chittim, to be a portion of Magog? This, prophecy with history has explained. The nations of the north, most of them of Sythian origin, (and Magog was the father of the Sythian race,) it is well known have long since parcelled out the Roman Empire between them, and have been the instruments of reducing this last human monarchy into the divided state, represented by "the toes, part of iron, and part of clay," in the visionary image of Nebuchadnezzar; and by the "ten horns" upon the fourth beast in the prophecy of Daniel; and also in the revelation of St. John. So that, for "the king that does according to his will"* in the last scenes, which * Second Advent, vol. ii, p. 64.

Daniel discloses; who in the last emphatic time of trouble overflows with his invading armies, and seizes upon Egypt, when Michael stands up, and he without a helper comes to his end, where he had fixed his pavilion "between the seas on the glorious holy mountain,"—we have no occasion to seek for any other power to fulfil every part of his character, and every circumstance of the prediction. Nor yet for that combination of potentates in the prophecy of the sixth vial, which are assembled together in the field of Armageddon, "the kings of the earth and of the whole world," as they are described, "gathered to the battle of the great day of Almighty God," in which, those whose delusions gathered them, the dragon and the beast, and the false prophet, meet their respective dooms.

I cannot perceive any weight in the reasoning of those expositors, who would split into two events the grand final catastrophe of the nations doomed to judgment, making the fall of the fourth empire distinct from that of the eastern or of the Mahommedan powers. The Mahommedan powers, which I believe indeed to have fulfilled the symbol of "the little horn" growing out of the third beast in Daniel's prophecy, were not one of "the four horns of the Gentiles which lifted up the horn over the land of Judah to scatter it:" the fact is, that ages before the appearance of Mahommed, Judah had been dispersed and scattered among the nations. "The people of the prince that should come" had long ago "destroyed the city and the sanctuary." Messiah had nothing there, all had been given to

the Gentiles, and they were trampling it under their feet, for their 'times' were not yet filled. We may trace, indeed, in the parties enumerated in Ezekiel, the broken remnants of these powers, both of Turkey and of Persia, and also of the African nations of that faith; not, however, as principals; "Gog, from the land of Magog," is the arrayer of the host. The symbol of the greatest of these powers, at this time, is, 'the Euphrates with its waters dried up' the waters of that river are not likely again, as a substantive power, "to come up over all its channels and go over all its banks,” in order to form the great inundation which is to fill "the breadth of Immanuel's land." They will, however, notwithstanding, as part of the combined powers under Gog, on this occasion, "stand up against the Prince of princes and be broken without hand." *

It may be argued also from the same enumeration in Ezekiel, that other nations of the north, beyond the precincts of the Roman Empire, (for we consider that as "the land of Magog" in the prophecy, from which the leader comes,) must be admitted to form part of this combination. This has led some expositors to glance at Russia and her conquests; but I think this mystery is unravelled in Daniel xi. 40. The king, the last emphatic enemy of Israel, is, in the career of his successful ambition, (for "he does according to his will," the object of attack, both by a king of the

* Daniel viii. 25.

south and by a king of the north. But, "He," the king, that “doth according to his will," "shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over," so that the powers of the north are prostrate before him; and, like defeated adversaries, by force or by treaty, may be induced to fall into his ranks, as he comes up from the north parts, and enters "also into the glorious land, and many countries are overthrown." He is confined, indeed, in his march, and directed towards the south, so that "Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon escape," that is, he is confined to "the breadth of Immanuel's land," but gains, at length, "power over all the precious things of Egypt, and the Lybians and Ethiopians are at his steps."

It is not difficult then to explain how the last enemy, though the site of his own dominions be the coasts of Chittim, and he prove to be the same, as the last of the horns of the Gentiles which was lifted up over the land of Judah to scatter it, may yet make his attack from the north quarters with the subdued or leagued potentates of those parts, and be "the chief prince," or "prince of the chief of Meshech and Tubal," or "prince of Ros, Meshech and Tubal"-may come with "Gomer and all his bands," and the house of Togarma of the north quarters; and how Persia-Elam at leastand the nations to the south of subdued Egypt, may, at length, all be united under his banners; when, alarmed by "tidings out of the north and out of the east," he returns in great fury from

Egypt into Palestine. * The counsels of conflicting princes not many years ago, at the treaty of Tilsit, menaced conbination not very dissimilar to this, in respect to some of the chief parties. But the time was not come!

It is much to be remarked also that Egypt is the object of attack to the enemy. This reveals Egypt to have been in the possession of a power hostile to him: and Egypt we know, conveys to its possessor, in Scripture, the title of "the king of the south." A king of the south is described at the commencement of the conflict as "pushing at" the emphatic king, the leader of the western or Latin empire. Egypt is no more to exalt herself among the nations; but great and powerful strangers have more than once had command over her treasures and resources; we saw in the last revolutionary war which in my apprehension, has done so much to discover the relative situation of the nations which are to engage in the last conflict—we saw a nation, at that time hostile to the great power of the west, which, in union with an expedition from its own shores, could transport an army from the east across the southern or Indian ocean, in order to wrest Egypt out of the hand of the successful invader. Great Britain at that period had certainly won the title of "the king of the south:" and, in the view of a future conflict, how easily, should God in mercy spare our nation, may the restoration of the same relations between the two countries be supposed.

I have in a former publication, pointed out what seems to me a most evident allusion in this pro

• Daniel xi. 44. &c.