should hate the Papal Harlot, "and make her "desolate, and naked, and burn her flesh with "fire" in order, therefore, satisfactorily to establish the lists of the ten kingdoms given by former commentators, it would be necessary to shew how the Heruli, the Huns, the Vanda ls the Sueves, the Visigoths, &c. (or at least the majority of them taken as the whole), were ever employed in seizing the riches, and destroying the power of the Papacy: but this would be utterly impossible, for the majority, and nearly all of them, had ceased to exist long before the Papacy had even acquired its power and its riches. The direct interpretation of this part of the prophecy is, therefore, necessarily evaded, and commentators suppose, that other kingdoms are here spoken of, which succeeded to ten original kingdoms.

I have now examined the different lists of the ten kingdoms which have hitherto been proposed, in every particular, by which their correctness could either be established or disproved: and have observed that they are formed on principles so little precise, as to vary essentially from each other; we have found also, that of the four particular predictions relating to the ten kingdoms, but one has been satisfactorily explained, and that only according to the list of Bishop Newton, which is itself rejected by suc

ceeding commentators, as not being formed upon any precise principles of interpretation, but solely with the object of including Ravenna, Lombardy, and Rome. From which review it clearly appears, that there is yet room for the establishment of any new interpretation which may better answer in various particulars to the terms of the prophecy.

There remains to be discussed a part of this prophecy of less importance, but of which the interpretations hitherto given do not appear to me to be satisfactory. I refer to the passage where it is said that the Iron Toes should mingle themselves with the Toes of Clay, but that they should "not cleave one to another, “even as Iron is not mixed with Clay;" this is interpreted by Bishop Newton, Faber, and other commentators, to mean, that matrimonial alliances should be formed between the potentates of different kingdoms, but that these alliances should not be durable, so as to end in the establishment of one universal empire. But it is to be observed, that commentators, in giving this interpretation, consider the symbols of Iron and Clay to be used in this instance without any reference to their accustomed signification of strength and weakness, but only as being two bodies that will not adhere together; for a disproportion of strength would be so far

from being a reason why different kingdoms should not be durably united so as to form one great empire, that the strength and tyranny of the one, and the comparative weakness of the other, would afford ground for concluding, that if once united, either by alliance or conquest, they would inseparably cleave together, and that the weak kingdoms would never regain their independence.

It is to be remarked also, that this interpreta_ tion is vague and unsatisfactory, inasmuch as commentators do not pretend to distinguish between these two classes, or to define which these strong and weak kingdoms respectively were, that thus mingled themselves together.

I have, for these reasons, attempted to give a totally different turn to this passage, considering that the terms Iron and Clay, wherever they are used throughout the prophecy, must be understood as symbols of comparative strength and weakness; and I suppose the passage to be de signed to describe the great contrast of character which should exist between these two sets of kingdoms, and that it points out such a difference betwixt them, as to render it impossible for them to be confounded together, or to be assimilated to one another. This interpretation is interesting, as we refer for the explanation of it, as far as the strong kingdoms are

N

concerned, to the tyrannical reign of France since the year 1792, or rather since the year 1804, and to the approaching* tyrannical reigns of Rome and of Austria.

* These remarks upon the interpretations of other cominentators having been written some time subsequently to the former part of this chapter, the date of this observation is 1st August, 1814. Printed, 9th August, 1814. 1st Edit.

CHAPTER III.

Daniel's Vision of the Four Beasts, representing the four ruling kingdoms of the world. The Little Papal Horn described. First, in the period of the 1260 years of its prosperity; Secondly, in the period during which the judgment sits upon it, to take away its dominion.

THE next vision in the Book of Daniel, is that of the four Beasts, which we have frequently had occasion to refer to in the foregoing chapter, but of which some important parts still remain unexplained. This was seen by Daniel in the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, A. C. 555, forty-eight years after he had interpreted to King Nebuchadnezzar the vision of the Great Image.

We may consider that the four ruling kingdoms of the world are again here mentioned, principally in order to introduce the history of