have I conceive been made towards obtaining a satisfactory decision upon it*. We must therefore, it evidently appears, either establish a higher standard of prophetic demonstration, or admit that it is in vain to attempt it, and that prophecy is not intended to be the subject of it.

I have before observed, that "the third year of Belshazzar," or the year A. C. 553, is the only date precisely established in the whole vision; it follows therefore, that if we would give to it a satisfactory interpretation, we must in the first place assume that to be the date of its commencement; for (as it has been said in treating of the period of the 1260 years, mentioned in the vision of the four Beasts) it would be in vain that the years were numbered, if the time of their commencement were not precisely marked. I must observe also, that to consider the vision as commencing from the time at which it was seen by the prophet, is not only most natural in itself, but is agreeable to the analogy of all the other prophecies; accordingly we shall find, that the Medo-Persian empire is mentioned no less than four times in different prophecies of Daniel, which circum

See Christian Observer, for the years 1807, 1808, 1810,

and 1811.

stance is solely owing to his always beginning his prophecy from the period in which he writes, and tracing down the stream of time, by a narrative more or less connected, till he reaches the ultimate and principal object of it, which in the visions of the four Beasts, and of the Ram and the He-goat, and in his last vision, are severally the Papal, the Mahometan, and the Infidel powers.

In referring to the vision of the Great Image in support of this opinion, we shall there find that the prophecy commences at the period in which the prophet wrote; for Daniel, in explaining the vision to King Nebuchadnezzar, says, "Thou art this head of gold."

Again, if we refer to the vision of the four Beasts, we find that the kingdom of Babylon is also there described in the state in which it was when the vision was seen; for it is represented by a Lion having eagle's wings, because the kingdom of Babylon was then in possession of the empire of the world; and subsequently to this its loss of empire is described, which happened only a few years after the date of the vision.

We shall also find, that the Ram, &c., according to the most simple interpretation of the prophecy now before us, accurately represents the united kingdoms of the Medes and Per

sians in the state in which it was when the vision was seen; the Medes and Persians being then established in the neighbourhood of the river Ulai, and not having yet passed over into the province of Babylon. We find also, that the first part of the prophecy accurately describes those victories of Cyrus, which, at the date of the vision, were on the very point of commencing.

In the last vision of Daniel, which gives the history of the Infidel Power, the time present is also spoken of, for the angel who communicates the prophecy to Daniel begins it by informing him, that "there shall stand up yet,” that is, besides the king then reigning, "three kings in "Persia*."

In the Apocalypse we shall find that the time present is also first mentioned as introductory to that which is future; for Saint John is directed to" write the things that are," and then "the "things which shall be hereaftert;" and so we find that in his prophecy the future histories of the Eastern and Western branches of the empire are preceded by the admonitory and prophetic Epistles addressed to the seven Churches in Asia then existing.

The opinion, therefore, that the vision of the

Ram and the He-goat does not commence till eighteen years, as Mr. Faber supposes, or till forty-five years, as Mr. Cuninghame supposes, after Daniel saw the vision, would require the strongest evidence before it could be admitted. I shall now proceed to examine the arguments by which Mr. Faber and Mr. Cuninghame support their interpretations.

Mr. Faber, I find, formerly gave an earlier commencement to the vision, and agreed with Bishop Newton, that the pushings of the Ram Westward, Northward, and Southward, by which he became great, describe, principally at least, the conquests of Cyrus, the founder of the Medo-Persian empire*. The reason given why he now excludes these conquests from the vision, and commences it at a later date, is this, viz., that "the Ram is said to have already had "two horns when Daniel first beheld it †," and "that this being the case, the date of the vision "cannot be prior to the time when the Ram

began to have two horns," which Mr. Faber. assumes to be after the death of Cyaxares, when the empire was united under the sole dominion of Cyrus.

But might we not argue with equal plausi

Faber's Dis. vol. i. 3d edit. p. 262, 4th p. 290, 5th p. 287. +Faber's Dis. vol. i. 3d edit. p. 260, 4th p. 288, 5th p. 285.

bility in considering the vision of the four Beasts, that the Ten-horned Monster already had ten horns when it was first seen by Daniel, and therefore that the vision does not commence till a period subsequent to the division of the Roman empire, and the rise of the ten horns; and that the victories of the Monster, which was dreadful and terrible, and strong "exceedingly, that devoured, brake in pieces, "and stamped the residue with his feet," represent not the victories of the Romans, but the subsequent victories of modern Europe since the rise of the ten horns. Mr. Faber will doubtless not allow his argument to be so applied; and the fact is, that from the first description of a symbol at the commencement of a prophecy, we can argue nothing as to the order of events, for we shall find that a symbol is always described in the first instance as complete and perfect in all its parts before the chronological narrative begins. With this exception, I agree that we cannot be too strict in refusing to admit any interpretation which would interrupt the regular chronological order of events in a prophecy, upon which order the strength of its internal evidence and its character for accuracy, must entirely depend. Mr. Faber's opinion, that the two horns did not rise till the Medes