character of being a little horn of one of the four subverted horns of the he-goat.*

The first war between the Saracens and the Romans took place in the year 629 and 630; and between the years 632 and 639 the whole of Syria was conquered by them. (Hist. of Decline, Vol. 1x. p. 312, 379-421.) Dr. Zouch, in his work on prophecy, objects, that the little born of the be-goat cannot be Mohammed (Mr. Whita ker, whom he is opposing, ought rather to have said Mohammedism, for a born, in the language of symbols, does not mean an individual, but a power), because that impostor sprung up in Arabia, which was never subject to the Syrian born: whereas the little born was to come out of one of the four notable ones of the be-goat. Hence he prefers the interpretation of Sir Isaac and Bp. Newton; and supposes with them, that the little born is the Roman power, which first penetrated into the East by way of Macedon, one of the four borns or kingdoms of the Greek empire-When Dr. Zouch made this objection, he certainly was not aware, that it applies with equal force to his own system, as to that which supposes Mobammedism to be the little born. The Roman power sprung up no more within the territories of any of the four Greek borns at its first rise, than the religion of Mohammed. Consequently, if the one must not be esteemed the little born, because it originated in Arabia, neither must the other, because it first arose in Italy: and, on the contrary, if the one may be esteemed the little born, because it became a power within the limits of the be-goat's empire by the conquest of Macedon; so likewise may the other with equal propriety, because it became a power within the limits of the same empire by the conquest of Syria-The fact is, Dr. Zouch's objection is one of those, which, by proving too much, prove nothing. A born, in the language of prophecy, is indifferently said to spring from the head of a symbolical beast or empire, whether it be one of the kingdoms into which that empire has been divided by its own grandees, or whether it be one of the kingdoms which have been formed out of the empire in question by the successful inroads of foreigners. Thus the ten Gothic kingdoms of the Western Roman empire, although founded by nations that did not spring out of the empire, but on the contrary invaded it, are represented by Daniel as being the ten borns of the fourth beast; no less than the four Greek monarchies, which literally sprung out of the Macedonian empire, are described by him as being the four borns of the be-goat. Yet, if Dr. Zouch's objection be valid, not one of the ten Gothic kingdoms must be esteemed a born of the fourth beast; because not one of them, so far as its primitive origin is concerned, arose out of the Roman empire, any more than either the Roman empire itself or Mohammedism, whichever of these powers be intended by the little barn of the be-goat, arose out of the Greek empire. The 1260 days, must be dated from the time when the saints were given into the hand of the papal born or the year 606; consequently the rise of Mohammedism, or the setting up of the desolating transgression, must be dated from the same era: but Mohammedism itself did not become a born of the be-goat, or a spiritual power within the limits of the Greek empire, till the Saracens invaded Syria.

Dr. Zouch further objects to the long period of time, which intervened between the downfall of the four Greek kingdoms and the rise of Mohammedism; conceiving, that, if the little born had been designed to symbolize that Apostacy, some of the intermediate events would have been noticed by the prophet-This objection appears to me very unreasonable. Daniel had already recapitulated the whole of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in his vision of the four beasts, for the evident purpose of introducing the little born of the fourth beast, which had not been noticed in the dream of the Babylonian prince: he now recapitulates the history of the second and third empires, for the similar evident purpose of introducing the little born of the he-goat which answers to the third beast of the preceding vision. Had he therefore again recapitulated the conquests of the Romans, he would not only have introduced much superfluous matter, but would have involved his whole prophecy in confusion: for, in that case, we should have been led erroneously to imagine, that both the little berns sprung out of the Western part of the empire: instead of, what is now abundantly manifest, the one out of the Western part, and the other out of the Eastern part or the original body of the third beast. Accordingly we find, in the following vision, that Daniel does there actually re

2. The horn was first to be small and afterwards to be great in a southern, eastern, and northern* direction— The religion of Mohammed was originally small in the number of its proselytes; but it soon waxed exceeding great, and that in the very line marked out by the prophecy. Its conquests extended southward over the peninsula of Arabia; eastward, over Persia and in after ages over Hindostan; and northward, over Palestine, Asia Minor, and Greece. Some conquests it likewise made westward; but they were neither so permanent, nor so considerable, as its other acquisitions. Spain soon threw off its tyranny; and the piratical states of Barbary are not worthy to be mentioned with the spiritual sovereignty of Greece, Persia, Syria, Asia Minor, Hindostan, and Arabia. Hence the prophet truly remarks, that the principal theatre of its greatness should be the North, the South, and the East.†

capitulate a part of the Roman history, because he wishes to conduct us to the ty, rannical reign of the atheistical king, who, like the papal born, was to arise, not in the East, but in the West. (See Dan. xi. 30-45.) In order then, I conceive, to preserve that perspicuity, which is so necessary for the right understanding of his prophecies, Daniel here simply tells us, that some time after the downfall of the four Greek kingdoms, the little born should make its appearance in the late territories of one of them. The precise time however, when the power which was destined to become this little born should arise, he does not mention, leaving us to collect it from certain numbers which he has given us. From these numbers the time has been collected; and that time, as we have seen, is the very year in which Mohammed commenced his imposture.

Lastly, Dr. Zouch objects, that the king typified by the little horn was to be a king of a fierce countenance; whereas Mohammed, according to the traditions of his companions, was distinguished for his commanding presence, his majestic aspect, his piercing eye, his gracious smile, his countenance that painted every sensation of the soul, and his gestures that enforced each expression of the tongue-To this objection the answer is sufficiently obvious. Daniel is not describing the aspect of a man, but the nature of a religion: the antitype of the little born is not an individual king, but a spiritual kingdom. And this spiritual kingdom or religion is to remain 1260 years, and at length to be broken without hand. Consequently it cannot be any single individual. Whatever then the countenance of Mohammed may have been, his sanguinary superstition, avowedly propagated by the sword, may with the utmost propriety be described as a kingdom fierce of countenance. See Zouch on Prophecy, Chap. 8.

• The expression toward the pleasant land, when joined with the preceding phrase toward the South and toward the East, and when considered with a reference to the native country of Mohammed, evidently means toward the North. It is a mode of speech perfectly familiar in the Hebrew language. Thus, from the relative position of the Mediterranean sea to Palestine, the Jews were wont to express the West by the phrase toward the sea.

+ "Under the last of the Ommiades, the Arabian empire extended two hundred days journey from East to West, from the confines of Tartary and India to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. And, if we retrench the sleeve of the robe, as it is styled by their writers, the long and narrow province of Africa," (that is to say, the petty western conquests of the Mohammedan religion, which were not worthy to be mention

3. The king was to arise, when the transgressors were come to the full-The Christian churches began very early to degenerate from their primitive purity, and to apostatize in the manner predicted by St. Paul. The Apostacy however was long confined to individuals; nor did the transgressors come to the full, until it was publicly authorized and upheld by the spiritual head of the catholic church. But in the year 606, when the saints were delivered into the hand of the Papal horn, the Apostacy became an embodied system: for immediately afterwards idolatry was openly and shamelessly established by the sovereign pontiff. In this year then, when the 1260 days commenced, the transgressors came to the full consequently in this year we must look for the rise of the king. Accordingly the Mohammedan apostacy commenced in the East, in the self-same year that the Pope was constituted Bishop of bishops and supreme head of the Church in the West: insomuch that Dr. Prideaux, struck with this wonderful chronological coindence, could not refrain from exclaiming, "that Antichrist seemed at that time to have set both his feet upon Christendom together, the one in the East, the other in the West."*

4. The king was moreover to be fierce of countenance, and a teacher of dark sentences: that is to say, the little

ed along with its empire in the East, the North, and the South, and which are therefore left unnoticed by the prophet,) "the solid and compact dominion from Fargana to Aden, from Tarsus to Surat, will spread on every side to the measure of four or five months of the march of a caravan." (Hist. of Decline and Fall, Vol. ix. p. 501.) To this vast territory, which acknowledged Mohammed as the prophet of God, the Turks afterwards added Greece and Asia Minor in the North. The progress of the Saracens, in the very direction marked out by the prophet, is even verbally noticed by Mr. Gibbon. After detailing the history of their conquest of Arabia in the South, he observes, "To the North of Syria they passed mount Taurus, and reduced to their obedience the province of Cilicia with its capital Tarsus, the ancient monument of the Assyrian kings. Beyond a second ridge of the same mountains, they spread the flame of war, rather than the light of religion, as far as the shores of the Euxine and the neighbourhood of Constantinople. To the East they advanced to the banks and sources of the Euphrates and Tigris: the long disputed barrier of Rome and Persia was for ever confounded, the walls of Edessa and Amida, of Dara and Nisibis, which had resisted the arms and engines of Sapor or Nushirvan, were levelled in the dust; and the holy city of Abgarus might vainly produce the epistle of the image of Christ to an unbelieving conqueror. To the West the Syrian kingdom is bounded by the sea." In this direction Mr. Gibbon notices only the piratical excursions of the Saracens. Hist. of Decline, Vol. 1x. p. 309, 423, 424.

* Prideaux's life of Mohammed, p. 16.

horn was to be a spiritual power upheld by force of arms; it was to be a religion, not mild and gentle like that of the Lamb, but partaking of the fierce and unrelenting nature of the dragon-The word, which is here rendered dark sentences, primarily means enigmas: and, as the oriental enigmas were usually couched in sublime and poetical language, it is used in Scripture to express the sublime spiritual enigmas or mysteries of religion. Thus the Psalmist, when about to treat of the deep mysteries of redemption, and the wonders of the resurrection, summons all the inhabitants of the world to give him their earnest attention. 66 My mouth," saith he, "shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart shall be of understanding. I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark sentence upon the harp."* The dark sentences then, or spiritual enigmas, taught by the little horn, are manifestly that pretended revelation of Mohammed, the Koran; a work written in a kindred language to that of the Jewish Scriptures, and replete with those poetically metaphorical turns of expression so peculiarly grateful to an oriental ear. "The substance of the Koran, according to Mohammed or his disciples, is uncreated and eternal; subsisting in the essence of the Deity, and inscribed with a pen of light on the table of his everlasting decrees-In the spirit of enthusiasm or vanity, the prophet rests the truth of his mission on the merit of his book; audaciously challenges both men and angels to imitate the beauties of a single page; and presumes to assert, that God alone could dictate this incomparable performance. This argument is most powerfully addressed to a devout Arabian, whose mind is attuned to faith and rapture, whose ear is delighted by the music of sounds, and whose ignorance is incapable of comparing the productions of human genius. The harmony and copiousness of style will not reach, in a version, the European infidel : he will peruse with impatience the endless incoherent rhapsody of fable, and precept, and declamation; which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, which sometimes crawls in the dust,

Psalm xlix. 3, 4.

and is sometimes lost in the clouds. The divine attributes exalt the fancy of the Arabian missionary; but his loftiest strains must yield to the sublime simplicity of the book of Job, composed in a remote age, in the same country, and in the same language."* Such are the dark sentences of the Koran; and the religion, which it inculcates, may well be described as "fierce of countenance,' when the avowed maxim of its founder was to use no other engine of conversion than the sword.

III. "And it waxed great even against the host of heaven; and it cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, it magnified itself even against the prince of the host; and by it the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his (the prince's) sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given up unto it by reason of transgression against the daily sacrifice; and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised and prospered."

Of this passage the following explanation is given by the angel. "And the power of the king shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the people of the holy Ones. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart; and he shall destroy many while in negligent security: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

1. The little horn was to cast the stars of heaven to the ground, and stamp upon them-The religion of Mohammed has professedly set itself up against the symbolical host and stars of heaven, or the bishops and pastors of the Christian Church; numbers of whom in the eastern part of the empire it cast down to the ground, compelling them either to apostatize, or stamping them as it were under its feet with all the fury of brutal fanaticism.

2. The little horn was to magnify itself against the prince of the host, and to cast down the truth to the ground-Accordingly Mohammedism did openly magnify

Hist. of Decline and Fall, Vol. ix. p. 267, 268, 269.