under which we shall labor here, we know are great; but we are confident they do not arise from the subject, nor from the trouble of logically demonstrating our position; but they lie altogether in the preconceived opinions of men upon the subject, and the firm and settled error of those opinions, and the determined hostility to any argument that would overthrow or unsettle them. Some persons have never fully formed an opinion on the subject; while others have satisfied themselves that some one has made a great mistake in explaining prophecy somehow, and are consequently distrustful of the ability of any man to throw any new light upon the subject. Others, and of the smaller class, are ever ready fairly to examine all honorable argument, and to decide justly. As the decisions of this class will ultimately prevail, we appeal to them to see that justice is done us; if we are wrong, we crave no mercy; if we are logically true, we claim a candid support. Is not this fair? Let the prejudiced remember, that perhaps their opinions are not infallible, and that, after all, they may be just a little wrong, if no more. For the captious, we have not a word; not the first favor have we to ask of them, except-that they will be kind enough to take exceptions to some things, and to all things, we propose.

Two classes of opinions about the signification of the fifth kingdom, have gained considerable ascendency in the world. One class of expositors hold, that the stone is a political power, and another that it is purely a spiritual power, and that it is no other than Christianity. The former suppose that it represents Jesus Christ in his kingdom, suddenly appearing to break the political powers of the earth to pieces, and the latter suppose it to

represent the gradual consuming of wicked governments by the prevalence of piety. We hold, that neither system. of exposition is exactly correct, and that the truth lies between them. We do not propose to answer the arguments in favor of either theory, directly. We shall explain the fifth kingdom by the exact description given, and let the arguments in favor of our scheme be a sufficient proof of the erroneousness of the other theories. We shall proceed to particularize, with severe discrimination, each point in the description of the stone kingdom, and, having minutely developed all that is said, we shall look then for a corresponding kingdom in history. Understand us: we will admit no loose or vague opinion upon any point here; and every point in the coincidence must match with the prophecy, as regularly as each letter upon a newspaper matches with the types of the form upon which the impression was made.

The following are all the points which are given to identify the fifth kingdom:

1. The time of its rise. 2. The character and mode of its origin. 3. Its character and its work of demolition, and the manner of it. 4. Its change of character. 5. Its perpetuity. 6. Its character as a theocratic republic and royalty.

First. The Time of its Rise.—The time of its rise is expressed and implied in the positive words of the vision, and in those of the interpretation, and in the time when the destruction of the image was to take place.

To render the matter plain, we shall quote the text carefully. "This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and thighs of

brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands."

Now, mark earnestly the following facts: It is certain that the image was a chronological one, and represented successive kingdoms, and successive periods in those. kingdoms, from the Babylonian to the broken state of the Roman empire, represented by toes of iron and clay. In seeing these several kingdoms, it is certain that Nebuchadnezzar saw the history of the world, down to the subversion of the Roman empire. It is certain that he saw a period of time, extending from the days of Nebuchadnezzar down to the fifth century. It is certain, that after he had seen the whole era of the image down to the broken stages of Rome, that he continued to look prospectively into the future. It is certain that he did not see the empire of the stone, until he had seen the whole history of the world, from his own days to those of the broken empire. It is certain that he saw the stone kingdom, by looking beyond the period of the broken state of Rome, and that he did not see it by any retrospective view. These statements are plainly comprehended, and explicitly stated in the text. 1. The prophets expressly told the king, that after he had seen the whole prophetic and chronological image, down to the toes, that then, he continued to look forward, and that in looking forward, his attention was arrested by the sight of a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. The expression, "thou sawest till that a stone was cut out," indubitably signifies a looking into the future, and a looking into the future from the toe period, on which his attention had last rested. The term, "thou

sawest till," has an expressiveness of futurity in it absolutely, as well as relatively. The word till, says Mr. Webster, signifies "to the time of, or to the time, as, I will wait till next week," or "occupy till I come, "saying they would neither eat nor drink till they had slain Paul." The term, "thou sawest," signifies, that he continued to look upon events. Now, as all the events in the vision beside the stone, occurred chronologically, the expression “thou sawest till that a stone was cut out," shows that the looking was chronologically into the future.

This view is further confirmed, as well as illustrated, by a parallel and fac-simile passage found in Daniel's vision of the very same events. After Daniel had seen the fourth beast, or kingdom, and its broken state represented by ten horns, and dwelt for awhile upon the broken state of Rome, he says, "I beheld or saw till the thrones were cast down." The fourth kingdom of the image, and the fourth kingdom represented by the anomalous beast in Daniel's vision, are synonymous; and the ten toes are synonymous with the ten horns; and the term, "thou savest till the stone was cut out," and broke the kingdoms to pieces, falls in precisely the same relative position as does the term, "I saw, or beheld till the thrones were cast down;" they relate to the same events, and therefore synchronize, and are synonymous, not only in words, but in signification. The meaning of the latter term can not be mistaken, it plainly looks to the destruction of the kingdoms before it by the ancient of days, and to the rise of the ancient of days; and what IT means, must also be understood by the former time.

2. The interpretation of the vision by the prophet himself, drives us to the same conclusion, irresistibly.

The period of the rise of the fifth kingdom is stated again so circumstantially, as to leave no doubt when it was to occur. The text says, "they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave to one another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.”—-v. 43, 44. The phrase, "in the days of these kings," is in the Hebrew original, "beyomahon," signifying, literally, "in their days," and "dimalchayyah innun," signifying, "of those kings." (Dr. Thomas.) Now it is a principle of logic that, "relative words should be referred to the nearest, rather than to a remote antecedent." (Hedge's Logic.) Hence the term, "in their days, and of these kings," must either refer to the persons or kingdoms expressed in the preceding sentence, by the words, "they," "themselves," or of the corrupt church; and by the two kingdoms of iron and clay, or to the kingdoms of the broken state of the empire. We can not, therefore, without a palpable violation of a plain, logical rule, make the terms in, "their days, and of those kings," refer to the great period of the whole four kingdoms. Again, the terms in their days, and of those kings are plural, and doubly imply the existence of a plurality of kings at the time of the setting up of the stone kingdom. Whereas, if this kingdom had arisen in the days of Rome, before it was broken into a plurality of kingdoms, it is a plain case that it would have been set up in the days of one king, or kingdom, and not, "in their days of these kings," as the text says it should be.

In Daniel's vision of the same great period, he presents us with precisely the same number of kingdoms as are