self the disposal of the kingdoms of the world, and the right of giving them to whom he would; Matt. iv. 9. Luke iv. 6: and we do not find our Saviour denying this right, or disallowing this claim; from which we cannot but conclude, I think, that it must have been true in some sense or other-which would argue that he was

far the Lord of the world in the strictest sense of the term particularly too, as he uses such language in speaking of this right, as not to imply that he claimed it absolutely as his own, as derived and held from himself, but as received in trust, as something which had been committed to him by another; ori èμoì IIAΡΑΔΕΔΟΤΑΙ (sc. ἡ ἐξουσία αὕτη ἅπασα) καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν.

We find our Saviour on three several occasions describing this Being, as the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: John xii. 31. xiv. 30. xvi. 11. We find St. Paul applying the title of archons or rulers of this world, to this Being and his angels generally; 1 Cor. ii. 6. and 8. We find the same apostle designating this Being in particular, as the God Toù aivos TOUTOU: 2 Cor. iv. 3. 4. We find the same apostle designating him as the archon of the authority of the air; Ephesians ii. 2: which is but another way of speaking for the archon τῶν ἐξovσiwv Tŵv àepiwv: where while the epithet, aerial, will describe the seat of their abode, or locality of their residence, so the appellative, Covoía, the abstract being put for the concrete, will describe the capacity in which they are supposed to reside and to dwell there collectively; viz. in the relation of rulers and superiors of some kind, and with some jurisdiction or other, which is most naturally to be presumed to be that of this lower world, of which the air itself forms a part. We find the same apostle, describing this Being and his angels collectively, Ephesians vi. 12, not only as TVEVμATIKA

Tns Tovηpias, which defines their nature, or what they are in themselves, but as ἀρχαὶ and ἐξουσίαι, which implies their relation to other things, as governing or authority-having principles in general; and as the κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, which describes their relation to this world in the same capacity in particular, and under a compound designation is equivalent to aрxovτes тоû коσμov, used of them, to express the same relation before.

It would be easy to multiply testimonies to the same effect, directly or indirectly, from other passages of scripture. But these are sufficient to shew what the established language of sacred writ is, in speaking of the Devil and his angels, more especially with reference to this present world and this present state of things, in connection with which alone we know any thing of them, or have any interest in their being and agency: viz. as beings or principles, whose specific relation to this world is that of ἄρχοντες, ἐξουσίαι, κυριότητες—whose jurisdiction over it is limited in one respect, and one only—archons, authorities, rulers, and governors of this part of the world, whose power and supremacy extend over all but the people of God as such-the Jews under the Mosaic dispensation, and the Christians under the Gospel.

Now this being the case, it is certainly in unison with that mode of speaking, that the archon of the kingdom of Persia, and the archon of Greece, should be mentioned in the Book of Daniel, and the archon of Tyre in the Book of Ezekiel; and all three as coordinate powers or rulers of this description—or the two former as subordinate powers, belonging to the number in general, and the last of them, to judge from the terms in which he is spoken of, which are much too magnificent to apply in strict propriety to any but

the most exalted among them, very possibly as the chief of all, as the head of those powers and rulers in particular. It is in unison with it, too, that while Persia and Greece have each their ruler or archon, and each one opposed to the angel Gabriel, and to his labours for the good of Daniel and of his people; this people, too, have their archon or ruler in the person of Michael, "the prince of princes," or archon of archons, (viii. 25.)-one of the chief, the first, or the capital archons or princes, (x. 13.)—the great archon or prince, (xii. 1.) who holds with Gabriel in this capacity, in behalf of his people, who stands up for them, in the last extremity, who fights with those that fight against them, and treats all as the enemies of himself, who are the enemies of them.

I have thought it necessary to say thus much, to vindicate the literal construction of the text of Daniel in this present instance; especially against so formidable an authority as the name of bishop Horsley. But as to pretending to explain in what way the parties concerned in this reciprocal warfare, the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece on the one hand, and the angel Gabriel, and Michael their prince on the other, discharged their respective parts, the one in opposing and thwarting, the other in abetting and promoting, the counsels of God for the good of his people— it would be to presume to be wise beyond what is written, were we to attempt to do that. It would be to pry into secrets, which are inaccessible to the eyes of flesh. Spiritual enemies must carry on a spiritual warfare; and a spiritual warfare must be maintained with spiritual weapons, and by spiritual modes of attack or defence: concerning which we can know or conceive but little at present. The influence of spirits indeed upon agents of a different description, may be called into ac

tion in the course of such a contest, on both sides: and though spirits as spirits cannot contend carnally like flesh and blood, yet they may stir up the arms of flesh and blood, they may work upon human passions, and by human passions, in cooperation with themselves, and make the free agency of men instrumental to their own proper purposes, whatsoever they be. And this, which Scripture would teach us to believe, is the rule of proceeding where spiritual agents are concerned in conjunction with human, in other instances, there is no reason to suppose might not have been the case in the present instance: nor consequently, why one mode, in which the Prince of Persia might have carried on his hostility against Gabriel and Michael to the prejudice of the people of Daniel, might not have been, what bishop Horsley supposes, the stirring up enemies against them in the court of Persia; and so impeding and delaying the final restitution and settlement of the country: which indeed appears to have been more or less the effect, by whatever means brought to pass, from the time of Cyrus to that of Nehemiah, through a period of nearly ninety years.

As to the further question, what particular reason there might be, why the Prince of Javan or Greece also should be described as making common cause with the Prince of Persia, in the third of Cyrus, against Gabriel and Michael; that too is one of the secrets of Satan's kingdom, and of the mode of its administration at present, about which we are not competent to give an opinion. We may, however, presume, that among the various members of such a kingdom and under such an head, it is reasonable to suppose there should be the closest union of purpose, and sympathy of feeling; and that as to Greece and Persia in particular, they were countries especially conjoined in the counsels of the Di

vine Providence, and in the future destinies of the world, as well as of the Jewish or Christian church; the Persian empire being to be succeeded by the Grecian, and the Grecian to exercise a considerable influence both for good and for bad, first over the fortunes of the Jewish church, and ultimately over those of the Christian; if, as it would appear from the prophecies of Daniel themselves, Antichrist, the great persecutor of the church of Christ, and antagonist of Christ himself, yet to come, is destined to arise out of that part of the world which was once subject to the empire of the Greeks, and which must be still considered, if any part of the world can still be considered, to represent the Grecian empire itself. And lastly, we may observe that if the true political situation of Persia and Greece, relative to each other, in the third of Cyrus, B. C. 534, were fully known; it is not improbable it would actually be found to throw light upon the reasons of this connection of the mention of Greece and Persia, in the tenth chapter of Daniel, with that period in particular.

I shall conclude these observations, then, with one or two more remarks; which will complete what I have to say on the chronology of the Book of Daniel.

The prophet Daniel was brought away captive from Judæa in the third or fourth of Jehoiachim, B. C. 606. At that time he is called a child; but the Hebrew idiom applies the name of child, at any time of life under the age of manhood; and it is morally certain, that when Daniel was appointed ruler of the province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men in Babylon, (that is, as bishop Horsley expresses it, president of the college of Magi,) in the second of Nebuchadnezzar, ii. 1. 48, only three or four years after his arrival in Babylon, he was nearer thirty than twenty years of age. Let us suppose him however to