the infidel king, and his associated vassal kings. Not the least similarity however can be discovered between the persons who compose the confederacy of Gog and Magog, and those who compose the confederacy of Antichrist. On the contrary, as the Antichristian confederacy is plainly a Roman one; so the Magogian confederacy does not comprehend a single Roman power, but is entirely composed of the relics of the three first empires, which Daniel assures us should have their lives preserved after the destruction of the Roman beast, though their dominion or power of injuring the Church should be taken away. According to Ezekiel, the confederacy of Gog will consist of Magog, Rosh, Mesech, Tubal, Persia, Cush, Phut, Gomer, and Togarmah. Now let the reader consult the map which Bochart has prefixed to the first book of his Sacred Geography, and he will find every one of these nations seated within the limits of the three first great empires, although some of their colonies doubtless extended beyond them. In Asia Minor he will perceive Gomer, Tubal, and Togarmah; close to Tubal he will see the Moschic hills; a small distance further east he will find Rosh or Rhos; due north of Rosh, Mesech, Gog and Magog; in Syria, another colony of Magog; in the region of Babylon and in Arabia, Chut or Cush*;

and

"Nos asserimus omnes Chusi filios, quos hîc nominat Moses habitasse circa mare Persicum, præter Nemrodum,

and in Africa immediately west of Egypt, Phut, Peres or Persia, which completes Ezekiel's catalogue, was itself the head of the second of the four great empires. Having thus ascertained the situation of these powers, let the reader next fix his eye upon Palestine, and imagine a joint invasion of it to take place from all these countries at once; and he will plainly see how exactly St. John's account tallies with Ezekiel's, that is to say, he will perceive that an invasion of Palestine jointly undertaken by the nations which Ezekiel enumerates would necessarily come from the four quarters of the earth, north, south, east, and west. Since then the Antichristian confederacy is a Ro

66

quem Babylonem migrâsse testatur Moses" (Bochart. Geog. Sacr. L. iv. C. 3.). In after ages the posterity of this patriarch astonishingly spread themselves. We find them in Colchis upon the Euxine; in Egypt; in Thrace, in Thessaly, and in Greece, the seat of the third great empire; in Babylon and in Persia, the two other great empires. (See Bryant's Annal. vol. iii. p. 443-601.)." The land of Cush in holy Writ (commonly, but by mistake, rendered Ethiopia) is properly that district of Arabia, where the sons of Cush first settled. But, as this race multiplied exceedingly, and spread, not only into other 66 parts of Arabia, but eastward, round the head of the Per"sian gulph, to the confines of Susiana; and westward, across "the Arabian gulph, into the region since called Abyssinia, “which extended along the coast from Ptolemaïs to Arsinoë, "and inland to the very sources of the Nile: the land of Cush "is often taken more largely for a great tract of country, not "only comprehending the whole of Arabia Felix, but having "for its eastern boundary the branch of the Tigris below the

town of Asia, and for its western boundary the Nile." Bp. Horsley's Letter on Isaiah xviii. p. 93.

man one, and since the Magogian confederacy is not a Roman one, they certainly cannot be the same. And, since the Magogian confederacy is composed of the relics of the three first empires, since the lives of those empires are to be preserved after the fall of the Roman empire, and since the confederacy itself is not to be formed till some time after the restoration of Israel; I know not what it can be except the confederacy, which St. John similarly terms Gog and Magog *-The circum

The discussion of this interesting prophecy serves to shew, that I was right in assigning the expedition, foretold in Dan. xi. 40-45, to the infidel king, and not (with Bp. Newton) to the king of the North. Since that expedition is contemporary with the restoration of Judah at the close of the 1260 years (Dan. xii, 1, 7.), it can only be an expedition undertaken by some Roman power, which shall then either be the last head of the beast, or at least his most powerful horn. Now the wilful king is allowed on all hands to be a Roman power, whether he be the empire in general, the Pope, or Antichristian France; whereas the northern king seems plainly not to be a Roman power. But the expedition during the restoration of the Jews is to be undertaken by a Roman power; and the wilful king, confessedly a Roman power, is at this very era engaged in hostilities with the northern king: hence it is plain, that, in order to avoid a palpable contradiction, we must ascribe the expedition in question, not to the northern king, but to the wilful king. Thus, what the concinnity of Daniel's prophecy evidently required, is proved by the instrumentality of another prophecy. The only expedition into Palestine at the era of the restoration of the Jews is the Roman one: the expedition therefore, here predicted by Daniel, must undoubtedly be ascribed to the Antichristian Roman king, not to his northern an

tagonist. See my Dissert. on the 1260 years, vol. i, p. 352–356, (2d Edit. p. 384-400.)

5

stantial

stantial difference between the Antichristian and the Magogian confederacies will close the argument. The Antichristian confederacy will at first prove successful, will overrun the whole of Palestine, will take Jerusalem, will conquer Egypt, and will reduce the Libyans and Cushim to some kind of subjection*. The Magogian confederacy will not be at all successful: at least Ezekiel does not give us the slightest hint that it will; and St. John, if it be allowed that he speaks of it, explicitly declares, that, although it will encamp around the beloved city, it shall not be able to take it, but shall be destroyed by fire from heaven. Of the Antichristian confederacy a third part will be spared and converted, and when scattered through all nations will be instrumental in bringing about the restoration of Israel. Of the Magogian confederacy a sixth part only will be spared; for, although God will not even then forget to be merciful, yet the superior guilt of this last, as having the fate of its audacious precursor before its eyes, and therefore not being able to plead an equal degree of ignorance, will doubtless deserve a more severe punishment.

The

Isaiah xi. 15. xix. 4. xxvii. 12, Dan, xi. 41-45. Zechar. x. 11. xiv. 2.

+ Compare Zechar. xiii. 8. and Isaiah lxvi. 19.

↑ Ezek. xxxix. 2. It is proper however to observe, that the word sww, rendered by our translators to leave a sixth part, is

rendered

The sum of the whole is this: since the Magogian confederacy of Ezekiel can neither be the Ottoman empire, nor the Roman Antichristian confederacy; since it does not commence its expedition till so long after the restoration both of Judah and Israel, that they have coalesced into one people, and are dwelling securely in their land; since therefore it must begin to act after the commencement of the Millennium; since we have every reason to believe, that it will not begin to act during the Millennium, so that one part of the Millennium should precede

rendered by the LXX as meaning to lead, by the Vulgate to bring out, and by the Targum to seduce. But in this case the difference will still be no less striking between the fate of the two confederacies; for of the one we are plainly taught that a third part shall be spared, whereas of the other we may infer that all will perish (See Ezek. xxxviii. 21, 22. xxxix. 4, 5, 9-16.). Buxtorf translates the word, to drag with a six-pronged hook, supposing it to allude to Chap. xxxviii. 4: and R. D. Kimchi, to affict with a six-fold punishment, supposing it to allude to the six plagues mentioned in Chap. xxxviii. 22. The fact is, the word only occurs once in the whole Bible: hence we have this uncertainty of interpretation, and hence I did not think myself authorized in rejecting our present translation. Yet, when we recollect that the destruction of Gog is at the end of the Millennium, and immediately before the general day of judgment, I cannot refrain from thinking, that our translation (although I have retained it) is of all the others the least likely to be the right one. The most obvious derivation of ww is nevertheless from ww six whence I much incline to think, that Buxtorf's interpretation is the best. Kimchi's seems too much laboured, and too far fetched. Abp. Newcome retains, as I have thought it most prudent to do, our common English version.

and