pendent kingdoms, that is, after they should have been absorbed into the Roman empire, which is Daniel's fourth beast: whilst the other prophecy, that a little horn (of which Daniel predicates precisely the same things, as he had predicated of the little horn growing out of the Macedonian he-goat) should arise out of the ten horns or kingdoms of the subverted and subdivided Roman empire, fixes the period of his coming as clearly as the preceding prophecy of the he-goat had fixed his locality.
And here we are met by an objection, which Protestant commentators are not slow to advance. They deny the identity of the little horn of the Macedonian he-goat, with that of the Roman beast. They agree with us in all we have advanced about the period of the appearance of the little horn of the Macedonian he-goat, as they agree with us also in their personal application of that prophecy: but they do not agree with us in admitting the identity of this little horn, with the little horn, which the Prophet describes as issuing out of the subdivided Roman empire.
In maintaining this theory, in opposition to our's, which asserts the identity of the two little horns, Protestants seem to forget that the Roman beast must represent the whole Roman empire, and not alone the western half
