Christian Biblical Reflections.32

Christian Biblical Reflections.32. (Incomplete & Tentative)
(Not wishing to delay any further, and still several months from completing the remaining Selections & the writing the Reflections on the whole, I share it with others who might have interest in this Key prophetic Book. The original in PDF of the Selections of Calvin’s & Newton’s & Lowth’s are from very old editions which typefaces that has caused considerable labor to edit. These 4 Selections are of great importance to the later & modern interpreters & commentators of the Book. The Analysis & Digest was done months ago; the Chronology is incomplete, and to be completed when the Reflections are written. The Selections to be added are from the 19th-21st centuries, which all are dependent on these earlier Selections that are herein given. If the Lord permits, the 12 Minor Prophets, being an Appendix to Daniel & the 3 Major Prophets, will follow. As in Ezekiel I’ve had to change my style in reflecting on this Book. mjm.) The PDF is attached. The link to my One Drive files are:!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)
CBR files in PDF & Word:!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD
Here is the link to my Internet library page for those interested:

Part V: DANIEL-MALACHI: Prophetical Books: Daniel &
Twelve: Minor-Smaller-Shorter Prophets.

BOOK OF DANIEL: Prophet-Ruler.

2. Calvin.
Commentaries on the Book the Prophet Daniel. Volume 1 & 2. by John (Jean) Calvin. Now 1st Translated from the Original Latin & Collated with French Version, & Dissertations, New Translation of the Text, & Copious Indices, by Thomas Myers, M.A., Vicar of Sheriff-Hutton, Yorkshire. Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society. 1652.1853. (The original italics & archaic spellings have been retained as much as possible; the archaic ‘s’ that looked like a ‘f’ has been changed whenever found. In the PDF or Word format the original italics are reproduced, but to indicate them in ‘text format’ I have added single quotes.)

Translator’s Preface (T.M.):
Arrangement of the Present Work: The Contents of these Volumes are as follow: The First Volume contains a translation of Calvin’s elaborate Address to All the Faithful in France; and also of his Preface to his Lectures. Their translation is continued to the end of the Sixth Chapter, which closes the Historical portion of the Book. Dissertations explanatory of the subject-matter of the Commentary close the Volume, containing various historical, critical, and exegetical remarks, illustrating the Sacred Text as expounded by our Reformer. The chief of them are as follow, viz.: Chapters 1-6; 7-12.

1st Volume: [Historical]:
Chapter I:
Date of JEHOIAKIM’S Reign. NEBUCHADNEZZAR: one King or two? His Ancestors & Successors. CHALDEANS. Three Children [Daniel’s Companions.]. CORESH —was he Cyrus the Great?
Chapter II:
Dream. Image. Stone out without hands.
Chapter III:
Statue at DURA. Magistrates. Musical Instruments. SON or Goo.
Chapter IV:
Watcher. Madness. Edict of Praise.
Chapter V:
BELSHAZZAR and the Feast. Queen. Handwriting. MEDES AND PERSIANS.
Darius the Mede. Capture of BABYLON.
Chapter VI:
Three Presidents. King’s Decease. Prolongation of DANIEL’s Life.

2nd Volume: proceeds with the Translation of the remaining Chapters (7-12), which are the peculiarly ‘Prophetic’ portion of the Book; and the interest which every sound Exposition of these Prophecies has always excited throughout the Theological world, will render the following Addenda acceptable to the reader.
I. Dissertations Explanatory of Last Six Chapters of Daniel, fully elucidating all important questions.
II. CONNECTED Translation of Calvin’s version , illustrated by the peculiar words & phrases of his Commentary.
III. Summary of Historical & Prophetical Portions of the Book, according to Calvin’s view of their contents.
IV. Notice of some Ancient Codices & Versions.
V. List of Most Valuable Ancient & Modern British & Foreign Expositions of Daniel, with concise Epitomes of the contents of the most important.
VI. Index of Scriptural Passages Quoted in Lectures.
VII. Copious Index of Chief Words & Subjects treated in these Volumes.

Analysis of the Contents of the Book of Daniel. There are Two Main Divisions, —I. ‘Historical Portion’. —II. ‘Prophetical Portion’. Each Occupies Six Chapters.

I. ‘Historical Portion’. Chap. 1-6. Sect.:
1. Captivity of King Jehoiakim about B.C. 607 —treatment of Daniel & his three companions —their superiority as they stood before the king. (Chap. 1)
2. King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream —forgotten —submitted to the magicians —their failure & destruction —Daniel’s proposal & success —secret revealed to him & communicated to the king —image described and explained —four kingdoms —elevation of Daniel & his companions to high honour, about B.C. 603. (Chap. 2)
3. Golden image on the Plains of Dura —the accusation against Daniel’s three companions —their reply to the king —their condemnation to the burning fiery furnace —their preservation —king’s astonishment —his proclamation & promotion of the three confessors over the province of Babylon, about B.C. 580. (Chap. 3)
4. Nebuchadnezzar’s confession of the power of the Most High —his dream respecting the Tree, the Watcher, & the Holy One —Daniel’s interpretation —its accomplishment —king driven from among men —his madness, & his restoration to reason & re-establishment in his kingdom, about B.C. 570-563. (Chap. 4)
5. Impious feast of Belshazzar —handwriting —magicians’ ignorance —Daniel’s interpretation —its fulfilment —Belshazzar slain —Darius the conqueror, about B.C. 538. (Chap. 5)
6. One hundred and twenty (120) princes set over the kingdom —three (3) presidents —unalterable decree —Daniel’s habit of prayer continued —his accusation and condemnation to the lions’ den —his miraculous deliverance —king’s rejoicing and decree —Prophet’s prosperity till the reign of Cyrus, about B.C. 537. (Chap. 6)

II. ‘Prophetical Portion.’ Chap. 7-12. Sect.:
1. Daniel’s own dream —four (4) beasts —Ancient of Days & Son of Man —explanation of this dream —fourth (4th) beast being the Roman Empire, & ten horns Roman Senate —kingdom given to the Son of Man —fulfilled, according to ‘Calvin’, at first advent of Christ & early propagation of Gospel, —about B.C. 555. (Chap. 8)
2. Daniel’s vision at Shushan —ram & the he-goat —little horn —cleansing of sanctuary —appearance of Gabriel —explanation of the vision —king of fierce countenance said to be the power of heathen Rome —Prince of princes —truth of vision of evening & morning —Daniel’s fainting and astonishment, —about B.C. 553. (Chap. 8)
3. Prophet, after studying writings of Jeremiah, anticipates close of captivity —he prays & confesses his sins at full length in first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus —while he is praying angel Gabriel is sent to instruct him —he is informed of the celebrated period of seventy weeks —of coming of Messiah Prince of the overspreading of desolations, which events are historically explained in the course of these Lectures,—about B.C. 538. (Chap. 9)
4. Vision by river Hiddekel in third (3rd) year of King Cyrus —during the Prophet’s terror an angel addresses him, touches him, & inspires him with confidence, & then returns to contend with the prince of Persia, together with another angel called Michael your prince. This vision being introductory to the following prophecy “noted in Scripture of truth,” —about B.C. 534. (Chap. 10)
5. Prophecy of Scriptures of truth detailed at full length by angel —three (3) kings of Persia—fourth (4th) Xerxes —mighty king Alexander & division of his empire into four (4) parts —two (2) monarchies specially dwelt upon —kings of the north being the Seleucidae, & those of south the Ptolemidae or Lagidae —their various wars, intermarriages, treaties, & successes —fully elucidated by historical testimony throughout these Lectures —wilful king (ver. 16) interpreted of Antiochus the Great—vile person (ver. 21) being Antiochus Epiphanes —wilful king (ver. 36) being heathen Roman Empire —remainder of prophecy being ingeniously accommodated to well-known character of Roman conquests in East, about B.C. 534. (Chap. 11)
6. Michael the Prince stands up for the people —certainty of a future resurrection proclaimed —two (2) angels appear on banks of river —Prophet inquiries concerning the timing of these events —time, times, and a half —closing & sealing of the words till the time of end —abomination of desolation set up —1290 days —1335 days —angel’s command to stand in thy lot at the end of days —these periods said to be completed at first (1st) advent of Christ & early history of Gospel dispensation, including destruction of Jerusalem & persecutions of Church under heathen Emperors of Rome, about B.C. 534. (Chap. 12)

‘Emst. Wilh. Hengstenberg’. Die Authentie des Daniel und die integritat des Sachariah. Berlin, A.D. 1831. This work is now accessible to the English reader through the translation of the Rev. B. P. Pratten. Edinburgh, Clark, A.D., 1848.
Its contents are as follow: —Genuineness of Daniel. Chap. I.—History of attacks on the Book of Daniel. Chap. II.—Reply to objections. Sect. i. Alleged Greek Words —ii. Impure Hebrew —iii. Silence of Jesus Sirach —iv. Position in the Canon —v. Depreciatory statements of the Jews—vi. The O. T. referred to as a complete Whole —vii. Aimless profusion of miracles —viii. Historical errors —ix. Irreconcilable contradictions—x. Improbable and suspicious accounts —xi. Later ideas & usages —xii. Unusual indefiniteness of the prophecies —xiii. This definiteness ceases with Antiochus Epiphanes —xiv. Other objections —1. Passage, chap. 12; 2. Correspondence in ideas & expressions with much later Books; 3. Marks of Jewish national pride; 4. Absence of all higher moral tendency; 5. Passages which speak in praise of Daniel. Chap. iii. —Arguments for the Genuineness. Sect. i. Testimony of the author himself —ii. Reception into the Canon, and general acknowledgment of Canonicity —iii. Testimony of Christ and the Apostles —iv. Traces of the Book in pre-Maccabean times —1. The passage of Josephus, Antiq. xi. 8 ; 2. 1st Macc. 2:59,60; 3. The LXX. of Deut. 32:8, & Isaiah 30:4; Badness of the Alex. version of Daniel, which was nearly contemporary with the alleged original composition —v. Character of the language; 1. Use of Hebrew and Aramaean; 2. Correspondence of its Aramaean, with that of Ezra, and deviation from that of the Targums —vi. Exact knowledge of history—vii. Familiar acquaintance with the institutions, manners, and customs of the times of Daniel—viii. Other arguments; 1. The entire peculiarity of prophetic style, and the mode of representation adopted in the Book; 2. Several things at variance with the spirit of the Maccabean times; 3. Exact agreement of the historical part and the prophecies; 4. Inmediate conjunction of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Messianic times.
As the Professor refers to many Neologian works for the purpose of refuting their wild extravagancies, the titles of the four following ones are given in full. See their characters delineated in our Preface.
Daniel aus dem Hebraisch-Aramaischen neu ibersetzt und erklärt, mit einer vollständigen Einleitung, und einigen historischen und exegetischen Excursen. Von LEONHARD BERTHOLDT, erste und zweyte Hälſte. Erlangen, 1806, 1808, in octon.
G. F. GRIESINGER’s Neue Ansicht der Aufsätze im Buche Daniel. Stuttg. u. Tübing., 1815, in octon. Ueber Werfasser und Zweck des Buchs Daniel. Revision der in neuerer Zeit darüber geführten Untersuchungen. Von FRIEDR. BLEEK. In der Theologischen Zeitschrift herausgeg. von Schleiermacher, de Wette, u. Lücke, p. 3. Berlin, 1822, in octon. HER. GOD. KIRMss Commentatio historico-critica, exhibens descriptionem et censuram recentium de Danielis libro opinionum. Jenae, 1828, in quat. }}

John Calvin’s Preface to his Lectures on Daniel: Lecture 1st:
{{ The Book of the Prophet Daniel follows those Remarks, and its utility will be better understood as we proceed ; since it cannot be conveniently explained all at once. I will, however, just present the Reader with a foretaste to prepare his mind, and render him attentive. But before I do so, I must make a brief Summary of the Book. We may divide the Book into two (2) parts, and this partition will materially help us. For ‘Daniel’ relates how he acquired influence over the unbelieviug. It was necessary for him to be elevated to the prophetic ofiice in some singular and unusual manner. The condition of the Jews, as is well known, was so confused, that it was difficult for any one to determine whether any Prophet existed. At first Jeremiah’ was alive, and after him ‘Ezekiel’. After their return, the Jews had their own Prophets: but Jeremiah and Ezekiel had almost fulfilled their office, when ‘Daniel’ succeeded them. Others too, as we have already seen, as ‘Haggai’, ‘Malachi’, and ‘Zechariah’, were created Prophets for the purpose of exhorting the people, and hence their duties were partially restricted. But ‘Daniel’ would scarcely have been considered a Prophet, had not God, as we have said, appointed him in a remarkable way. We shall perceive at the close of the sixth (6th) chapter, that he was divinely endued with remarkable signs, so that the Jews might surely ascertain that he had the gift of prophecy, unless they were basely ungrateful to God. His name was known and respected by the inhabitants of Babylon. If the Jews had despised what even the profane Gentiles admired, was not this purposely to suffocate and trample on the grace of God? ‘Daniel’ , then, had sure and striking marks by which he could be recognised as God’s Prophet, and his calling be rendered unquestionable.
A Second (2nd) Part (ch. 7-12) is afterwards added, in which God predicts by his agency the events which were to occur to his elect people. The Visions, then, from the seventh (7th) chapter to the end (12th) of the Book, relate peculiarly to the Church of God. There God predicts what should happen hereafter. And that admonition is the more necessary, since the trial was severe, when the Jews had to bear an exile of seventy (70) years; but after their return to their country, instead of seventy (70) years, God protracted their full deliverance till seventy (70) weeks of years. So the delay was increased sevenfold. Their spirits might be broken a thousand (1000) times, or even utterly fail; for the Prophets speak so magnificently about their redemption, that the Jews expected their state to be especially happy and prosperous, as soon as they were snatched from the Babylonish Captivity. But since they were oppressed with so many afilictions, and that, too, not for a short period, but for more than four hundred (400) years, their redemption might seem illusory since they were but seventy (70) years in exile. There is no doubt, then, that Satan seduced the minds of many to revolt, as if God were mocking them by bringing them out of Chaldea back again to their own country. For these reasons God shews his servant in a Vision what numerous and severe afflictions awaited his elect people. Besides, ”Daniel’ so prophesies that he describes almost historically events previously hidden’. And this was necessary, since in such turbulent convulsions the people would never have tasted that these had been divinely revealed to ‘Daniel’ , unless the heavenly testimony had been proved by the event. ‘This holy man ought so to speak and to prophesy concerning futurity, as if he were relating what had already happened’. But we shall see all these things in their own order.
I return, then, to what I commenced with, that we may see in few words how useful this Book is to the Church of Christ. First of all, the matter itself shews how ‘Daniel’ did not speak from his own discretion, but whatever he uttered Was dictated by the Holy Spirit: for whence could he conceive the things which we shall afterwards behold, if he were only endued with human prudence? for instance, that other Monarchies should arise to blot out that Babylonian Empire which then had the greatest authority in all the world? Then, again, how could he divine concerning Alexander the Great and his Successors? for long before Alexander was born, ‘Daniel’ predicted what he should accomplish. Then he shews that his kingdom should not last, since it is directly divided into four horns. Other events also clearly demonstrate that he spoke by the dictation of the Holy Spirit. But our confidence in this is strengthened by other narratives, where he represents the various miseries to which the Church should be subject between two most cruel enemies, the kings of Syria and Egypt. He first recites their treaties, and then their hostile incursions on both sides, and afterwards so many changes, as if he pointed at the things themselves with his finger; and he so follows through their whole progress, that God appears to speak by his mouth. This, then, is a great step, and we shall not repent of taking it, when we acknowledge ‘Daniel’ to have been only the organ of the Holy Spirit, and never to have brought anything forward by his own private inclination. The authority, too, which he obtained, and which inspired the Jews with perfect confidence in his teaching, extends to us also. Shameful, indeed, and base would be our ingratitude, if we did not embrace him as God’s Prophet, whom the Chaldeans were compelled to honour —a people whom we know to have been superstitious and full of pride. These two nations, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, placed themselves before all others; for the Chaldeans thought wisdom’s only dwelling-placewas with themselves: hence they would never have been inclined to receive DANIEL, unless the reality had compelled them, and the confession of his being a true prophet of God had been extorted from them.
Since ‘Daniel’s’ authority is thus established, we must now say a few words about the subjects which he treats. Respecting the ‘Interpretation of his Dreams’, the first of those of Nebuchadnezzar embraces a matter of great importance, as we shall see, namely, how all the splendour and power of the world vanish away, Christ’s kingdom alone remaining stable, and that nothing else is self-enduring.
In the Second (2nd) Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, ‘Daniel’s’ admirable constancy is displayed. Very invidious, indeed, was the office of throwing down the mightiest Monarch of the whole world as he did: “Thou exceptest thyself from the number of men, and art worshipped like a god; thou shalt hereafter become a beast!” No man of these days would dare thus to address Monarchs; nay, who dares to admonish them even mildly, if they have sinned at all? When, therefore, ‘Daniel’ intrepidly predicted to King Nebuchadnezzar the disgrace which awaited him, he thus gave a rare and memorable proof of his constancy. And in this way, again, his calling was sealed, since this fortitude sprang from God’s Spirit.
But the Second (2nd) Part is peculiarly worthy of notice, since we there perceive how God cares for his Church. God’s providence is, indeed, extended to the whole world. For if a sparrow does not fall to the ground without his permission, he, doubtless, is mindful of the human race! (Matt. 10, & Luke 12) Nothing, therefore, happens to us by chance, but God in this Book affords us light, while we know his Church to be so governed by him, as to be the object of his peculiar care. If matters ever were so disturbed in the world, that one could suppose God to be asleep in heaven, and to be forgetful of the human race, surely such were the changes of those times, nay, so multiform, so extensive, and so various were they, that even the most daring must be confounded, since there was no end to the wars. Egypt prevailed at one time, while at another there were commotions in Syria. Seeing, then, all things turned up-side down, what judgment could be passed, except that God neglected the world, and the Jews were miserably deceived in their hope? They thought that as God had been their deliverer, so would he have been the perpetual guardian of their safety. Although all nations were then subject in common to various slaughters, yet if the Syrians were victorious over the Egyptians, they abused their power against the Jews, and Jerusalem lay exposed as their prey, and the reward of their victory: if, again, the opposite side were the conquerors, they revenged the injury, or sought compensation against the Jews. Thus on every side those miserable people were freed, and their condition was much worse after their return to their country, than if they had always been exiles or strangers in other regions. When, therefore, they were admonished concerning the future, this was the best prop on which they could repose. But the use of the same doctrine is at this day applicable to us. We perceive, as in a glass or picture, how God was anxious about his Church, even when he seemed to cast away all regard for it: hence when the Jews were exposed to the injuries of their enemies, it was but the accomplishment of his designs.
From the Second (2nd) Part we recognise their wonderful preservation, and that too, by a greater and more surprising exercise of God’s power, than if they had lived in peace, and no one had molested them. We learn this from the seventh (7th) to the ninth (9th) chapters. Now, when ‘Daniel’ numbers the years till ‘The Advent of Christ’, how clear and distinct is the testimony which we may oppose against Satan, and all the taunts of the impious! and how certain it is that the Book of ‘Daniel’ was familiarly used by men before this event. But when he enumerates ‘The Seventy Weeks’, and says, that Christ should then come, all profane men may come, and boast, and swell with increased swaggering, yet they shall fall down convicted, since Christ is that true Redeemer whom God had promised from the beginning of the world. For He was unwilling to make him known without the most certain demonstration, such as all the mathematicians can never equal. First of all, it is worthy of observation, that ‘Daniel’ afterwards discoursed on the various calamities of the Church, and prophesied the time at which God pleased to shew his only-begotten Son to the world. His dissertation on the office of Christ is one of the principal supports of our faith. For he not only describes his Advent, but announces the abolition of the shadows of the Law, since the Messiah would bring with him its complete fulfilment. And when he predicts the Death of Christ, he shews for what purpose he should undergo death, namely, to abolish Sin by his sacrifice, and to bring in Eternal Righteousness. Lastly, this also must be noticed, —as he had instructed the people to bear their cross, so also he warns them that the Church’s state would not be tranquil even when the Messiah came. The sons of God should be militant until the end, and not hope for any fruit of their victory until the dead should rise again, and Christ himself should collect us into his own Celestial Kingdom.
Now, we comprehend in few words, or rather only taste how useful and fruitful this Book is to us. I now come to the words themselves: I wished, as I said, just to catch a foretaste of a few things, and the reading of the Book will shew us better what advantage we may derive from each of its chapters.

Chap.1:1-2: “Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his companions, namely, in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim. A difficult question arises here, since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third (3rd) year, and then led away the people captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four (4) years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third (3rd) year. But in the second (2nd) chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second (2nd) year of his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say —the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and,— this was the second (2nd) year from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking of the first (1st) King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second (2nd), while his father was yet alive. We know there were two (2) kings of the same name, father and son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second (2nd), who is the son. But Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews: and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke. Nebuchadnezzar the younger was carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home, lest anyone should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it: In the third (3rd) year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if anyone prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in person, that view may be taken: still, the events happened in the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, says this was done in the eighth (8th) year, but he had never read the Book of Daniel. (*Calvin’s expression is ‘tam brutus homo’ in Latin, and ‘si stupide et brutal’ in French; [‘that stupid man’] but he is evidently too severe on so valuable an annalist, who, in so many passages, confirms and elucidates the scriptural narrative. Besides, Calvin seems to have overlooked the passage in his Antiq., lib. xi. cap. 8,§ 5, where this Book is mentioned, and its contents alluded to at length.) He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three (3) verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this seems to suit well enough, since in the third (3rd) year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled —the condition of the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast, and shews the former captives to have been better treated than the remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at home. (Jer. 24: 2, 8.) I assume, then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it: for ‘Ezekiel’ includes him among the three (3) just men by whom most probably God would be appeased. (Chap. 14:14) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests: the Lord did not deprive them of their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption. (*Much light has been thrown upon the chronology of these times since the age of Calvin: later Commentators have dated from the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim’s restoration to his kingdom after his rebellion. See 2nd Kings 24:2,3. The subject is discussed with clearness by ‘Bleek’ in his Theolog. Zeitschrist. Pt. iii. p. 280, &c.; and ‘R. Sal. Jarchi [Rashi]’ on this passage may be consulted, p. 735, edit. Gothae, 17-13. See Dissertation at the end of this Volume.)”

Chap.5:31: “Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and thus held in the highest honour and estimation, it is not surprising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus was content with his own power and with the praise and fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Astyages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers had informed him how an offspring should be born of her who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them undecided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he was unmarried at the capture of Babylon; for his uncle, and perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he reigned over the Chaldeans.”

Chap. 6:28: “The word (tzlch), ‘tzelech’, properly signifies to “pass over,” and the signification is here metaphorical, in the sense of being prosperous. There is no doubt, however, of there being a silent contrast between the kingdom of the Persians and the Chaldean monarchy, that is, to speak more concisely and clearly, between the twofold condition of Daniel. For, as we have said, he was for some time in obscurity under Nebuchadnezzar; when this monarchy was about to perish he became conspicuous; and throughout the whole period of the reign of the Chaldeans he was obscure and contemptible. All indeed had heard of him as a remarkable and illustrious Prophet, but he was rejected from the palace. At one time he was seated at the king’s gate, in great honour and respect, and then again he was cast out. During the continuance of the Chaldee monarchy, Daniel was not held in any esteem, but under that of the Medes and Persians he prospered, and was uniformly treated with marked respect, for Cyrus and Darius were not so negligent as instantly to forget the wonderful works of God performed by his hand. Hence theword “ passing through,” pleases me, since, as I have said, it is a mark of the continual possession of honour; for not only King Darius, but also Cyrus exalted him and raised him into the number of his nobles, when he heard of his favour. It is clear that he left Babylon and went elsewhere. Very probably he was not long among the Medes, for Darius or Cyaxares died without any heirs, and then his whole power passed to Cyrus alone, who was his nephew, through his sister, and his son-in-law being his daughter’s husband. No doubt Daniel here commends God’s favour and kindness towards himself, because this was not the usual solace of exile, to obtain the highest favour among foreign and barbarous nations, or attain the largest share of their honour and reverence. God, therefore, alleviated his sorrow by this consolation in his exile. Hence Daniel here not only regards himself in his private capacity, but also the object of his dignity. For God wished his name to be spread abroad and celebrated over all those regions through which Daniel was known, since no one could behold without remembering the power and glory of Israel’s God. Daniel, therefore, wished to mark this. On the other hand also, no doubt, it not like the rest of mankind, but because the land of Canaan was the peculiar inheritance of God’s people. When Daniel was snatched away and led off to a distance, as far as Media and Persia, without the slightest hope of return, there is no doubt that he suffered continual distress. Nor was the splendour of his station among the profane of such importance as to induce him to prefer it to that pledge of God’s favour and paternal adoption in the land of Canaan. He had doubtless inscribed on his heart that passage of David’s, “I had rather be in the court of the Lord, than in the midst of the greatest riches of the ungodly: then, I had rather be a despised one in the house of God, than to dwell in the tents of the unrighteous.” (Ps. 84:10.) Thus Daniel had been taught. Ezekiel, too, properly includes him among the three (3) most holy men who have lived since the beginning of the world. (14:14)1 This was of the greatest moment; for when he was a youth, or at least but middle aged, he was joined with Job and Noah, and was the third (3rd) in rare and almost incredible sanctity! Since this was his character, he was no doubt affected with the greatest sorrow when he perceived himself subject to perpetual exile, without the slightest hope of return, and of being able to worship God in his temple and to offer sacrifice with the rest. But lest he should be ungrateful to God, he desires to express his sense of the uncommon benevolence with which, though an exile and a stranger, and subject to reproach among other captives, he was treated and even honoured among the Medes and Persians. This, therefore, is the simple meaning of the passage. It is quite clear, as I have lately said, that Cyrus, after the death of Darius, succeeded to the whole monarchy; and we shall afterwards see in its proper place how Daniel dwelt with Cyrus, who reigned almost thirty (30) years longer. Thus, a long time intervened between his death and that of Darius. This, therefore, did not occur without the remarkable counsel of God, since the change in the kingdom did not influence the position of Daniel, as it usually does. For new empires we know to be like turning the world upside down. But Daniel always retained his rank, and thus God’s goodness was displayed in him, and wherever he went he carried with him this testimony of God’s favour. I shall not proceed further, as we shall discuss a new prophecy to-morrow.” }}

Dissertation 1st. Third (3rd) Year of King Jehoiakim Chap. 1:1.

{{ “A ‘correct’ idea of the scope and interpretation of these prophecies cannot be obtained without a due attention to the chronology of the events recorded. Hence, throughout these Dissertations it will be necessary to discuss some apparently unimportant points, and to combat some seemingly harmless opinions. We are thus compelled to enter into details which some may pronounce devoid of interest, but which will prove worth the labour bestowed upon them.
The necessity for comment on this first verse arises from ‘the difficulty of reconciling its statement with the twenty fifth (25th) chapter of Jeremiah. The relation of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be harmonized with those of the three (3) last kings of Judah, to enable us to reconcile Daniel and Jeremiah. We must first ascertain the historical events which concern Jehoiakim, and fix their dates by comparing the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and the various allusions to him in Ezekiel and other prophets. Next, we must accurately define the events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; and afterwards so compare them as to draw a correct inference from the whole, notwithstanding much apparent discrepancy. This has been done by some commentators, the results of whose labours will here be placed before the reader. ‘Willet’s remark on Calvin is worthy of notice: “Calvin thinketh to dissolve this knot by the distinction of Nebuchadnezzar the father, and Nebuchadnezzar the son; that in one place the one is spoken of, and the other in the other, but the question is not concerning the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but the year of Jehoiakim’s reign wherein Jerusalem should be besieged; so that the doubt remaineth still.” (*’Willet’s “Hexapla in Dan’.” Edit. 1610, p. 13.) He also answers Calvin’s solution, by referring Nebuchadnezzar’s second (2nd) year not to the period of his reign, but “rather to the time of Daniel’s ministry and employment with the king, that in the second (2nd) year of his service he expounded the king’s dream.” Many learned Jews are of opinion that the last year of Jehoiakim’s reign is intended, meaning the last of his independent sovereignty, since they treat him in former years as simply a tributary king to either the Egyptians or Babylonians. Josephus in his Antiq., (Book x. 6,) is supposed to favour this theory; for he places Nebuchadnezzar’s attack in the eighth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and does not allude to any previous one. ‘Wintle’, however, does not consider that the words of Josephus justify this inference, (*See his “’Daniel’.” Edit. Tegg, 1836, p. 2.) and suggests that the difference in the methods used by the Jews and Babylonians in computing their years, may tend to obviate the inconsistency. ‘Wintle’ suggests some reasons for dating the commencement of the seventy (70) years’ captivity from the completion of the siege in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, when Daniel and his associates were among the first (1st) captives. Prideaux supposes this event to have occurred six hundred and six (606) years B.C., or the one hundred and forty second (142nd) year of Nabonassar’s era; Vignoles and Blair fix the year following (143rd). Wintle agrees with the latter date, supposing the captivity not to continue during seventy (70) solar years, and fixing their termination about 536 B.C.
Another commentator, who has paid great attention to chronology, deserves special notice, since he advocates a new theory respecting Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, which is worthy of remark, though it has been severely criticised. The Duke of Manchester has an elaborate chapter on this date, from which we shall extract the conclusions at which he has arrived. He understands “Daniel to speak of Jehoiakim’s independent reign, reckoning from the time that he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.” (*“The Times of Daniel,” p. 29, chap. iii., where other dates of interest are clearly exhibited.) Jehoiakim was taken captive in the seventh (7th) of Nebuchadnezzar.
The oldest expositors felt the difficulty of the passage. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi [Rashi] asks, “How can this be said?” and then replies as follows : —This was the eighth (8th) year of Nebuchadnezzar and the third (3rd) of Jehoiakim’s rebellion against him.
‘Hengstenberg’ has not been forgetful to defend our Prophet from the charge ‘of historical inaccuracy, to which this verse has given rise. He treats the assumption, that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem before his accession to the throne, as inadmissible. “The assertion of his being associated by his father in the co-regency at that time is not adequately sustained.” (*Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel. Edinburgh, 1848, p. 43.) Cu. B. ‘Michaelis’ and ‘Berthhodt’ have made various attempts to reconcile the discrepancy. “The assumption,” says Hengstenberg, “that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first (1st) expedition in the eighth (8th) year of Jehoiakim, is a hypothesis grounded merely on one (1) passage.” Still, this passage, far from containing an error, affords a striking proof of the writer’s historical knowledge. Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, (Arch. [Antiq.] x. 11, 1 [1-7, deals with Nebuchadnezzar & his son & Daniel.]) narrates the victory of Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish, which occurred about the close of Jehoiakim’s third (3rd) year. Carchemish was a city on the banks of the Euphrates, taken by Pharaoh-Necho about three (3) years previously. Immediately after this victory, the conqueror marched against Jerusalem and took it. The process by which Hengstenberg arrives at this result, the various authors whom he quotes, and the complete refutation which he supplies of all the conjectures of his Neologian opponents, will be found amply detailed in the valuable work already quoted. Rosenmueller also discusses the point, but leans too much to those writers whom Hengstenberg refutes. }}

Dissertation 2nd: Nebuchadnezzar —one (1) King or two (2)? Chap. 1:1.

{{ The difficulty of reconciling the various statements of Scripture with themselves and with profane history, has raised the question whether there were two (2) Nebuchadnezzars or only (1) one. The Duke of Manchester is a strenuous advocate for the former hypothesis, and his view of the case is worthy of perusal. The first (1st) king he supposes to have over thrown Necho’s army in the fourth (4th) year of Jehoiakim, as we have already stated. He came from the north into Judea, and took the people captive after the overthrow of Assyria. His eleventh (11th) year corresponds with the fourth (4th) of Zedekiah, while he reigned on the whole about twenty-nine (29) years. He is to be identified with Cyrus (1st), the father of Cambyses, well known in Persian history, so that the second (2nd) Nebuchadnezzar was Cambyses himself. Although the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy is a formidable adversary, this writer shews much ingenuity in bending it to his purpose. The first (1st) king of this name began his reign B.C. 511, while Paulus Orosius determines the taking of Babylon “by Cyrus” about the time of the expulsion of the kings from Rome (B.C. 510.) Thus sixty-nine (69) years elapsed between the overthrow of Necho and the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar the second (2nd); and in the eighteenth (18th) year of the reign of this latter king the golden image was set up.
Having identified the second (2nd) king with Cambyses, this writer brings forward many testimonies in favour of his being a Persian, and shews that the Chaldeans were not Babylonians but Persians. He treats him as identical with the Persian Jemsheed, the contemporary of Pythagoras and Thales, and the founder of Pasargadae and Persepolis, and
justifies his positions by the authorities of Diocles, Hecataeus, Cedrenus, the Maccabees, Abydenus, and Alexander Polyhistor. “The evidence is deduced from direct testimony, from geographical position, from similarity in language and religion, in manners and customs, in personal character and alliances; from Babylonian bricks and cylinders; as also from historical synchronisms and identity of actions.” (*Times of Daniel, p. 141.) The statements of Herodotus are fully discussed and compared with the Egyptian sculptures, with the view of shewing that the second (2nd) Nebuchadnezzar was the Cambyses of Herodotus, the son-in-law of Astyages and the conqueror of Egypt. The story of his madness, after profaning the temple of Apis, is said to apply accurately to this second monarch.
It could not be expected that a theory of this kind could be introduced into the world without severe and searching examination. Accordingly, BIRKS, in his preface to “The two later Visions of Daniel,” writes as follows: “ I have examined closely the two difficulties which alone give a seeming strength to his Grace’s theory, —the succession of names in the Persian history, and the two (2) covenants under Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, —and feel confident I can meet them both with a full and complete answer. It seems to me surprising that a paradox of two (2) Scripture Nebuchadnezzars, and a (1) Scripture Cyrus, totally unknown to profane history, in the reign of Longimanus, contemporary with Cimon and Pericles, can ever be received by any mind accustomed to pay the least regard to the laws of evidence. Every fresh inquiry has only increased my confidence in the usual chronology derived from the Canon of Ptolemy, and its truth, I believe, may be almost entirely established even by Scripture evidence alone.” ‘Vaux’, the learned author of “Nineveh and Persepolis,” furnishes a clear sketch of Nebuchadnezzar’s career, by combining the accounts of Herodotus and the Scriptures. In the thirty-first (31st) year of Josiah’s reign, Necho fought the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was mortally wounded. He then took Cadytis, “the holy city” of the Jews, and at length returned to Egypt with abundance of spoil. After a lapse of three (3) years he invaded the territory of the king of Babylon. The reigning monarch —Nabopolassar— was aged and infirm; he gave the command of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptians at Carcesium or Carchemish, and drove them out of Asia. He marched to Jerusalem, and reinstated Jehoiakim as its king, in subjection to himself; he spoiled the temple of the chief ornaments and vessels of value, and among the prisoners transmitted to Babylon were Daniel and his three (3) friends. He next carried on war against the Egyptians, till the news of his father’s death caused his return. The revolt of Jehoiakim caused a second (2nd) attack upon the city, and the carrying of many prisoners, among whom was Ezekiel, to the banks of the distant Chebar. Zedekiah, the brother of Jehoiakim, having been placed on the throne, and having made an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, the Apries of Herodotus, he is deposed by the King of Babylon, and carried captive in blindness and chains. Thus for the third (3rd) and last time this conqueror invaded Judea and profaned the temple. After a lapse of four (4) years he besieged Tyre; for thirteen (13) years it resisted his arms, but was at length razed to the ground. He next succeeded in an expedition against Egypt, dethroned Apries, and leaving Amasis as his viceroy, returned to his imperial city. In the language of Jeremiah, “he arrayed himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment.” He next occupies himself in beautifying the city, and erecting a palace of extraordinary magnificence, and in constructing those hanging gardens mentioned by Diodoras, Megasthenes, and Arrian. The remainder of his history is easily gathered from the Prophet’s narrative. “A careful consideration of the authorities seems to shew that ‘Clinton’ is right in his supposition that the reign of this prince was about forty four (44) years in duration, and that he was succeeded after a short interval by Belshazzar.” (*Nineveh and Persep., p. 71, second edition.) ‘Willet’ arrives at the same conclusion as to the length of his reign by a different process of reasoning. The following dates are extracted from Prideaux, whose caution and accuracy are most commendable:
586. Tyre besieged.
570. Death of Apries, coincident with the dream of the tree, (chap. 4,) after his last return from Egypt.
569. Chap. 4:30. Driven out into the fields.
563. Restored after seven (7) years.
562. Death, after about forty-four (44) years’ reign.
Another series of dates has been displayed by the author of “The Times of Daniel,” founded on a different chronological basis; we can only extract a few of them from pp. 282, et seq.:
510. Babylon taken by Cyrus, & kings expelled from Rome.
507. Commencement of Jehoiakin’s independent reign. Dan. 1:1.
500. Nebuchadnezzar II, appointed; his dream, Dan. 2.
494. Golden Image set up. Dan. 3.
483. Nebuchadnezzar I, died.
481. Nebuchadnezzar II, died.
Dr. Wells has the following chronological arrangement of the chief events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign:
607. He is this year taken by his father “as partner” in the kingdom, falling in with the latter part of the third (3rd) year of Jehoiakim, (Chap. 1:1)
606. Jehoiakim carried to Babylon with Daniel and others. First (1st) of the seventy (70) years’ captivity.
605. His father died. Nabopolassar in Ptolemy’s Canon, the son’s name being Naboeolassor. Canon allows him forty-three (43) years from this period.
603. Daniel interprets his dream. Chap. 2.
588. He re-takes Jerusalem and Zedekiah.
569. Returned to Babylon, is afflicted with insanity. Ch. 4.
562. He dies “a few days” after being restored to reason. }}

Dissertation 6th. Coresh —was he Cyrus the Great? Chap. 1:21.

{{ The last verse of this chapter is connected with an interesting inquiry, viz., Was the ‘Coresh’ here mentioned ‘Cyrus the Great’, or any other Cyrus? The noble author of “The Times of Daniel” has thrown much “life” into the subject by his elaborate defence of a theory which we now proceed to state and discuss. Cyrus the Great he thinks identical with Nebuchadnezzar (1st) the First, and Cambyses with his son Nebuchadnezzar (2nd) the Second; the exploits of the hero of Herodotus and Xenophon are attributed to the former, while Coresh becomes but a minor character, contemporary with Darius the Mede, after whom he is said to reign, and before Darius the son of Ahasuerus. This view also brings the story of Esther within the period of the captivity of Babylon. It has always been a subject of great difficulty with commentators on Daniel, to reconcile the scriptural narrative with those of both Herodotus and Xenophon. The majority finding this impossible, have decided in favour of one or the other of these historians; and the best modern writers usually prefer Herodotus. ‘Lowth’, in his Notes on ‘Isaiah’, says, “the Cyrus of Herodotus was a very different character from that of the Cyrus of the Scriptures and Xenophon;” and ‘Archbishop Secker’ has taken great pains to compare all the profane historians with Scripture, and shews that the weight of the argument lies against the truth of the Cyropaedia. Whether Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages or not, many believe with Ctesias that he overcame him in battle, and founded the Persian empire upon the ruins of the Median dynasty. It is scarcely possible that it should be left for this nineteenth (19th) century to discover the identity between a first (1st) Nebuchadnezzar and this conqueror of the East; and while the clearing up of every historical discrepancy is impossible, yet it is desirable to reconcile the occurrences which are related by both Herodotus and Xenophon. The son of Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane the daughter of Astyages king of the Medes, is said to have conquered Craesus king of Lydia, enlarged the Persian empire, subdued Babylon and the remnant of the Assyrian power, and placed his uncle Cyaxares over the united territories of Media and Babylon. After the death of this relative, he reigned over Asia, from India to Ethiopia, a territory consisting of 127 provinces. The manner of his death is uncertain, all the historians differ in their accounts, but the place of his burial is allowed to be Pasargadae, as Pliny has recorded in his Natural History. This tomb was visited by Alexander the Great, and has lately been noticed and described by European travellers. The plains of Murghab are watered by a river which bears the name of Kur, and is thought to be identical with the Greek Cyrus. A structure in a ruinous state has been found there, apparently of the same date as the remains at Persepolis, bearing cuneiform inscriptions which are now legible. The legend upon one of the pilasters has been interpreted, “I am Cyrus the Achaemenian;” and no doubt is entertained by the learned that this monument once contained the remains of the founder of the Persian monarchy. A single block of marble was discovered by Sir R. K. Porter, on which he discovered a beautiful sculpture in bas-relief, consisting of the figure of a man, from whose shoulders issue four large wings, rising above the head and extending to the feet. (*An engraving of this statue is given in ‘Vauz’s Nineveh and Persepolis’, p. 322.) The whole value of such an inscription to the reader of Daniel is the legend above the figure, in the arrow-headed character, determining the spot as the tomb of Cyrus the Great. It shews, at the least, that he cannot be identified with Nebuchadnezzar.
The manner in which the author of “The Times of Daniel” has commented on the prophecies relating to the overthrow of Babylon, is worthy of notice here. Isaiah 44:14, is referred by ‘Dr. Keith’ to Cyrus, and objection is made to the supposed fulfilment in the person of Cyrus, (p. 293.) ‘Keith’ is said to apply to Cyrus the primary historical fulfilment of all the prophecies relating to the overthrow of Babylon, and the justness of this inference is doubted. Isaiah 13-14:27, is one of the passages where the asserted allusion to Cyrus is questioned, since it relates to a period in which the power of Assyria was in existence. The Assyrian is supposed to be Sennacherib, to whose predecessor both Babylon and Media were subject. “The Chaldeans, mentioned in Isaiah 13:19, I have already explained to have been a colony of astronomers, planted in Babylon by the Assyrian kings to carry on their astronomical observations, in which science they excelled.” (P. 299, note.) Again, Isaiah 21:2, “Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media,” is applied by ‘Dr. Keith’ to Cyrus, to which the noble author objects, as well as to the supposition “that the overthrow of Belshazzar during his drunken revelry was predicted in Scripture, and that the minute fulfilment by Cyrus is recorded by Xenophon.” “The feast of Belshazzar,” it is added, “does not appear to correspond with the festival described by Xenophon, which was apparently periodical, and which, not a portion of the nobles, but all the Babylonians, observed by drunkenness and ‘revelry during the whole night.” “It also agrees with the mode in which Zopyrus got possession of Babylon.” ‘Calvin’ seems to give it this turn, “A treacherous one shall find treachery,” &c. (P. 301.) Further comments are then made upon Isaiah 44. & 45, and on Jeremiah 50 & 51, evading the force of their application to Cyrus, and combating with some degree of success the assertions of ‘Keith’; for the noble author, who is earnest in pulling down, is ingenious in building up. “From this short examination, it appears that the prophecy of Jeremiah (50 & 51) corresponds with the capture of Babylon by Darius the Mede of Scripture, and by Darius Hystaspes, according to Herodotus.” (P. 306.) Some writers have supposed Cyrus to be identical with this Darius the Mede; and ‘Archbishop Secker’ acknowledges some ground for such a conjecture. “The first (1st) year of Darius the Mede is by the LXX translated the first (1st) year of Cyrus,” (*’Wintle’s Transl., prelim. Diss’, p. xxviii.) and the Canon of Ptolemy favours the identity. “Now all agree, as far as I have seen,” says ‘Wintle’, “that the year of the expiration of the captivity, or the year that Cyrus issued his decree in favour of the Jews, was the year 212 of the era of Nabonassar, or 536 B.C.; and there is no doubt but Darius the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, according to Daniel, from the capture of Babylon, till this same first (1st) year of Cyrus, or till the commencement of the reign alloted by Scripture to Cyrus the Persian.” “The Canon certainly allots nine years’ reign to Cyrus over Babylon, of which space the two (2) former years are usually allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede, by the advocates of Xenophon.” (Prelim. Diss., p. xxvii.) Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias all agree in the original superiority of the Medes, till the victories of Cyrus turned the scale, and gave rise to the Persian dynasty. At the fall of Babylon, and during the life of Darius, the Medes are mentioned by Daniel as superior, but at the accession of Cyrus this order is reversed, and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, all assign the foremost place to the Persians.
The life of Daniel, ‘Rosenmuller’ reminds us, was prolonged beyond the first (1st) year of king (krwsh) ‘Coresh’, for the tenth (10th) chapter informs us of his vision in the third (3rd) year of that monarch’s reign. He explains the apparent contradiction, by saying that it was enough for Daniel to live, or to the liberation of the Jews in the first (1st) year of the reign of Coresh; that was the crowning event of his prolonged existence. The conjectures of ‘Bertholdt’ and ‘Aben-Ezra’ are mentioned, only to be disposed of by a few words of censure. An ingenious conjecture of a French critic is found in the ‘Encycl. Theol’., Liv. xxvii. The objection of Bleek, Ewald, Winer, and De Wette, are ably treated at length by ‘Hengstenberg’,
and really meet with more serious attention than they deserve. It is a useless waste of precious time to enter minutely into every “phantasy” of the restless neology of Germany, while the chronology of Daniel’s life will form the subject of a subsequent Dissertation. As some Neologians dwell much on the historian ‘Ctesias’, and lest the unlearned reader should
be misled by their confident assertions, we may here state that we have only an epitome of his work preserved by the patriarch Photius. ‘Bahr’ states that he lived about 400 B.C., in the reign of Darius Nothus, being a Greek physician who remained seventeen (17) years at the Persian court. Diodorus informs us that he obtained his information from the royal archives, but there are so many anachronisms and errors of various kinds, that his statements cannot be safely followed as if historically correct. Ctesias, for instance, denies all relationship between Cyrus and Astyages. According to him, he defeated Astyages, invested his daughter Amytis with the honours of a queen, and afterwards married her. F.W. NEWMAN, indeed, prefers this narrative to that of both Herodotus and Xenophon, and thereby renders their testimony to the scriptural record uncertain and valueless. He also treats “the few facts” in regard to the Persian wars, “which the epitomator has extracted as differing from Herodotus,” as carrying with them “high probability.” The closing scene of his career, as depicted in the narrative of Ctesias, is pronounced “beyond comparison more credible” than that of Herodotus. This great conqueror died the third (3rd) day after his wound in a battle with “the Derbices,” and was buried in that monument at Pasargadae, which the Macedonians broke open two centuries afterwards, (‘Strabo’, lib. xv. § 3; ‘Arrian’, lib. vi. § 29,) and which has lately been explored and described by Morier and Sir R. K. Porter. (*See ‘Kitto’s Bibl. Cyc., art Cyr., and Vaux’s Nineveh’, p. 316.)
Notwithstanding the hypothesis which has lately found favour with the modern writers whose works we have quoted, we feel that the views of the older critics are preferable; and, on the whole, ‘Calvin’s’ exposition can only be improved upon in minor details. The authorities enumerated by ‘Archbishop Secker’, as given by ‘Wintle’ in his preface, p. xviii. and following, are worthy of attentive perusal; and we must refer again to ‘Hengstenberg’s’ able replies to a variety of objections which we are unable to notice. See chap. vi. p. 102 and following, ‘Edit. Ed’. }}

Dissertation 21st. Darius the Mede. Chap. 5:31.

{{ The received views respecting this celebrated monarch have lately been impugned by the noble author of “The Times of Daniel.” He gives five reasons for believing him to be Darius Hystaspes instead of the Cyaxares of Xenophon, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus. This assertion will therefore require some notice in detail, and compel us to repeat some statements with which the student of ancient history is familiar.
The views of the author already alluded to are thus expressed, —“Three kings,” it is said, “of the name of Darius occur in Scripture; must we not presume that the first (1st) Darius there corresponds with Darius (1st) the first in profane history? that the second (2nd) in each equally agree; and that the third (3rd) Darius, with whom the list terminates in Scripture, is the third (3rd) Darius with whom the line of Persian kings closes?” There are strong marks in corroboration of the Median of this verse being Hystaspes; some of these are as follows: —First, each is said to have taken Babylon. Both levied taxes, so that the second verse of chap. 6 is said to be parallel to Herodotus, Book iii., and Strabo, (*§ 89. ‘Jahn’ points out what he considers a mistake of ‘Strabo’s, Arch. Bib’., chap. ii. § 233.) Book xv. This levying taxes leads to a similar assertion respecting Ahasuerus in Esther, chap. 10:1, who reigned “from India even to Ethiopia.” (Esther 1:1) “Now, Ahashverosh, (meaning Ahasuerus,) who succeeded Darius the Median, reigned over India,” and, according to Herodotus, Darius Hystaspes conquered India; hence this Mede was Darius Hystaspes. Pliny’s testimony is brought forward to shew that Susa was built by this Darius; (*Lib. vi. ch. xxvii.) Ahasuerus resided at Shushan, which is identical with Susa, hence the conclusion is the same. Other reasons are given, and other collateral assertions made. Authorities are quoted by which it is laid down that Ahasuerus was Xerxes, the history of Esther occurred during the captivity, the son of Ahasuerus was Darius Nothus, the third (3rd) Darius was Codomanus. “To complete the evidence, I will contrast the identification which I propose with that which is now most generally approved of.” (* P. 90.)

CANON OF PTOLEMY: 1. Darius the First. 2. Xerxes. 3. Artaxerxes 1st. 4. Darius 2nd. 5. Artaxerxes 2nd. 6. Ochus. 7. Arostes. 8. Darius 3rd.
SCRIPTURE AS I PROPOSE: 1. Darius the Median. 2. Ahashverosh. 3. Artaxerxes 1st, (Coresch.) 4. Darius 2nd. 5. Son of Ahashverosh. 6. Artaxerxes 2nd. [7. . . . .] [8.. . . .] 9. Darius 3rd, (4th from Coresch, Dan. 11)

It is also suggested that chaps. 50 & 51 of Jeremiah apply to this Darius and not to Cyrus, as Dr. Keith asserts. Chap. 51 verses 11 & 28, are said to apply to Zopyrus, and the language of the chapter is on the whole more suitable to the capture of Babylon by this Darius, according to Herodotus, Book iii., than to that by Cyrus.
The commonly received view is stated shortly by ‘Rosenmüller’, —that this Mede was the Cyaxares II of Xenophon, (*Cyrop.,lib. i. chaps. 4, 5, and lib. iii. chap. 3,§ 20.) the son of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus. AEschylus, in his tragedy of the ‘Persae’, (*Line 762.) introduces Darius the son of Hystaspes, recounting his origin from Darius the Mede. ‘Josephus’, in the tenth (10th) Book of his Antiquities, says he was the son of Astyages; and; ‘Theodoret’, in his Commentary, identifies him with Cyaxares. ‘Jerome’ states that, in conjunction with his uncle Cyrus, he subverted the Chaldean empire.
“If Xenophon’s account of Cyrus be in general admitted,” (*’Preliminary Dissertation’, p. xxvi.) says ‘Wintle’, “we cannot be at a loss to determine who was Darius the Mede; and if even the defeat of Astyages be received according to Herodotus, and it be placed in the tenth (10th) year of Cyrus’s reign over Persia Proper, yet there seems no necessity to conclude but that the kingdom of Media might still, with the consent of Cyrus, be continued to Cyaxares, his mother’s brother, who might retain it till his death, after the conquest of Babylon, which Herodotus attributes to Cyrus, after he had reduced the neighbouring powers.” He next proceeds to obviate one (1) or two (2) chronological difficulties often considered as weighty objections to Xenophon’s account. “The name of Darius is omitted in the Canon, although he is allowed to have reigned more than one (1) year, if he reigned at all. How shall we then reconcile his history with the Canon? and where or in what part must this reign be placed? The same answer will serve for both inquiries. The Canon certainly allots nine years to Cyrus over Babylon, of which space the two former years are usually allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede by the advocates of Xenophon.” A MS. of ‘Archbishop Secker’ is then quoted, in which he gives reasons why Berosus might have overlooked this reign as short-lived and nominal. ‘Prideaux’ and ‘Usher’, and the ‘Ancient Universal History’, are referred to for additional information. (*’Con’., part i. Books ii., iii.; ‘Annals’, pp. 80, 81; ‘History of the Medes and Persians’, vol. v.) With reference to the period before us, it is concluded, from the close of this chap. v., “that Darius the Mede did not begin his reign till after the capture of Babylon; and this event I am inclined to place in the next year after the 17th of Nabonadius, in the 210th year of the Chaldean era, or 538 years before Christ, which was the first of Cyrus’s nine years. Whether the defeat of Nabonadius and the taking of the city happened near the same time, I need not determine; but it seems clear from Daniel, (chap. 5:31,) as well as from Xenophon, that the king was slain on the same night that the city was taken; and this, I apprehend, must have happened about the real year of the captivity 67, supposing the fourth (4th) of Jehoiakim to agree with the year 605 before Christ, according to Blair.”
Here again the researches of Hengstenberg afford us valuable aid in discussing and reconciling the various statements of historians. The silence of Herodotus and Ctesias concerning a Median king of Babylon is noticed, and even concealment on the part of the Persians is shewn to be highly probable. }}

Prolongation of Daniel’s Life. Chap. 6:28.

(( The prolongation of our Prophet’s life till the era specified in this verse, is worthy of our notice, that we may, if possible, accurately ascertain his age at leading periods of his history. We cannot ascertain precisely the year of his entrance into public life. He was born shortly before King Josiah’s death, probably about 620 B.C.; and thus he had many opportunities of cultivating that early piety for which he was conspicuous. He was about fourteen (14) years old when taken captive to Babylon. Three (3) years afterwards, the king of Israel threw off the Babylonian yoke, and thus he and his companions became hostages and forerunners of the capture of the whole nation. From ‘Jahn’s Biblical Antiquities’, we learn how skilled he was in various sciences after three (3) years’ training, (pp. 99, 100;) and the high opinion which was entertained of his integrity, wisdom, and piety, is confirmed, by the remarkable honour paid to him by the Prophet Ezekiel. He is connected, ‘while alive’, with Noah and Job. (See Ezek. 14:14:, and Calvin’s comment on the passage in our Edition, vol. ii. p. 68.)
The dream and its interpretation in chap. 2 occurred during Daniel’s youth, and resulted in his promotion with his three (3) friends to the highest offices of the kingdom. We now lose sight of him for thirty (30) years, and it is impossible to determine whether he sat at the king’s gate during the whole of this period. The erection of the image on the plains of Dura, and the subsequent punishment of his three (3) companions, seem inconsistent with his residence at that time at Babylon as an adviser of his sovereign. The three (3) “children,” as they are termed in chap. 1:17, were now about fifty (50) years of age; and it has become necessary to remark this, because some have spoken of them as still children when thus miraculously delivered from destruction. We too often take for granted impressions of this kind, which we have imperceptibly imbibed in our earliest days; and besides this, the works of the great masters in painting have fostered the error. These splendid productions of European art are often glaringly untrue, yet while based upon fabulous anachronisms, they too often adhere to the imagination, and influence our thoughts in days of more mature advancement. At the period of the dream in chap. 4 Daniel was about fifty (50) years of age; and thus we have another gap of about fifteen (15) years. Belshazzar had now ascended his grandfather’s throne. The mystic characters on the wall soon reveal a fearful reality. Darius the Mede still esteems the upright counsellor, and he had become a venerable “ancient of days” before he is thrust into the lion’s den. During the first year of King Darius, he learned, from the Book of Jeremiah, the approaching period of Judah’s deliverance. During the third year of Cyrus, he is favoured with a vision on the banks of the Tigris. (Chap. 10:1-4) We cannot ascertain how long he lived after this period, but he was at least eighty (80) years of age when he died. Various assertions and traditions exist among the Jews respecting both the time and place of his decease, and these have passed current, through the unsuspecting simplicity of some of our older expounders, who record as certain the hazardous statements of the authorities on which they rely. ‘Dr. Wells’, after comparing various dates, concludes, “that Daniel was about eighty-nine (89) or ninety (90) years old in the third (3rd) year of Cyrus;” he pays no regard to the conjectures of some, who make him to have lived one hundred and thirty eight (138), or one hundred and fifty (150) years, and adds the possibility of his reaching one hundred (100) years.
Our object in view in impressing this chronology is to disabuse the public mind of the Romish ideas connected with what they term, “The song of the three children.” Their usual method of treating these three (3) martyrs for truth and holiness is utterly erroneous, and like every other error of theirs, injurious and pernicious in proportion as it deviates from the ‘Written & Infallible Word of the Living God’. }}

Contents of Volume II:
I. Continuation of the Translated Lectures, Chapter 7-12.
II. Dissertations Explanatory of Remarkable Phrases & Events: Times — Wonderful Numberer — Little Horn — Seventy (70) Weeks — Wilful King — Protracted Wars of Kings of North & South — Abomination of Desolation —Mahuzzim — Michael the Prince — 1335 Days.
III. Connected Translation of Calvin’s Version of Hebrew & Chaldee Text.
IV. Summary of Historical & Prophetical Portions of Whole Book according to Calvin’s View of its Contents.
V. Notice of Ancient Codexes & Versions.
VI. List of Most Valuable Ancient & Modern Expositions of this Prophet, & Concise Epitomes of Most Important.
VII. Index of Scriptural Passages Quoted throughout.
VIII. Index of Hebrew Words Illustrated.
IX. Copious Index of Chief Words & Subjects Treated of in these Volumes.

Lecture 32nd.
{{ 7:4. “It is clear that the four (4) monarchies are here depicted. But it is not agreed upon among all writers which monarchy the last (4th), and which the third (3rd). With regard to the first (1st), all agree in understanding the vision of the Chaldean Empire, which was joined with the Assyrian, as we saw before. For Nineveh was absorbed by the Chaldeans and Babylonians; but the Prophet discourses at length of the Assyrian and Chaldean Empire, which was then flourishing. No one, however, would have thought it so near its end; and on the very night on which Belshazzar was slain, we saw how securely and proudly he was immersed in his pleasures, and what great and listless security existed throughout the city. This monarchy then ought to be set before us in the first (1st) place. As in the second (2nd) chapter that empire was called the golden head of the statue, so also it is now called a lion; that is, it is compared to a generous animal. It is comprehended under the image of a beast, and its fierceness and atrocity, as I have said, is hereby denoted; but with respect to the other kingdom, some superiority is granted to it, since the world is always growing worse and worse. And although Cyrus was a very prudent prince, yet he did not reach the temperance of former ages; for his ambition, avarice, and cruelty were insatiable. For Isaiah also, when he speaks of the Persians, says: ‘They desire neither silver nor gold, but thirst after human blood’. (Chap. 13:17)
We perceive then the reason why the Prophet says. ‘The first (1st) beast offered to me was like a lion’, because greater integrity flourished under the Chaldeans than when all the empires were mixed together, and the Persians subdued both the Chaldeans and the Medes. For it is evident from all histories that they were a barbarous and fierce nation. They were indeed showy in their praise of virtue, since they spent their lives in austerity, and despised all luxuries, and were exceedingly temperate in their living; but their ferocity and brutal cruelty rendered them detestable. ‘The first beast’ then ‘was like a lion’, says he, ‘and had eagle’s wings’; that is, although it was a lion, yet it had wings. This refers to its swiftness, since we know in how short a time the Assyrians increased their monarchy, for they had previously subdued the Chaldeans, just like a lion for swiftness. For a lion has force, spirit, and cruelty for committing injuries. Besides, the Prophet saw a winged lion, since they not only increased their empire by their own strength, but suddenly extended their wings in every direction. We see, then, how strength and power are denoted on the one hand, and the greatest speed on the other. He afterwards adds, Their wings were dragged or torn off. For when the Chaldeans desired to stretch beyond their bounds, the Lord restrained them within due limits, and checked their continual victories. Their wings were then torn off, when God restrained them by the check of a bridle, lest they should wander as freely as they had formerly done.
The Prophet then adds, ‘This beast was raised from the earth’, implying the cessation of the empire. For neither the Chaldeans nor the Assyrians were entirely destroyed; but their glory was completely taken away. The face of the beast no longer appeared, when God transferred that monarchy to the Medes and Persians. Hence the Prophet adds, ‘It stood upon its feet, and the heart of a man was given to it’. By this form of expression, he means to imply the reduction of the Assyrians and Chaldeans to their ordinary condition, and that they were no longer like a lion, but like private men deprived of their power and strength. Hence the expression, ‘a man’s heart was given to them’, is not intended by way of praise, but by “a man” he intends any private person; as if he had said, the aspect of the Chaldeans and Assyrians was no longer terrible, since, while their sway prevailed, all men dreaded their power. Hence God removed from the world the face of that beast, and substituted that of a man, and made them ‘stand upon their feet’. Formerly they flew about in the air, and despised the earth as far beneath their feet, but God makes them stand upon their feet; that is, not conduct themselves after their customary and former manner, but simply on the common level, after God had deprived them of their empire. This, in my judgment, is the simple meaning of the Prophet. Should there be any necessity, we shall afterwards confirm the remarks which we now run through but cursorily. It follows:”
7:5. “Here the Prophet proclaims how he was instructed by a dream concerning the second beast. If we will only judge by the event, this beast doubtless represented the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, although the Prophet specifies the Persians, as the Medes had long ago submitted to their yoke. ‘Behold’, says he, ‘another beast like a bear’. We know a bear to be a mean and foul animal, slothful and inert, as well as cruel. In comparing the bear with the lion, its appearance is foul and displeasing, while the lion is remarkable for beauty, although it is formidable. He compares the Persians to a bear, on account of their barbarity, since we have already pronounced that nation fierce and savage. Then, again, the Persians were not civilized like the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who dwelt in the most beautiful region in the whole world, and in a most lovely country like a most noble theatre; but the Persians lay hid like wild beasts in their caves. They dwelt among their mountains, and lived like the brutes. Hence the Prophet compares them very appositely to a bear; nay, God shewed this form to his Prophet. He afterwards adds, ‘It stood on one side’. Some think this to have been added to express the more contracted dominion of the Medes and Persians, but this opinion is unsuitable. We know how extensive was the sway of the Medes before they came under the power of Cyrus and the Persians. By themselves the Medes were most powerful; then the Persians were added, and afterwards Cyrus seized upon the possessions of the Chaldean monarchy. He possessed even the keys of Egypt, reigned in Syria, held Judea, and extended beyond the sea, till at length he was conquered by the Scythians. When, therefore, it is said, ‘he stood on one side’, the obscure origin of his kingdom is intended, for the fame of the Persians was included within their mountains until Cyrus acquired for them a name by his exploits. For he was a brave warrior, and deservedly eclipsed the glory of all others. Hence, at first this beast stood on one side; that is, the Persians were without fame or reputation; they had no wealth, and never emerged from their lurking places. We see how this particular is restricted to their origin in consequence of its obscurity.
The Prophet then adds: ‘Three ribs were in the beast’s mouth between its teeth ; and it was thus proclaimed, Arise, eat much flesh’! Those who understand three (3) definite kingdoms by the three (3) ribs, seem to refine far too minutely. I think the number indefinite, because this beast had bitten by its mouth not one rib but more; because the Persians, as we have said, drew to themselves the power of the Medes, and afterwards subdued the Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Cyrus also subdued many nations, until all Asia Minor acknowledged his authority. When, therefore, the Prophet speaks of three (3) ribs, it implies the insatiable nature of this beast, since it was not content with a single body, but devoured many men together. For, by “many ribs,” he means much prey. This is the whole sense. I do not hesitate to explain the following words, ‘it was said to the beast’, of angels, or of God Himself. Some prefer to understand this of the stimulus by which Cyrus was instigated to cruelty. But since God exhibits to His Prophet the image of His Providence, what I have lately suggested becomes very probable, namely, ‘it was said to the beast, Arise, eat much flesh’; not because God was the author of cruelty, but since He governs by His secret counsel the events which men carry on without method, His authority is here deservedly placed before our eyes; for Cyrus would not have penetrated so swiftly into different regions, and have drawn to himself so many empires, and subjugated so many powerful nations, had not God wished to punish the world, and had made Cyrus the instrument of slaughter. As therefore Cyrus executed God’s vengeance by shedding so much human blood, the Prophet declares it to have been said to him. ‘Arise, and eat flesh’. In one respect God was not pleased by the slaughter of so many nations by Cyrus, and by the increase of one man’s power and tyranny through so much human bloodshed; but in another respect God is said to have commanded the conduct of Cyrus, since he wished to punish the world for its ingratitude, to which the most desperate obstinacy and rebellion were added. There was no remedy for these vices; hence God entrusted Cyrus with the duty of executing His judgment. I am compelled to stop here.” }}

Lecture 33rd.
{{ 7:6. “Daniel has already spoken of two (2) empires, namely, the Chaldean and Persian. Interpreters agree in the necessity for referring this vision to the Macedonian Empire. He compares this kingdom to a leopard, or, as some translate, a panther, since Alexander obtained his great power through swiftness alone; and although it is not by any means a striking animal, yet it managed by its remarkable speed to subdue the whole East. Others bring forward many points of likeness, in which the Grecian character is in accordance with the nature of the leopard. But I fear these minutice have but little weight: it is sufficient for me that the Spirit treats here of the third (3rd) empire. It was not of any importance at first (1st), and could neither terrify distant regions, nor acquire subjects by its own worthiness. It then became like some swift animal, if I may say so, since the swiftness of Alexander is notorious; but he did not excel in either prudence, or gravity, or judgment, or in any other virtues. Mere rashness seized upon him; and even if he had never tasted wine, his ambition would have intoxicated him. Hence Alexander’s whole life was drunken; there was neither moderation nor composure in him. We see, then, how suitably this answers to the character of Alexander, although this is also extended to his successors, all of whom partook largely of the nature of their prince. Daniel says, therefore, ‘A beast appeared to him like a leopard’.
He also says, ‘It had four (4) wings on its back, and four heads’. Some persons, as I think perversely, distinguish between the wings and the heads. They suppose the kingdom to be depicted as winged because Alexander seized upon many kingdoms in a short period; but the more simple sense is, this beast had four (4) wings and four (4) heads, because Alexander had scarcely completed his victories when he died, contrary to all expectation; and after his death, every one seized a portion of the prey for himself. This, however, is certain: after the chief generals of his army had contended for many years, all histories agree in stating that the supreme power centred in four (4). For Seleucus obtained Asia Major, and Antigonus Asia Minor, Cassander was king of Macedon, and was succeeded by Antipater, while Ptolemy the son of Lagus became the ruler of Egypt. They had agreed indeed otherwise among themselves; for Alexander had a son by Roxana, the daughter of Darius; he had a brother, Aridseus, who grew up to manhood, but was epileptic and of weak intellect. Then, since the generals of Alexander were cunning, they acted on this pretext, that all should swear allegiance to their young ward, and then to Aridseus, in case their ward should die before he was of age. Then Lysimachus was set over the treasury, and another commanded the forces, and others obtained various provinces. Fifteen (15) or twenty (20) leaders divided among themselves both offices and power, while no one dared to assume the name of king. For Alexander’s son was the lawful king, and his successor was that Aridseus of whom I have spoken. But they soon afterwards united; and that was an admirable specimen of God’s Providence, which alone is sufficient to prove that passage of Scripture: ‘He who sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed’. (Gen. 9:6.) For none of Alexander’s generals escaped in safety except those four (4) whom we have mentioned. His mother, at the age of eighty (80), suffered a violent death; his wife, Roxana, was strangled; his son perished miserably; Aridseus, his brother, a man of no intellect, and almost on a level with the brutes, was slain with the rest —in truth, the whole family of Alexander suffered violent deaths. With respect to the generals, they perished in battles, some of them being betrayed by their soldiers, and others the victims of their own negligence; and yet, although they expected a sanguinary end, they did not escape it. But four (4) only survived, and so the whole empire of Alexander was divided into four (4) parts. For Seleucus, whose successor was Antiochus, obtained Upper Asia, that is, the eastern empire; Antigonus, Asia Minor, with a part of Cilicia, and Phrygia, and other neighbouring: regions; Ptolemy seized upon Egypt and a part of Africa; Cassander
and then Antipater were kings of Macedon. By ‘four (4) wings’ and ‘four (4) heads’, Daniel means that partition which was made immediately after the death of Alexander. Now, therefore, we understand what God shewed to his Prophet under this vision, when he set before him the image of a leopard with four (4) wings and heads.
He says, ‘Power was given to the beast’, because the success of Alexander the Great was incredible. For who would have thought, when he was crossing the sea, that he would have conquered all Asia and the East? He led with him 30,000 men, and did not undertake the war on his own responsibility alone, but by various arts, he procured the nomination to the leadership of Greece from the Free States. Alexander was, therefore, a kind of mercenary of the Greeks, and was unable to lead with him more than 30,000 men, as we have said. He engaged in battle with 150,000, then with 400,000, and then with almost a myriad (million, 1,000,000). For Darius in his last battle had collected above 800,000 men besides camp-followers, so that there were almost a million (1,000,000) with him. Alexander had already drawn to himself some auxiliaries from the foreign nations whom he had conquered; but he could not trust them: hence his whole strength lay in these 30,000, and on the day on which he conquered Darius, he was so overcome by sleep that he could scarcely be aroused. The historians who extol his prudence, excuse this by recording his sleeplessness during the preceding night; besides, all agree in stating him to have been apparently dead, and when all his generals approached they could scarcely wake him up, and then they purposely raised a shout around his tent, though no one dared to enter. Alexander had scarcely wiped his eyes, when Darius fled; hence the Prophet’s statement is true —”a beast’s power was given to him”, since this happened beyond every natural expectation and every human opinion, as by his aspect alone he could frighten all Greece, and lay prostrate so large an army. He states this of the Third (3rd) Empire. I will not repeat here all that can be said and can be gathered from history; for ‘many things must be put off till the eleventh (11) chapter’. I will therefore briefly compress whatever points seem necessary for the interpretation of the passage. It now follows:”
7:7. “There is greater difficulty in this Fourth (4th) Monarchy. Those who are endued with moderate judgment, confess this vision to be fulfilled in the Roman Empire; but they afterwards disagree, since what is here said of the fourth (4th) beast many transfer to the Pope, when it is added a Little Horn sprang up; but others think the Turkish kingdom is comprehended under the Roman. The Jews for the most part incline this way, and they are necessarily compelled to do so, since Daniel will afterwards add —’I saw the throne of the Son of Man’; since it is clear, from this prediction, that Christ’s kingdom was erected by the overthrow of the Roman dominion, the Jews turn round, and, as I have said, join the Turkish monarchy with the Roman, since they do not find their Christ (Messiah) according to their imagination. And there are some of our writers who think this image ought not to be restricted to the Roman Empire, but ought to include the Turkish. In my view, there is nothing probable in that opinion; I have no doubt that in this vision the Prophet was shewn the figure of the Roman Empire, and this will be more apparent as we go on.
He says ‘a fourth (4th) beast appeared’. He gives it no fixed name, because nothing ever existed like it in the world. The Prophet, by adding no similitude, signifies how horrible the monster was, for he formerly compared the Chaldean Empire to a lion, the Persian to a bear, and the Macedonian to a leopard. In these comparisons there was something natural; but when he descends to the fourth (4th) beast, he says, it was ‘formidable in its aspect, and terrible, and very brave’ or strong, and without any addition calls it “a beast.” We see then his wish to express something prodigious by this fourth (4th) beast, as there is no animal so fierce or cruel in the world which can in any way represent with sufficient strength the nature of this beast. ‘Behold’, therefore, ‘the fourth (4th) beast which was formidable, and fearful, and very strong’. We know of no such Monarchy before this. Although Alexander subdued the whole of the East, his victory, we are sure, was not stable. He was content with fame alone; he granted liberty to all people; and as long as they flattered him, he sought nothing else. But we know the Romans to have been masters even as far as Babylon; we know the following countries to have been subdued by them: Asia Minor, Syria, Cilicia, Greece, and Macedon, both the Spains, Gaul, Illyricum, and part of Germany. At length Britain was subjugated by Julius Caesar. No wonder this beast is called formidable and very strong! For before Julius Caesar became master of the Empire, the whole Mediterranean Sea was in all its parts under subjection to the Roman Empire. Its amazing extent is well known. Egypt had indeed its own kings, but they were tributary; whatever edicts the Romans decreed, they were executed immediately in Egypt. Minor sovereigns existed in Asia Minor as a kind of spies, but this state of things we shall treat presently. It is also well known that they possessed supreme power throughout the Mediterranean Sea, and that by the conquest of Mithridates. Pompey reduced Pontus under his dominion. In the East affairs were all at peace. The Medes and Persians gave them some trouble, but they never moved unless they were provoked. The Spains (Spaniards) were not yet accustomed to the yoke, but we know that there were always two praetors there. Julius Caesar was the first who entered Britain after subduing Gaul. Hence we see how far and wide the Romans extended their power, and with what immense cruelty. Hence Daniel calls this beast ‘formidable and very strong’.
He afterwards adds, ‘It had large iron teeth’. This ought to be referred to its audacity and insatiable greediness. We see how completely free their nation was from the fear of death, for they were so hardened that if anyone deserted his rank for the sake of avoiding danger, he was afterwards branded with such marks of infamy, that he was compelled either to strangle himself or to incur a voluntary death! There was, then, a certain brutal cruelty in that nation, and we also know how insatiable they were. For this reason Daniel says ‘they had large iron teeth’. He adds, ‘it consumed and broke to pieces, and trod the remnant under foot’. These things are spoken allegorically, not only because this vision was offered to the holy Prophet, but also because God wished to paint a kind of living image, in which he might shew the peculiar characters of each government. For we know how many lands the Romans had consumed, and how they transferred to themselves the luxuries of the whole world, and whatever was valuable and precious in Asia Minor, and Greece, and Macedonia, as well as in all islands and in Asia Major —all was swept away— and even this was insufficient to satisfy them! This, then, is the ravenousness of which the Prophet now speaks, ‘since they consumed’, says he, ‘and rubbed to pieces with their teeth’. He adds, ‘they trod the remmant under their feet’—a metaphor worthy of notice, as we know they were accustomed to distribute the prey which they could not carry with them. They devoured and tore with their teeth the treasures and costly furniture and everything else; for their supplies were provided by tributes which produced large sums of money. If there was any portion of the Mediterranean which they could not defend without keeping a permanent garrison there, we know how they engaged the services of tributary kings. Thus the kingdom of Eumenes increased to a great extent till the time of his grandson Attains, but they bestowed it partly on the Rhodians, and partly on the Cyprians and others. They never remunerated those allies who almost exhausted their own possessions in aiding them, out of their own resources, but enriched them with the spoils of others; and they not only seized upon the property of one city and bestowed it on another, but they set up their lands for sale. Thus, the liberty of the Lacedaemonians was betrayed to the tyrant Nabis. They also enriched Masinissa with so much wealth, that they acquired Africa for themselves by his means. In fine, they so sported with kingdoms in seizing and giving them away, that they rendered provinces tranquil by the wealth and at the expense of others. This was remarkably conspicuous in the case of Judea, where they created out of nothing Ethnarchs and Tetrarchs and kings, who were nothing but their satellites —and that too but for a moment. For as soon as any change occurred, they retracted what they had given as easily as they bestowed it. Hence, this their cunning liberality is called treading under foot; for that remnant which they could not devour and consume with their teeth ‘they trod under foot’, as they kept all those whom they had either enriched or increased subject to themselves. Thus we see with what servility they were flattered by those who had obtained anything through their generosity. And how degrading was the slavery of Greece from the time the Romans entered the country! for as each state acquired any new territory, it erected a temple to the Romans. They also sent their ambassadors there to act as spies, who, under the pretence of punishing the neighbouring people for plotting against them, enriched themselves by plunder. Thus the Romans held under their feet whatever they had given to others. We see then how suitably and properly the Prophet speaks, when he says, the Romans trod down the remnant; for whatever they could not consume, and what their voraciousness could not devour, ‘they trod under their feet’.
He adds afterwards, ‘And this beast differed from all the former ones, and had ten (10) horns’. When he says, ‘this beast was different from the rest’, he confirms what we formerly said, namely, this was a horrible prodigy, and nothing could be compared to it in the nature of things. And surely if any one attentively and prudently considers the origin of the Romans, he would be astonished at their remarkable progress to such great power; for it was an unusual monster, and nothing like it had ever appeared. Interpreters treat in various ways what the Prophet subjoins respecting ‘the ten horns’. I follow a simple and genuine opinion, namely, the Prophet means this Empire to belong to more persons than one. For the angel will afterwards assert the ten (10) horns to be kings; not that so many kings ruled at Rome, according to the foolish dream of the Jews, who are ignorant of all things; but the Prophet here distinguishes the Fourth (4th) Monarchy from the rest, as if he had said it should be a popular government, not presided over by one king, but divided into many heads. For they even divided provinces among themselves, and made treaties with each other, so that one was governor of Macedonia, another of Cilicia, and another of Syria. Thus we see how numerous the kingdoms were. And with regard to the number ten (10), we know this to be a frequent and usual form of speech in Scripture, where ten (10) signifies many. When plurality is denoted, the number ten (10) is used. Thus when the Prophet states the fourth (4th) beast to have ten (10) horns, he means, there were many provinces so divided, that each ruler, whether proconsul or praetor, was like a king. For the supreme power was given to them, while the city and Italy were given up to the consuls. The consul could indeed write to the provinces and command whatever he pleased; then he could elevate to honour whom he pleased for the sake of favour and friendship; but each of the prsetors and proconsuls when he obtained a province, became a kind of king, since he exercised the supreme power of life and death over all his subjects. We need not be too anxious about the number, as we have already explained it. Those who reckon the Roman provinces make great mistakes; they omit the principal one; they make only one (1) of Spain, and yet we know there were two (2). They do not divide Gaul, yet there were always two (2) proconsuls there, except under Julius Csesar, who obtained the command of both Gauls. So also they speak of Greece, and yet neither a proconsul nor a praetor was ever sent into Greece. Finally, the Prophet simply means that the Roman Empire was complex, being divided into many provinces, and these provinces were governed by leaders of great weight at Rome, whose authority and rank were superior to others. Proconsuls and praetors obtained the provinces by lot, but favour frequently prevailed, as the histories of those times sufficiently assure us. Let us proceed:”
7:8. “Daniel proceeds with his description of the fourth (4th) beast. First, he says, ‘he was attentive’, with the intention of rousing us to serious meditation. For what is said of the fourth (4th) beast, was remarkably memorable and worthy of notice. This, then, is the reason why God struck the heart of His servant with wonder. For the Prophet would not have given his attention to the consideration of the fourth (4th) beast, unless he had been impelled to it by the secret instinct of God. The Prophet’s attention, then, sprang from a heavenly impulse. Wherefore it is our duty not to read carelessly what is here written, but to weigh seriously and with the greatest diligence what the Spirit intends by this vision. ‘I was attentive’, therefore, says he, ‘to the horns, and behold one small one arose among them’. Here interpreters begin to vary; some twist this to mean the Pope, and others the Turk; but neither opinion seems to me probable; they are both wrong, since they think the whole course of Christ’s kingdom is here described, while God wished only to declare to his Prophet what should happen up to the first (1st) advent of Christ. This, then, is the error of all those who wish to embrace under this vision the perpetual state of the Church up to the end of the world. But the Holy Spirit’s intention was completely different. We explained at the beginning why this vision appeared to the Prophet —because the minds of the pious would constantly fail them in the dreadful convulsions which were at hand, when they saw the supreme dominion pass over to the Persians. And then the Macedonians broke in upon them, and acquired authority throughout the whole of the East, and afterwards those robbers who made war under Alexander suddenly became kings, partly by cruelty and partly by fraud and perfidy, which created more strife than outward hostility. And when the faithful saw all those monarchies perish, and the Roman Empire spring up like a new prodigy, they would lose their courage in such confused and turbulent changes. Thus this vision was presented to the Prophet, that all the children of God might understand what severe trials awaited them before the advent of Christ. Daniel, then, does not proceed beyond the promised redemption, and does not embrace, as I have said, the whole kingdom of Christ, but is content to bring the faithful to that exhibition of grace which they hoped and longed for.
It is sufficiently clear, therefore, that this exhibition ought to be referred to the first (1st) advent of Christ. I have no doubt that ‘the little horn’ relates to Julius Caesar and the other Caesars who succeeded him, namely, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and others. Although, as we said before, the counsel of the Holy Spirit must be attended to, which leads the faithful forwards to the beginning of the reign of Christ, that is, to the preaching of the Gospel, which was commenced under Claudius, Nero, and their successors. He calls it ‘a little horn’, because Caesar did not assume the name of king; but when Pompey and the greater part of the senate were conquered, he could not enjoy his victory without assuming to himself supreme power. Hence he made himself tribune of the people and their dictator. Meanwhile, there were always Consuls; there was always some shadow of a Republic, while he daily consulted the senate and sat in his seat while the consuls were at the tribunals. Octavius followed the same practice, and afterwards Tiberius also. For none of the Caesars, unless he was consul, dared to ascend the tribunal; each had his own seat, although from that place he commanded all others. It is not surprising, then, if Daniel calls the monarchy of Julius and the other Caesars ‘a little horn’, its splendour and dignity were not great enough to eclipse the majesty of the senate; for while the senate retained the name and form of honour, it is sufficiently known that one man alone possessed the supreme power. He says, therefore, ‘this little horn was raised among the ten others’. I must defer the explanation of what follows, viz., ‘three of these ten were taken away’.” }}

Lecture 34th.
{{ 7:8 continued. “Three things remain to be explained by us in expounding the Fourth (4th) Beast. First of all, ‘Three (3) horns were taken away from its face’; Secondly (2nd), ‘The little horn’, which rose among the ten (10), appeared with human eyes; Thirdly (3rd), ‘It spoke magnificently’, or uttered swelling words. With regard to the three (3) horns, it is sufficiently evident from the testimony of the angel that they were three (3) kings; not because this ought to be referred to persons, as I yesterday disproved, but because the Romans were accustomed to send to each province, rulers like kings who there exercised the supreme authority. Those who extend this prophecy to the end of Christ’s kingdom, think that a dispersion which happened about three (300) or five (500) hundred years after the death of Christ is intended; but they are greatly mistaken. Clearly enough the whole strength of the Roman Empire was exhausted and the provinces gradually cut off, till it became a kind of mutilated body; but we yesterday shewed the incorrectness of any explanation of this oracle, except concerning the state of the Church at the first (1st) Advent of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel. At that time, it is well known, nothing had been subtracted from the boundaries of the Empire. For Julius Caesar was formidable not only to the Gauls, but also to the Germans; and besides this, the affairs of the East were at peace. After his death, although Octavius or Augustus had suffered two very destructive slaughters, especially under Quintilius Varus, who had been sent into Germany with a powerful army, yet he also extended the boundaries of the Empire, especially in the East. He also subdued the whole of Spain, where no commotions afterwards took place. As, therefore, at that period no province had been cut off from the Roman Empire, what is the meaning of the expression, ”Three (3) horns were cut off and removed from the face of the beast’? The solution is not difficult. Only let us observe how the little horn is compared with the first (1st) stature of the beast. It first appeared with ten (10) horns; when the little horn arose its figure was changed. The Prophet then says —a part of the horns was cut off, as the senate then ceased to create proconsuls. For we know how Augustus assumed to himself certain provinces, and he did this for the purpose of creating presidents at his own will, and of constituting a strong force, ever at hand, should any one rebel against him. For he did not care so much about provinces as about an army, should any tumult arise. He was desirous, therefore, of throwing a bridle over them all, lest anyone should dare to attempt a revolution. Whatever was thus added to the little horn was taken from the ten (10) horns, that is, from the whole body, as the state of the monarchy was entirely changed. There is nothing forced in this exposition. We must also contend for a definite or fixed number being put for an uncertain one (1) ; as if the Prophet had said —a part of the power of the beast was abstracted after the rising of the little horn. Thus much for the first (1st) clause.
He now adds, ‘The eyes in this small horn were like those of men’; and then, ‘it spoke mighty things’. With respect to the eyes, this expression implies —the form of a human body was exhibited, because the Caesars did not abolish the senate nor change at once the whole form of the government; but, as we yesterday said, they were content with power; and as to splendour, titles, and pomp, they readily left these to the consuls and the senate. If anyone considers the manner in which those Caesars, who are doubtless intended ‘by the little horn’, conducted themselves, their conduct will appear like a human figure. For Julius Caesar pretended, although he was dictator, to obey the senate’s authority, and the consuls asked the opinion of the senators, after the ancient manner. He sat in the midst, and permitted many things to be decreed without interposing his will. Augustus also abused the shadow of the tribunitial power only for the purpose of ruling the Empire. Thus he submitted to the consuls; and when he wished to be elected to that office, he became a candidate with the other competitors, and put on the white robe like a private citizen. Tiberius also was a great pretender, and while plotting schemes of tyranny, was neither open nor ingenuous in his plans. So also ‘the eyes of a man appeared in the little horn’, that is, after this change took place and the senate and people were deprived of their liberty. He who held the government of the republic was not formidable, as an entire beast, but was like a private man as to outward form.
The Prophet adds, ‘The small horn had a loud sounding mouth’. For although, with the view of conciliating favour, the Caesars conducted themselves like men, we know how atrociously they threatened their enemies, and how imperiously they either hindered or committed whatever they lusted, as it seemed good to them. There was, then, a great difference between their mouth and their eyes. For, as we already said, the splendour and dignity of the empire was in the power of the consuls and senate at the beginning. Meanwhile, by insidious arts, the Caesars drew towards themselves the whole power, till no one dared to do anything, except at their bidding. Many interpreters explain this as blasphemy against God, and impiety; and the angel will touch upon this point at the close of the chapter. But if we weigh the whole expression judiciously, what I say will appear correct, and the loud speaking here mentioned by the Prophet will signify, that pride with which the Caesars were puffed up, imposing silence on all men and allowing no one to open their mouths contrary to their will. The Prophet’s words are very well explained by this fact; for ‘the three (3) horns being removed from the ten (10)’, means some part of the empire was separated from the main body; then, the small horn being endued with human eyes, implies a kind of modesty, as the Caesars acted like private persons, and left outward shew with the senate and people; and thirdly, when the mouth of the little horn spoke swellingly, trepidation seized upon all the Romans, and especially whoever enjoyed any reputation, hung upon the nod of the Csesars, who imposed the vilest slavery, and received the foulest and most shameful flattery from the whole senate. It now follows:”
7:11. “Since the presumptuous speaking of the little horn terrified the Prophet, he now says he was ‘attentive in considering this portion’. He next says, ‘The beast was slain, and his body was consumed by the burning of fire’. This ought clearly to be referred to the end of the Roman empire. For, from the time when foreigners obtained the mastery, the fourth (4th) beast ceased to flourish. The name was always retained, yet with great mockery of that ancient monarchy. I now omit all mention of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and similar monsters. But when Spaniards and Africans acquired the absolute sway, can we call Rome any longer the mistress of the world! Surely this would be foolish indeed! To this very day the Germans also say they possess the Roman empire; but while the title of empire has passed to the Germans, clearly enough Rome is at this very day in slavery. For as to the Pope having erected his own throne there, this empire is unworthy of the name of monarchy; but whatever be our view of this point, for about 1500 years the Romans have been in bondage as slaves to foreign princes. For, after the death of Nero, Trajan was his successor, and from that time scarcely a single Roman obtained the empire; and God branded it with the most disgraceful marks of ignominy, when a swine-herd was created emperor, and that too by the lust of the soldiery! The senate retained its name till then; but if it pleased the soldiers to create any one a Caesar, the senate was immediately compelled to submit to their dictation. Thus, the Prophet with great propriety says, ‘The beast was slain’ shortly after the promulgation of the gospel. Then the presumptuous speaking of ‘the little horn’ was at an end, and ‘the fourth (4th) beast’ was extinct about the same time. For then no Roman became an Emperor who claimed for himself any share of power; but Rome itself fell into disgraceful slavery, and not only foreigners reigned there most shamefully, but even barbarians, swine-herds, and cow-herds! All this occurred in fulfilment of what God had shewn to his Prophet, namely, after the coming of Christ and the opening of the books, that is —after the knowledge which shone upon the world through the preaching of the gospel— the destruction of that fourth (4th) beast and of the Roman empire was close at hand.” }}

Lecture 36th.
{{ 7:17-18. “Here the angel answers Daniel concerning the four (4) beasts which had been shewn him in the vision. He says, therefore, ‘Four (4) kingdoms arose’, and by the name kingdom he means monarchy; for we know that the Persians had many kings until Alexander transferred to himself the empire of the East. Although Cyrus had seven (7) or eight (8) successors, yet the Persian empire continued through them all. And as we saw before, although whatever Alexander had acquired by his arms was divided among his four (4) successors, yet it still remained the Macedonian kingdom. The same thing must be said concerning the fourth (4th) kingdom. Although we know consuls to have been created yearly at Rome, yet that government lasted till Julius Caesar destroyed it, and consumed the strength of the empire, so as to surpass by his power the splendid altitude which had been long and widely conspicuous in the world. Hence the angel replied, ‘By the four (4) beasts four (4) kingdoms’ are denoted: he says, ‘shall arise’; and yet the Chaldean had long ago arisen, and was now verging under Belshazzar to its fall. But it was proposed by the angel to teach the Prophet and all the people that there was no reason why revolutions should disturb them too much. The Israelites then saw themselves lying as if dead, yea, actually buried and concealed under the earth. For exile was to them equivalent to the tomb. For this reason, then, the angel announces ‘the springing up of four (4) kingdom’, while the first (1st) was then flourishing; but, as I have already said, this suits very well with the scope and object of the prophecy. He had formerly said ‘from the sea’, but the word “sea” is used metaphorically, since the condition of the earth was turbulent through many ages. As, therefore, nothing was stable, God appropriately set forth the whole world under the figure of the sea. He afterwards adds, ‘They will obtain the kingdom of the holy lofty ones’. Here interpreters vary considerably, because, as I have before explained it, some take this prophecy to relate to the kingdom of Turkey, others to the tyranny of the Pope of Rome, and extend what the Prophet here says to the final judgment. There is nothing surprising, then, in this diversity of opinion shewing itself more fully in the various details. By ‘sacred holy ones’ some understand angels; but there is still much controversy about the words, for the noun ‘of saints’ is “in regimen,” as if the Prophet had said saints of lofty ones, properly speaking. Similar passages justify those who take it “in the absolute state.” But if we follow the grammatical construction, we cannot explain it otherwise; but the former noun may be put in a state of regimen, as we have said. And I embrace this opinion. Some refer it to the one God, but I think this a profane way of expression. I have no doubt about the Prophet meaning sons of God by ‘sacred lofty ones’, because, though they are pilgrims in the world, yet they raise their minds upwards, and know themselves to be, citizens of the heavenly kingdom. Hence by the word (`lywnyn ) ‘gnelionin’, “lofty ones,” I have no doubt the Prophet means heavenly powers; that is, whatever we can conceive of divinity, and whatever is exalted above the world. I will now give my reasons shortly why I like this sense the best.
If we call ‘the holy lofty ones’ God Himself, what sense can we elicit from the passage? Did the Chaldeans and the rest of the monarchies usurp and transfer to themselves the power of God? There is some truth in this, because all who domineer without submitting to the one God despoil Him of His peculiar honour, and are rather robbers than kings. But the Prophet, in my opinion, understood something else from the angel, namely, that the Church should lose all form and dignity in the world during the flourishing of these four (4) monarchies. We know the sons of God to be heirs of the world; and Paul, when speaking of the promise given to Abraham, says, he was chosen by God as heir of the world. (Rom. 4:13; Heb. 1:2) And this doctrine is sufficiently known —the world was created for the sake of the human race. When Adam fell from his lawful rights, all his posterity became aliens; God deprived them of the inheritance which he had designed for them. Now, therefore, our inheritance must be restored through Christ, for which reason He is called the only heir of the world. Thus it is not surprising if the angel says that tyrants, when they exercise supreme dominion, assume and arrogate to themselves the peculiar property of the sacred lofty ones, meaning the people of God. And this suits very well with the assertions of the present passage concerning the Church being deprived of its dignity, eminence, and visibility in the world. For then God’s people were like a putrid carcass, the limbs of which were separated and dispersed on all sides, without any hope of restoration. Lastly, although by the permission of Darius, and the edict and liberality of Cyrus, some portion of them returned to their country, yet what was that nominal return? They had but a precarious dwelling in the inheritance divinely promised them; they were pressed on all sides by their enemies, and were subject to the lust and injustice of them all. For the Church had no empire under the Persians. After the third (3rd) change we know how miserably they were afflicted, especially under Antiochus. That nation was always opposed to them, but then they were almost reduced to extremities, when Antiochus endeavoured furiously to abolish the whole law and worship of God. Under the Macedonian kingdom the Jews were in constant slavery; but when the Roman army penetrated those regions, they felt the horrible tyranny of the fourth (4th) beast, as we have already seen. Lastly, it is sufficiently evident from the continual history of those times, that the sons of God were always under the yoke, and were not only cruelly but ignominiously treated.
Thus this prophecy was fulfilled, namely, ‘The four (4) beasts took upon themselves the empire which properly belonged to the sacred lofty ones’; that is, to God’s elect sons, who, though dwellers on earth, are dependent on heaven. In this interpretation I see nothing forced, and whoever prudently weighs the matter will, as I hope, recognise what I have said as the meaning of the Prophet. The latter clause now follows: ‘They shall obtain the kingdom’, says he, ‘forever, and even forever and ever’. A difficult question arises here, because by these words Daniel, or the angel addressing him, seems to express a perpetual condition under these four (4) monarchies. Belshazzar was the last king of the Babylonian dynasty, and at the period of this vision the overthrow of that monarchy was at hand. With regard to the Persian kings, there were only eight (8) of them besides Cyrus. And concerning Alexander we know a sudden change happened; the terror of him spread abroad like a storm, but it vanished away after it had affected all the people of the East. The Macedonian kingdom also suffered a concussion, when those leaders began to disagree among themselves who had obtained from Alexander authority and rank; and at length the kingdom became fourfold (40), as we have already stated, and shall mention again. Now if we count the years, the length of those monarchies was not so great as to justify the epithet “perpetual.” I reply, this must be referred to the sensations of the pious, to whom that delay seemed specially tedious, so that they would have pined away in their miseries, had not this prophecy in some way relieved them. We see at the present moment how great is the fervour of desire when reference is made to the help of God; and when our minds have been heated with desire, they immediately decline to impatience. It thus happens that the promises of God do not suffice to sustain us, because nothing is more difficult than to bear long delay. For if the Church in our time had been oppressed for a hundred (100) years, what constancy would have been discerned in us? If a whirlwind arises, we are astonished, and cry out, “What next? what next?” Three (3) or four (4) months will not have elapsed before all men enter upon a strife with God and expostulate with Him, because He does not hasten at once to bring assistance to His Church. We are not surprised, then, at the angel here assigning one (1) age, or even an “age of ages,” to tyrants under whom the Church should be oppressed. Although I do not doubt the reference to the fulness of times, as we know Christ to have been the end of the Law, and as His advent drew nearer, so God admonished the faithful to carry forward their own expectations to the advent of their Redeemer. When, therefore, the angel uses the phrase ‘one (1) age and an age of ages’, I have no doubt that he defined the time for the elect, to strengthen them in patiently bearing trouble of all kinds, as this had been divinely decreed; for the four (4) beasts were to reign not only for a few years, but for continual ages; that is, until the time of renovation had arrived for the world, when God completely restored His Church. Let us proceed:”
7:19-20. “…He says, therefore, ‘He also inquired about the ten (10) horns which were on the head of the beast, and of the other horn which had arisen’, meaning the small one (1), ‘and concerning the three (3) horns falling from the face of the beast’. We have shewn how provinces were denoted by the ten (10) horns, and how the difference between the Roman Empire and other monarchies was pointed out, because there never was one (1) supreme ruler at Rome, except when Sylla and Marius exercised their usurped authority —but each for only a short time. Here then the continual state of the Roman Empire is under review, for it was not simply a single (1) animal, as it had ten (10) horns. A finite number is put for an indefinite one. With regard to the little horn, I said it referred to the Caesars, who attracted the whole government of the state to themselves, after depriving the people of their liberty and the senate of their power, while even under their sway some dignity was continued to the senate and some majesty retained by the people. We have explained also how the three (3) horns were broken; that is, how craftily the Caesars infringed upon and diminished the strength of both people and senate. Lastly, we have accounted for this little horn being displayed with human eyes, since the Caesars exercised their dominion with cunning, when they pretended to be only tribunes of the people, and allowed the ensigns of empire to remain in the hands of the consuls; for when they came into the senate, they sat in a lowly situation in curule seats prepared for the tribunes. As, therefore, they tyrannized with such cleverness and cunning, instead of by open violence, they are said to be endowed with the eyes of a man. Then as to the tongue, the sense is the same; for although they always professed the consular power to be supreme in the state, yet they could not restrain themselves, but vomited forth many reproachful speeches. On the one side, we see them remarkable for eyes, and on the other, for the tongue. ‘And its aspect was terrible beyond its companions’. This seems not to belong peculiarly to the little horn which had arisen among the ten (10), but rather to the fourth (4th) beast. But if anyone wishes to understand it of the little horn, I will not contest the point, as it will thus make tolerable sense. But I rather embrace my former opinion, for it is not surprising to find the Prophet after his discourse on the little horn, returning to the beast himself.”
7:21-22. “The Prophet now adds what he had omitted. The angel does not yet answer him, but as he had not sufficiently expressed how the little horn waged war with the sons of God, he now supplies the omission. He says, therefore, he saw —this ought to be received by way of correction; I saw, says he, meaning it was shewn me in a vision, how the little horn ‘made war with the saints so as to prevail against them’. Clearly enough other tyrants assailed the elect people of God with far greater injury. Hence many refer this to Antiochus Epiphanes, who was hostile to the Jews beyond all others, and was utterly determined to blot out the name of the God of Israel. And we know how often he raised powerful armaments to extinguish both the people and the worship of God. As, therefore, the cruelty of Antiochus was so severe against the Israelites, many think his image to have been exhibited to the Prophet as the little horn, and what we shall afterwards see about “the time,” and “times,” and “half-a-time,” they explain of the three years and a half (3 1/2 yrs) during which the Temple was in ruins, and the people thereby prevented from offering sacrifices. As, therefore, their religion was then interrupted, they think that tyranny was denoted, by which the people were prohibited from testifying their piety. But although this opinion is plausible, and at first sight bears upon the face of it the appearance of truth, yet if we weigh all things in order, we may easily judge how unsuitable it is to Antiochus. Why, therefore, does the Prophet say —’the little horn waged war with the saints’? Antiochus certainly made war against the Church, and so did many others; the Egyptians, we know, often broke in and spoiled the Temple and the Romans too, before the monarchy of the Caesars. I reply, this is spoken comparatively, because no war was ever carried on so continuously and professedly against the Church, as those which occurred after the Caesars arose, and after Christ was made manifest to the world; for the devil was then more enraged, and God also relaxed the reins to prove the patience of his people. Lastly, it was natural for the bitterest conflicts to occur when the redemption of the world was carried out; and the event clearly shewed this. We know first of all, by horrid examples, how Judea was laid waste, for never was such cruelty practised against any other people. Nor was the calamity of short duration; we are well acquainted with their extreme obstinacy, which compelled their enemies to forget clemency altogether. For the Romans desired to spare them as far as possible, but so great was their obstinacy and the madness of their rage, that they provoked their enemies as if devoting themselves to destruction, until that dreadful slaughter happened, of which history has sufficiently informed us. When Titus, under the auspices of his father Vespasian, took and destroyed the city, the Jews were stabbed and slaughtered like cattle throughout the whole extent of Asia. Thus far, then, it concerns the Jews.
When God had inserted the body of the Gentiles into His Church, the cruelty of the Caesars embraced all Christians; thus the little horn waged war with the saints in a manner different from that of the former beasts, because the occasion was different, and the wrath of Satan was excited against all God’s children on account of the manifestation of Christ. This, then, is the best explanation of ‘the little horn waging war against the saints’. Thus he says, ‘It must prevail’. For the Caesars and all who governed the provinces of the empire raged with such extreme violence against the Church, that it almost disappeared from the face of the earth. And thus it happened, that the little horn prevailed in appearance and in general opinion, as, for a short time, the safety of the Church was almost despaired of.
It now follows, ‘Until the Ancient of days came, judgment was given to the saints of the lofty ones’. No doubt the Prophet says God came in the same sense as before; namely, when He erected His tribunal and openly appeared as the judge of the world in the person of Christ. He does not here set before us the Son of man, as He did before, but yet a fuller explanation of this passage is to be sought in the former one. ‘God’ then is said ‘to have come’, when He put forth His power in supplying the needs of the Church, as by a common figure He is said to be at a distance from us, and to sleep or to be reposing, when He does not shew Himself openly as our deliverer. So, on the other hand, He is said to come to us, when He openly proves His constant care of us. Under this figure Daniel now says he beheld the appearance of God Himself. ‘The Ancient of days’ then ‘came’. If we ask when, we have the reply at hand; it was immediately after the promulgation of the gospel. Then God stretched forth His hand for His Church, and lifted it out of the abyss. For since the Jewish name had been for a long time hated, and all people desired to exterminate the Jews from the world, Christ’s advent increased this hatred and cruelty; and the license to injure them was added, as they thought Christ’s disciples were plotting a change of government, and wished to overthrow the existing state of things; as in these days all the pious suffer grievously under this false imputation. God, therefore, is said to have come, when the doctrine of the gospel was more and more promulgated, and some rest granted to the Church. Thus, by this repose, ‘the saints received the kingdom’ which had been taken from them; that is, the kingdom of God and of the saints obtained some fame and celebrity in the world, through the general diffusion of the doctrine of piety, in every direction. Now, therefore, we understand what Daniel wished to convey by the phrase, ‘The Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the lofty ones’. The remainder tomorrow.” }}

Lecture 37th.
{{ 7:23-24. “…This reply of the angel is subject to the same obscurity as the vision itself, but it ought to be sufficient to calm the minds of the faithful to know that various changes should arise and shake the whole earth; for as many troubles were prepared for the saints, so also they were braced up to fortitude and endurance. For God was not willing fully to explain what He had shewn to His Prophet; He only wished to set before him this conclusion —a kingdom shall arise completely different from all others. Thus the angel says, The Fourth (4th) Beast signifies ‘a fourth (4th) kingdom, which shall differ from all the kingdoms’. Previously to that period, no state was so extensive in its sway. For although the Spartans and Athenians performed illustrious and memorable exploits, yet we know them to have been included within narrow boundaries; and the ambition and wordy vanity of the Greeks caused them to celebrate those wars which were scarcely of any consequence, as we learn even from their own histories. Whichever way we take this, Sparta obtained with difficulty the second (2nd) rank in Greece, as Athens did the first (1st). As far as concerns the Roman Empire, we know it to have been more extensive and powerful than the other monarchies. When all Italy came under their sway, this was sufficient for any noble monarchy; but Spain, Sicily, part of Greece, and Illyricum were added, and afterwards all Greece and Macedon, Asia Minor, Africa, and all the islands; for by one word they expelled the king of Cyprus, and sold his goods by public auction. When the dregs of the people were collected, Claudius made a law for the banishment of the king of Cyprus, and this he accomplished by his single voice, without the use of force at all. No wonder then that God foretold ‘how different this kingdom should be from all the others’; it had no single head; the senate had the chief authority, though all power was centred in the people. There was therefore a kind of mingled confusion, since the government of Rome was never settled. And if we weigh all things prudently, it was neither a republic nor a kingdom, but a confused compound, in which the people exercised great power in a tumultuous way, and the senate oppressed the people as much as it could. There were three (3) ranks —the senatorian, the equestrian, and the plebeian, and that mixture made the kingdom like a monster. The angel, therefore, announces ‘the fourth (4th) kingdom as different from the others’.
He afterwards confirms what we said before; ‘it will fall’, says he, ‘and break to pieces, and tread down the whole earth’. This was fulfilled after Gaul and Britain were subdued, Germany partially subjugated, and Illyricum, Greece, and Macedon, reduced to submission. At length they penetrated to Asia, and Antiochus was banished beyond the Taurus; his kingdom afterwards became their prey, then they obtained possession of Syria. The kings of Egypt were their allies, and yet became dependent upon their nod; the sovereign dared not appoint an heir, without consulting their pleasure. As, therefore, they ruled supremely so long and so widely, they fulfilled this prophecy ‘by devouring the whole earth’. For such lust for dominion never existed before; wars were heaped upon wars, they were alike greedy of the blood of others, and by no means sparing of their own. The whirlpool was insatiable, while it absorbed the whole world, and their pride crushed it and trampled it under foot. Cruelty was added to pride, for all looked up to the Romans, and conciliated the favour of Rome by flattery, for the purpose of raging savagely against their own people. By these arts almost the whole of Greece perished. For they knew how many innocent persons everywhere perished in every city, a kind of diversion which delighted them; they were fully aware how easy it was to attract all the power of the whole world to themselves, when it was able to put forth neither strength, nor skill, nor power against them. For their nobles were constantly at variance; sometimes one faction and sometimes another was supreme, and thus the splendour of every city easily and gradually diminished. Thus all Greece was spoiled, and the Romans exercised their dominion there without difficulty, as over brute beasts. We may say the same of Asia also. We are not surprised then at the angel saying, ‘the earth would be trodden down and trampled on by this fourth (4th) beast’.
He afterwards adds, ‘The ten (10) horns are the ten (10) kings which should arise’. These Ten (10) Kings are clearly comprehended under one (1) empire, and there is no question here of separate persons. In the Persian kingdom, we observed many kings, and yet the image of the second (2nd) beast was single (1), while it embraced all those kings until the change occurred. So also now, when treating of the Romans, the Prophet does not assert that ten (10) kings should succeed each other in regular order, but rather the multiform nature of the kingdom, under more heads than one (1). For the royal office belonged to the senators or leading citizens, whose authority prevailed very extensively both with the senate and the people. And with reference to the number, we said the plural number only was denoted, without any limitation to the number ten (10). The conclusion is as follows, this kingdom should be like a single (1) terrible animal bearing many horns, since no single (1) king held the chief sway there, as was customary by common usage in other lands, but there should be a mixture, like many kings in place of one holding the pre-eminence. The fulfilment of this is sufficiently known from the history of Rome; as if it had been said, there should not be any single (1) king at Rome, as of Persia and other nations, but many kings at the same time, alluding to the mixture and confusion in which the supreme authority was involved.
The Little Horn follows: ‘A king shall arise’, says he, ‘different from those former ones, and shall afflict three (3) kings’. We shewed how unintelligible this becomes, unless we refer it to the Caesars to whom the monarchy passed; for after long and continued and intestine strife, the whole power passed over to the Triumvirate. A conspiracy was entered into by Lepidus, Mark Antony, and Octavius. Octavius was then all but a boy, having scarcely arrived at manhood, but all the veteran soldiers were in his favour, in consequence of the name of Julius Caesar and his adoption by him. Hence he was received by the other two into that alliance, of which Lepidus was the first (1st), and Antony the second (2nd). At length discords arose among them, and Lepidus was deprived of his place in the triumvirate, and lived, as if half-dead, while his life was only spared to him because he was raised to the office of chief priest.
Reverence for the priesthood restrained Antony from putting him to death, as long as he was content to live in privacy and retirement. Octavius at length became supreme, but by what artifice? We said Julius Caesar took no more upon himself than the office of dictator, while consuls were annually elected as usual. He did not strain the power of the dictatorship beyond moderation, but he so restrained himself, that some popular rights might seem still to flourish. Octavius also followed the cunning of his uncle and adopted father. The same conduct will be found in the other Caesars, though there were many differences between them. As the shadow of a republic yet remained, while the senate was held in some degree of reverence, it is not surprising, if the angel predicts that the beast should survive, ‘when another small horn should arise different from the others’.
He adds, ‘And shall afflict the three (3) kings’. I have explained this point by the slight change which the Caesars effected in the provinces, for if any of the provinces were warlike, strong armies and veteran soldiers were usually sent there. The Caesars took these to themselves, while some executive management was left to the senate with regard to the other provinces. Lastly, by this form of speech, the angel portrays the coming dominion of the little horn, and its diminishing the strength of the former ones: and yet the beast should remain apparently entire; thus, the effigy of the republic was preserved, as the people were always designated —in the forum, by the high-sounding name, Romans, and in battle, as fellow-soldiers. Meanwhile, although the name of the Roman empire was so celebrated, and its majesty was in every one’s mouth, the supreme authority was in the possession of one (1) little horn which lay concealed, and dared not openly raise its head. This, then, is the pith of the interpretation of what the angel here sets before us. It follows:” }}

Lecture 39th.
{{ 8:2-3. “… He next adds, ‘The vision was shewn to me, Daniel, and I happened’, says he, ‘when I saw it, to be in Shushan’. Some think Daniel to be then dwelling in Persia, but this view is by no means probable; for who could persuade the holy Prophet of God, who had been led captive with the rest and was attached to the king of Babylon, to depart as if he had been entirely his own master, and to go into Persia when the Persians were then open enemies? This is not at all likely; and I wonder what can induce men to adopt this comment, so contrary to all reason. For we need not dispute about a matter by no means obscure if we weigh the Prophet’s words, as he removes all doubt by saying ‘he was in Shushan when he saw’, that is, when he was caught up by the prophetic spirit beyond himself and above the world. The Prophet does not say he dwelt in Shushan, or in the neighbourhood, but he was there in the vision only. The next verse, too, sufficiently shews him to have then been in Chaldea —’in the third (3rd) year’, he says, ‘of the reign of King Belshazzar’. By naming the king, he clearly expresses that he then dwelt under his power and dominion. It is clearly to be gathered from these words, without the slightest doubt, that the Prophet then dwelt in Chaldea. And perhaps Babylon had been already besieged, as we saw before. He says ‘he was in the palace at Shushan’. I know not how I ought to translate this word (hbyrh), ‘hebireh’, as I see no reason for preferring the meaning “palace” to that of “citadel.” We are sure of the nobility and celebrity of the citadel which was afterwards the head of the East, for all nations and tribes received from thence their laws, rights, and judgments. At the same time, I think this citadel was not then built, for its empire over the Persian territory was not firmly established till the successors of Cyrus. We may perhaps distinguish Shushan from Persia at large, yet as it is usually treated as a part of that kingdom, I will not urge the distinction. The country is, however, far milder and more fertile than Persia, as it receives its name from being flowery and abounding in roses. Thus the Prophet says ‘he was there in a vision’.
He afterwards repeats this: ‘I saw in a vision, and behold I was near the river Ulai’. The Latin writers mention a river Eulaeus, and as there is a great similitude between the words, I have no hesitation in understanding Daniel’s language of the Eulaeus. The repetition is not superfluous. It adds certainty to the prophecy, because Daniel affirms it not to have been any vanishing spectre, as a vision might be suspected to be, but clearly and certainly a divine revelation, as he will afterwards relate. He says, too, ‘he raised his eyes upwards’. This attentive attitude has the same meaning, as experience informs us how often men are deceived by wandering in erroneous imaginations. But Daniel here bears witness to his raising his eyes upwards, because he knew himself to be divinely called upon to discern future events.
He next subjoins, ‘And behold a ram stood at the bank of the river, and it had horns’. He now compares the empire of Persia and Media to a ram. It ought not to seem absurd that God proposed to his servant various similitudes, because his duty was to teach a rude people in various ways; and we know this vision to have been presented before the Prophet, not for his private instruction only, but for the common advantage of the whole people. I do not think we need scrupulously inquire why the Persian kings are called rams. I know of no valid reason, unless perhaps to institute a comparison between them and Alexander of Macedon and his successors. If so, when God, under the image of a ram, exhibits to His Prophet the Persian empire, He does not illustrate its nature absolutely, but only by comparison with that of Alexander. We are well aware of the opposition between these two (2) empires. The Persian monarchy is called “a ram,” with reference to the Macedonian, which, as we shall afterwards see, bears the name of “he-goat” with respect to its antagonist. And we may gather the best reason for this comparison in the humble origin of the kings of Persia. With great propriety, then, Cyrus, the first (1st) ruler of this empire, is here depicted for us under the form or image of a ram. His “horn” produced a concussion through the whole earth, when no one expected anything to spring from a region by no means abounding in anything noble. And as to Alexander, he is called a “he-goat,” with respect to the “ram,” as being far more nimble, and yet more obscure in his origin. For what was Macedon but a mere corner of Greece? But I do not propose to run the parallel between these points; it is sufficient that God wishes to shew to His Prophet and to the whole Church, how among the Persians, unknown as they were, and despised by their neighbours, a king should arise to consume the Median power, as we shall soon see, and also to overthrow the Babylonian monarchy. ‘Behold’, therefore, says he, ‘a ram stood before the river’, or at the bank of the river, since Cyrus subdued both the Medes and his grandfather, as historians inform us. Cyrus then rushed forth from his own mountains and stood at the bank of the river. He also says, He had two (2) horns. Here the Prophet puts two (2) horns for two (2) empires, and not by any means for two (2) persons. For although Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxares his uncle, yet we know the Persian empire to have lasted a long time, and to have supplied historians with a long catalogue of kings. As Cyrus had so many successors, by the two (2) horns God doubtless shewed his Prophet those two (2) empires of the Medes and Persians united under one (1) sovereignty. Therefore, when the ram appeared to the Prophet, it represented both kingdoms under one (1) emblem.
The context confirms this by saying, ‘The two horns were lofty, one higher than the other, and this was raised backwards’. The two horns were lofty; for, though the Persian territory was not rich, and the people rustic and living in woods, spending an austere life and despising all luxuries, yet the nation was always warlike. Wherefore the Prophet says this horn ‘was higher than the other’, meaning, than the empire of the Medes. Now Cyrus surpassed his father-in law Darius in fame, authority, and rank, and still he always permitted Darius to enjoy the royal majesty to the end of his life. As he was an old man, Cyrus might easily concede to him the highest office without any loss to himself. With respect then to the following period, Cyrus was clearly preeminent, as he was certainly superior to Darius, whom Xenophon calls Cyaxares. For this reason, then, ‘this horn was higher’. But meanwhile the Prophet shews how gradually Cyrus was raised on high. The horn rose ‘backwards’; that is, “afterwards” —meaning, although the horn of the Median kingdom was more illustrious and conspicuous, yet ‘the horn which rose afterwards’ obscured the brightness and glory of the former one. This agrees with the narratives of profane history: for every reader of those narratives will find nothing recorded by Daniel which was not fulfilled by the event. Let us go on:”
8:4. “The Prophet now shortly sketches the great success which should attend this double kingdom. He says, ‘The ram struck all the nations towards the west, and north, and south’. The Persian and Median territory lay to the east of Babylon and Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. This, without doubt, is extended to all the successors of Cyrus, who are recorded as having convulsed the whole world. Cyrus himself was shortly afterwards cruelly and basely slain, according to many historians, although Xenophon affirms that he died in his bed. But I have before warned you not to put your trust in that writer, although most excellent, since, under the image of that king, he wished to set before us an example of perfect manliness; and hence he brings him forward as discoursing on his deathbed, and exhorting his sons to kingly virtues. Whichever is the true account, Cyrus was clearly overtaken in the midst of his career. In this way God wished to chastise his insatiable cupidity, a vice in which he resembled Alexander. As to his successors, they excited such commotions in the whole world as to stir up heaven and earth. Xerxes alone said he could bind the sea with fetters! and we know the greatness of the army which he commanded; and this passage treats not only of one (1) king, but of all those of Persia. As they obtained a dominion so far and wide, their ambition and pride always inflamed them, and there was no end to their warfare till they had subdued the distant boundaries of the world. We are acquainted too with their numerous attempts to destroy the liberty of Greece. All this the Prophet embraces in but few words. God also wished to give his Prophet a short glance into futurity, as far as such knowledge could be useful. ‘I saw’, then, says he, ‘a ram’, namely, a beast which possessed a double horn, representing the Medes and Persians united in the same sovereignty.
‘He struck the west, and the north, and the south, so that no beasts could stand before him’. As the Persian kingdom is here depicted under the image of a ram, all kings and people are called “beasts.” Thus, ‘no beasts stood before him, and no one could deliver out of his hand’. It is well known, indeed, how Xerxes and others failed in their attacks, and how many wars the Monarchs of Persia attempted in which they were conquered by the Greeks; but still their conquerors were in no better condition, as they were compelled to seek peace like suppliants. So great became the power of the Persians, that they inspired all nations with fear. For this reason the Prophet says, ‘he did according to his pleasure’, not implying the complete success of these Monarchs according to their utmost wishes, for their desires were often frustrated, as we have already narrated on the testimony of historical evidence. Still they were always formidable, not only to their neighbours who submitted to their yoke, but to the most distant nations, as they crossed the sea and descended from Asia upon Greece. In the last word, he expresses this fact, ‘the ram became mighty’. For the Persian king became the greatest of all Monarchs in the world, and it is sufficiently notorious that no one could add to his dignity and strength. It follows:”
8:5-6. “Here another change is shewn to the Prophet, namely, Alexander’s coming to the east and acquiring for himself the mighty sway of the Persians, as afterwards happened. With the view, then, of procuring confidence for his prediction, he says, ‘he was attentive’. He doubtless dwells upon the reverence with which he received the vision to exhort us to the pursuit of piety, and also to modesty and attention. The Prophet, therefore, was not carried away in imagination by a dream which could be called in question; he knew this vision to have been set before him by God, and acknowledged his duty to receive it with modesty and humility. Wherefore, ‘I was attentive, and behold a he-goat came forth from the west’, says he. The situation of Macedon with respect to Persia must be noticed. As the Greeks were situated to the west of Persia, the Prophet says, ‘the he-goat came from the west, and went over the surface of the whole earth’. These words signify the very extensive dominion of Alexander, and the terror of surrounding nations. His arrival in Asia with a very insignificant army is well known. He thought 30,000 men sufficient, after he had been created their general by the States of Greece. Hence, the passage is to be understood not of numbers, but of the terror inspired on all sides; for, although he advanced with but a moderate force, yet he terrified the whole earth.
‘But he did not touch the ground’, says he. This refers to his swiftness, for he rather flew than travelled either on foot or by sea, so incredible was his speed in this expedition. For if anyone had galloped through regions completely at peace, he could not have passed through Asia more speedily. Hence a he-goat was shewn to the Prophet who did not touch the ground, that is, who was borne along with a rapid impulse, like that of lightning itself. ‘And the goat had a horn’, says he, ‘between its eyes’ —a remarkable horn. We know how much glory Alexander acquired for himself in a short time, and yet he did not undertake the war in his own name, or on his own responsibility, but he used every artifice to obtain from the Grecian States the office of general-in-chief against the Persians, as perpetual enemies. We are well acquainted with the hostility of the Persians to the Greeks, who, though often compelled to retreat with great disgrace, and infamy, and loss of troops, still kept renewing the war, as they had abundance of men and of pecuniary resources. When Alexander was created general of the whole of Greece, he had a remarkable horn between his eyes; that is, he took care to have his title of general made known to increase his personal authority. Besides, it was sufficiently prominent to constitute him alone general of the whole army, while all things were carried on according to his will, as he had undertaken the war. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet says, the horn was visible between the eyes of the goat. It follows, ‘It came to the ram, which had two (2) horns’; that is, it came against the king of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus also had seized on Babylon, and had subdued many kings, but two (2) horns are assigned to the ram, since the Persian kings had united the Medes in alliance to themselves. Hence one (1) he-goat with his horn came against the ram which had two (2) horns, and ran against it in the ardour of its bravery. Thus the perseverance of Alexander is denoted, as he hastened so as to surpass all expectation by the speed of his arrival. For Darius continued in security, although he had collected a large army, but Alexander rushed forwards in the boldness of his strength, and surrounded the enemy by his celerity. It follows:”
8:7. “Here God shews to His Prophet the victory of Alexander, by which he subdued almost the whole east. Although he encountered many nations in battle, and especially the Indians, yet the name of the Persian empire was so celebrated in the world, that the dignity of others never approached it. Alexander, therefore, by conquering Darius, acquired nearly the whole east. God shewed his Prophet the easiness of his victory under this figure. ‘I looked’, says he, ‘when he approached the ram’. Darius was fortified by both the distance of his stations and the strength of his fortifications; for many of his cities were impregnable, according to the common opinion of mankind. It was incredible, then, that the he-goat should approach the ram, surrounded as he was on all sides by such strong and such powerful garrisons. But the Prophet says ‘he approached the ram, and then, he exasperated himself against him’. This applies to Alexander’s furious assaults. We are well acquainted with the keenness of his talents and the superiority of his valour; yet, such was his unbridled audacity, that his promptness approached rather to rashness than to regal bravery. For he often threw himself with a blind impulse against his foes, and it was not his fault if the Macedonian name was not destroyed ten (10) times over. As, then, he rushed on with such violent fury, we are not surprised when the Prophet says ‘he was exasperated of his own accord. And he struck the ram’, says he. He conquered Darius in two (2) battles, when the power of the Persian sway throughout Asia Minor was completely ruined. We are all familiar with the results of these hazardous battles, shewing the whole stress of the war to have rested on that engagement in which Darius was first conquered; for when he had collected fresh forces, and engaged a second (2nd) time, he despaired of his kingdom, was betrayed by his followers, and cruelly slain. Thus ‘the he-goat struck the ram, and broke his two (2) horns’; for Alexander acquired the Median as well as the Persian empire.
He says, ‘The ram had no strength to stand’; and although he had collected an immense multitude, yet that preparation was available for nothing but empty pomp. For Darius was resplendent with gold, and silver, and gems, and he rather made a shew of these luxuries in warfare, than displayed manly and vigorous strength. ‘The ram’, then, ‘had no power to stand before the he-goat’. Hence, ‘he threw him prostrate on the earth, and trod him down; and no one was able to deliver out of his hand’. Darius, indeed, was slain by his attendants, but Alexander trod down all his glory, and the dignity of the Persian empire, under which all the people of the east trembled. We are aware also of the pride with which he abused his victory, until under the influence of harlots and debauchees, as some report, he tumultuously set fire to that most celebrated citadel of Susae in a drunken fit. As he so indignantly trampled underfoot the glory of the Persian monarchy, we see how aptly the events fulfilled the prophecy, in the manner recorded by all profane historians.” }}

Lecture 40th.
{{ 8:8. “This prophecy relates to the death of Alexander. We have explained how, under the image of a he-goat, the Macedonian empire is set before us, having its beginning in the person of Alexander, but by no means ending there, as the monarchy was divided into four (4) parts. The angel said, or at least Daniel records his words, —’that he-goat increased to an immense magnitude’, because he wandered as it were in sport through almost the whole east, and at the same time subdued it; ‘but when it was in its strength’, says he, ‘its great horn was broken’. By the great horn, he means the monarchy, which was solely in Alexander’s power during his life, as he was the first and last monarch of his race. And in consequence of his generals, who had obtained dominion in the four (4) quarters of the world, becoming kings, as we shall soon see, the word “he-goat” is not restricted to his person, but is extended to his successors. He himself is called “the great horn.” Hence, ‘when the he-goat was in his strength’, the great horn was broken. For Alexander had arrived at the height of prosperity when he died. Whether he perished by disease or by poison is unknown, since historians report a great suspicion of foul-play. The angel does not notice his age, which was thirty-three (33) years at his death, while he seemed to have been born for subduing the whole world, although he was so suddenly snatched away. But the angel regards those continued successes, since Alexander almost by a look subdued the whole east, as we have stated before, and hurried on rashly from place to place. Hence he perpetually gained fresh victories, though at the constant hazard of his life, as he had far more audacity than skill. ‘When he was in his strength’, says he; meaning, after having subjugated the whole east. He had returned from India, and had determined to re-cross the sea, and to reduce Greece under his power; for the States had rebelled against him, and the Athenians had already collected a great army; but all the eastern States of Asia had been rendered subservient to Alexander when he died. The angel refers to this by ‘the breaking of the great horn’.
He afterwards adds, ‘In his place four (4) conspicuous horns sprang up’. For he uses the noun (chzwth), ‘chezeveth’, “notable,” as in yesterday’s Lecture. There were, therefore, four (4) kingdoms which excelled, and each of them was celebrated and placed aloft. Nor is this superfluous, since we know how many became kings, who had enlisted in the service of Alexander with reputation and dignity. Perdiccas was the first (1st), and all thought him to have been favoured with special honour by Alexander. When asked whom he wished for a successor, he replied, according to the greatness or pride of his spirit, “The person whom he considered most worthy of empire.” He had a son by Roxana the daughter of Darius, as well as another son; then Aridaeus his brother approached; yet he deemed no one worthy of the honour of being his successor, as if the world contained no equal to himself. His answer, then, was a proof of his pride. But when he was unable to speak, he took a ring from his hand and gave it to Perdiccas. Hence all conjectured that he had the preference in Alexander’s judgment, and he obtained the supreme authority. After this, Eumenes was slain, who had served under him. Although he was an ally, he was judged as an enemy, and betrayed by his men; Lysimachus being slain on the other side. Fifteen (15) generals were put to death. And as so many succeeded to the place of Alexander and exercised the royal authority, the angel correctly expresses how ‘four (4) conspicuous horns sprang up in the place of one 91) great one’. For after various conflicts and many fluctuations for fifteen (15) years or thereabouts, Alexander’s monarchy was at length divided into four (4) parts. Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained the kingdom of Macedon, after slaying Olympias, the mother of Alexander, his sister, his sons, and his wife Roxana. This was a horrible slaughter, and if ever God offered a visible spectacle to the world, whereby he openly denounced the shedding of human blood, surely a memorable proof of this existed in the whole of Alexander’s race! Not a single one survived for twenty (20) years after his death. Though his mother had grown old, she was not permitted to descend naturally to the grave, but was murdered. His wife, and son, and brother, and all his relations, shared her fate. And that slaughter was even yet more cruel, as no single (1) leader spared the life of his companions, but each either openly attacked or craftily assailed his friend and confederate! But omitting details, four (4) kingdoms were at last left after such remarkable devastations. For Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained Macedon and some part of Thrace, together with the cities of Greece. Seleucus became master in Syria; Antigonus in Asia Minor, joining Phrygia, Paphlagonia, and all other Asiatic regions, after five or six generals were slain. Ptolemy became prefect of Egypt. This makes four (4) horns, which the angel calls “conspicuous,” for on the testimony of history, all the other principalities vanished away. Alexander’s generals had divided among themselves many large and fertile provinces, but at length they were summed up in these four (4) heads. He says, by the four (4) winds of heaven, that is, of the atmosphere. Now the kingdom of Macedon was very far distant from Syria; Asia was in the midst, and Egypt lay to the south. Thus, the he-goat, as we saw before, reigned throughout the four (4) quarters of the globe; since Egypt, as we have said, was situated towards the south; but the kingdom of Persia, which was possessed by Seleucus, was towards the east and united with Syria; the kingdom of Asia was to the north, and that of Macedon to the west, as we formerly saw the he-goat setting out from the west. It now follows:”
8:9. “… When the Prophet says, ‘Out of one of those four (4) horns a little horn arose’, Antiochus Epiphanes is most distinctly pointed out. The title Epiphanes means “illustrious,” as, after the capture of his father, he was detained as a hostage at Rome, and then escaped from custody. Historians inform us of his possessing a servile disposition, and being much addicted to gross flattery. As he had nothing royal or heroic in his feelings, but was simply remarkable for cunning, the Prophet is justified in calling him ‘the little horn’. He was far more powerful than his neighbours; but ‘the horn’ is called ‘little’, not in comparison with the kingdoms of either Egypt, or Asia, or Macedon, but because no one supposed he would ever be king and succeed his father. He was the eldest of many brothers, and singularly servile and cunning, without a single trait worthy of future royalty. Thus he was ‘the little horn’ who escaped secretly and fraudulently from custody, as we have already mentioned, and returned to his native country, which he afterwards governed.
He now adds, ‘This horn was very mighty towards the south and the east, and “the desire’:” for unless he had been checked by the Romans, he would have obtained possession of Egypt. There is a remarkable and celebrated story of Pompilius, who was sent to him to command him to abstain from Egypt at the bidding of the senate. After he had delivered his message, Antiochus demanded time for deliberation, but Pompilius drew a circle with the staff which he held in his hand, and forbade him to move his foot until he gave him an answer. Though he claimed Egypt as his own by right of conquest, yet he dared not openly to deny the Romans their request; at first he pretended to be merely the guardian of his nephew, but he certainly seized upon the kingdom in his own name. However, he dared not oppose the Romans, but by changing his ground wished to dismiss Pompilius. They had been mutual acquaintances, and a great familiarity had arisen between them while he was a hostage at Rome; hence he offered to salute Pompilius at the interview, but he rejected him disdainfully, and, as I have said, drew a line around him, saying, “Before you go out of this circle answer me; do not delude me by asking time to consult with your councillors; answer at once, otherwise I know how to treat thee.” He was compelled to relinquish Egypt, although he had formerly refused to do so. The language of the Prophet, then, was not in vain, ‘The small horn became mighty towards the south’, that is, towards Egypt, ‘and the east’; for he extended his kingdom as far as Ptolemais. In the third (3rd) place, he uses the word glory; that is, Judea, the sanctuary of God, which he had chosen as his dwelling, and desired his name to be invoked. Thus this small horn ‘extended itself to the glory’, or the land of glory or desire. There is nothing doubtful in the sense, though the interpretation scarcely agrees with the words. It afterwards follows:” }}

Lecture 41st.
{{ 8:13-14. “…. Meanwhile, we must notice, how Christ is the chief of angels and also their instructor, because He is the eternal Wisdom of God. Angels, therefore, must draw all the light of their intelligence from that single (1) fountain. Thus angels draw us to Christ by their example, and induce us to devote ourselves to Him through the persuasion that this is the supreme and only wisdom. If we are His disciples, being obedient, humble, and teachable, we shall desire to know only what He will make manifest to us. But the angel asks, ‘What is the meaning of the vision of the perpetual’ sacrifice, ‘and of the sin’ that is, what is the object of the vision concerning the abrogation of the perpetual sacrifice, and concerning the sin which lays waste? As to the second point, we explained yesterday the various opinions of interpreters, some twisting it to Antiochus, who impiously dared to violate God’s temple, and others to the priests. But we said the people were intended, lest many, as they are accustomed, should blame the Almighty for so heavily afflicting the Church. But God wished to bear witness to the origin of this devastation from the sins of the people. It is just as if the angel had said, How long will the sacrifices cease? How long will this vengeance, by which God will chastise the wickedness of His people, endure? For the sin is called devastating, through being the cause of that calamity. It is afterwards added,’how long will the sanctuary and the army be trodden down’? that is, how long will the worship of God, and true piety, and the people itself, be trodden down under this cruel tyranny of Antiochus? But this question has far more efficacy, than if the Prophet had said, as we saw yesterday, that the punishment should be uniform and temporal. It was now necessary to explain what had already been stated more clearly. Thus this question was interposed with the view of rendering Daniel more attentive, and of stirring up the people by this narrative to the pursuit of learning. For it is no common event when angels approach Christ for our sakes, and inquire into the events which concern the state and safety of the Church. As, therefore, angels discharge this duty, we must be worse than stony, if we are not urged to eagerness and carefulness in the pursuit of divine knowledge. We see, then, why this passage concerning the angel is interposed.
The phrase, ‘And he said to me’, now follows. This ought to be referred not to the angel inquiring, but to the Wonderful One. Whence we rather gather the great anxiety of the angel concerning the interpretation of the prophecy, not for his own sake, but for the common benefit of the pious. Respecting this Wonderful One, though I am persuaded He was the Son of God, yet whoever he was, he certainly does not reject the angel’s request. Why then does he address Daniel rather than the angel? Because the angel was not seeking his own benefit, but took up the cause of the whole Church, as we have shewn how angels are occupied in our salvation. Thus also we see how the angel notices the Prophet’s astonishment, when he was almost dead, and had not thought of inquiring for himself, or at least did not dare to break forth at once; for he afterwards recovered himself, and was raised up by the angel’s hand, as we shall soon perceive. ‘The Wonderful One said to me’ —that is, the incomprehensible or the mysterious one said to me —’for two thousand three hundred (2,300) evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be justified’. Here the Hebrews are mutually at variance whether they ought to understand the number of years or of months; but it is surprising to perceive how grossly they are deluded in so plain a matter. The expression, to evening and morning, is not doubtful, since Christ clearly means two thousand three hundred (2,300) days; for what else can the phrase, morning and evening, signify It cannot be used of either years or months. Evidently we ought to understand natural days here, consisting of twenty-four (24) hours each. Those who receive it of years and months are wretchedly mistaken, and even ridiculous in their calculations. For some begin to calculate the time from Samuel, they next descend to the reign of Saul, and next to that of David; and thus they foolishly trifle, through not understanding the intention of Christ, who wished His Church to be forewarned of the coming empires and slaughters, with the view of rendering the faithful invincible, however sorely they may be oppressed on all sides. Christ therefore wished to hold up a light to direct all the elect through the approaching darkness under the tyranny of Antiochus, and to assure them that in the very depths of it they would not be deserted by the favour of God. Hope would thus elevate their minds and all their senses unto the promised termination. To what purpose, then, do those interpreters speak of the reigns of Saul and David. We see this to be altogether foreign and adverse to the mind of Christ, and to the use of this prophecy. No less absurd is the guess of those who prate about months. Their refutation would occupy three (3) or four (4) hours, and would be a waste of time, utterly profitless. It is sufficient to gather this simple meaning from the words —Christ does not speak here of years or months, but of days. We must now seek the true interpretation of the passage from the whole context. We have shewn how impossible it is to explain this prophecy otherwise than by Antiochus: the event itself proves this to be its meaning. Blind indeed must be those who do not hold this principle —the small horn sprang from one (1) of those remarkable and illustrious persons who came forth in place of one (1) very large horn. Boys even know this by reading the accredited history of those times. As Christ here alluded to the tyranny of Antiochus, we must observe how His words accord with the facts. Christ numbers 2300 days for the pollution of the sanctuary, and this period comprehends six (6) years and about four (4) months. We know the Jews to have used lunar years as well as months. They afterwards used intercalary periods, since twelve (12) lunar months did not correspond with the sun’s course. The same custom prevailed among both Greeks and Romans. Julius Caesar first arranged for us the solar year, and supplied the defect by intercalary days, so that the months might accord with the sun’s course. But however that was, these days, as I have said, fill up six (6) years and three (3 1/2) months and a half. Now, if we compare the testimony of history, and especially of the book of Maccabees, with this prophecy, we shall find that miserable race oppressed for six (6) years under the tyranny of Antiochus. The idol of Olympian Jove did not remain in the temple for six (6) continuous years, but the commencement of the pollution occurred at the first attack, as if he would insult the very face of God. No wonder then if Daniel understood this vision of six (6) years and about a third (1/3), because Antiochus then insulted the worship of God and the Law; and when he poured forth innocent blood promiscuously, no one dared openly to resist him. As, therefore, religion was then laid prostrate on the ground, until the cleansing of the temple, we see how very clearly the prophecy and the history agree, as far as this narrative is concerned. Again, it is clear the purifying of the temple could not have been at the end of the sixth (6) current year, but in the month (kslw), ‘keslu’, answering to October or November, as learned men prudently decide, it was profaned. For this month among the Jews begins sometimes in the middle of October, and sometimes at the end, according to the course of the moon; for we said the months and years were lunar. In the month Keslu the temple was polluted; in the month (‘dr), ‘Ader’, about three (3) months afterwards, near its close, the Maccabees purged it. (1st Macc. 4:36.) Thus the history confirms in every way what Daniel had predicted many ages previously —nay, nearly three hundred (300) years before it came to pass. For this occurred a hundred and fifty (150) years after the death of Alexander. Sometime also had already elapsed, as there were eight (8) or ten (10) kings of Persia between the deaths of Cyrus and Darius. I do not remember any but the chief events just now, and it ought it to be sufficient for us to perceive how Daniel’s predictions were fulfilled in their own season, as historians clearly narrate. Without the slightest doubt, Christ predicted the profanation of the temple, and this would depress the spirits of the pious as if God had betrayed them, had abandoned all care of His temple, and had given up His election and His covenant entirely. Christ therefore wished to support the spirit of the faithful by this prediction, thereby informing them how fully they deserved these future evils, in consequence of their provoking God’s wrath; and yet their punishment should be temporary, because the very God who announced its approach promised at the same time a prosperous issue.
Respecting the phrase, ‘the sanctuary shall be justified’, some translate it —“Then the sanctuary shall be expiated;” but I prefer retaining the proper sense of the word. We know how usually the Hebrews use the word “justify” when they speak of rights. When their own rights are restored to those who have been deprived of the —when a slave has been blessed with his liberty— when he who has been unjustly oppressed obtains his cause, the Hebrews use this word “justified.” As God’s sanctuary was subject to infamy by the image of Olympian Jove being exhibited there, all respect for it had passed away; for we know how the glory of the temple sprang from the worship of God. As the temple had been defiled by so great a disgrace, it was then “justified,” when God established His own sacrifices again, and restored His pure worship as prescribed by the Law. ‘The sanctuary’, therefore, ‘shall be justified’; that is, vindicated from that disgrace to which for a time it had been subject. It follows:—” }}

Lecture 42nd.
{{ 8:24-25. “We have previously given a brief explanation of all these subjects. But here the angel removes all doubt, lest we should still anxiously inquire the meaning of the ram which Daniel saw, and of the he-goat which followed and prostrated the ram. The angel, therefore, here pronounces the ram to represent two (2) kingdoms, which coalesced in one (1). Cyrus, as we have said, granted it for a time to his father in-law Cyaxares, but yet drew the whole power to himself, and the Persians began to extend their sway over all the realms of the East. But God in this vision had respect to the beginning of that monarchy. When, however, the Persians and Medes were united, then the ram bore two (2) horns; then the he-goat succeeded, and he threw down the ram, as we have already seen. In that he-goat there was first one (1) great horn and then four (4) small ones. The angel then answers concerning the he-goat representing the kingdom of the Greeks. There is not the slightest doubt here, since Alexander seized upon the whole East, and thus the Persian monarchy was utterly destroyed. In the he-goat, therefore, the kingdom of Greece or Macedon was displayed, but the horns will mark something special.
That great horn, says Daniel, ‘was the first (1st) king’, namely, Alexander; afterwards four (4) smaller horns arose in his place. We have already explained these. For when much blood had been shed, and the greater part of the leaders had been slain, and after the followers of Alexander had mutually attacked and destroyed each other, those who remained divided his dominions among themselves. Cassander the son of Antipater obtained Macedon; Seleucus, Syria; Ptolemy, Egypt; and Antigonus his own fourth (4th) share. In this way the smaller horns succeeded Alexander, according to the clear testimony of profane history. From the frequency with which God sets this prophecy before us, we gather His intention of giving us a conspicuous sign of His majesty. For how could Daniel conjecture future events for so long a period before they happened? He does not pronounce mere enigmas, but narrates things exactly as if they were already fulfilled. At the present time Epicureans despise the Scriptures and laugh at our simplicity, as if we were too credulous. But they rather display their own prodigious madness and blindness, by not acknowledging the prediction of Daniel to be divine. Nay, from this prophecy alone we may prove with certainty the unity of God. If anyone was inclined to deny that first (1st) principle, and utterly reject the doctrine of His divinity, he might be convinced by this single prophecy. Not only is this subject treated here, but Daniel points with his finger to the God of Israel as the only One in whose hand and will are all things, and from whom nothing either escapes or is concealed. From this prophecy alone the authority of Scripture is established by proofs perfectly sure and undoubted, as the Prophet treats with perfect clearness events at the time unknown, and which no mortal could ever have divined.
First of all he says,’The ram which thou sawest, having two (2) horns, means the kings of the Medes and Persians’. This had not then occurred, for that ram had not yet risen and seized upon Babylon, as we have stated already. Thus Daniel was raised up as it were to heaven, and observed from that watch-tower things hidden from the minds of men. He afterwards adds, ‘The he-goat is the king of Greece’. Philip, the father of Alexander, although a strenuous and a most skilful warrior, who surpassed all the kings of Macedon for cleverness, yet, superior as he was, never dared to cross over the sea. It was sufficient for him if he could strengthen his power in Greece, and render himself formidable against his neighbours in Asia Minor. But he never dared to attack the power of Persia, or even to harass them, and much less to overcome the whole East. Alexander, inflamed rather by rashness and pride than by good judgment, thought nothing would prove difficult to him. But when Daniel saw this vision, whoever would have thought of any king of Greece invading that most powerful monarchy, and not only seizing upon the whole of Asia, but obtaining sway in Egypt, Syria, and other regions! Although Asia Minor was an extensive region, and well known to be divided into many rich and fertile provinces, yet it was but a small addition to his immense empire. Nay, when Nineveh was conquered by Babylon, and the Chaldeans became masters of Assyria, this also was an addition to the Persian monarchy. We are familiar with the amazing riches of the Medes, and yet they were entirely absorbed. Darius drew with him 800,000 men, and quite buried the earth under his army. Alexander met him at the head of 30,000. What comparison was there between them. When Xerxes came to Greece, he brought with him 800,000 men, and threatened to put fetters upon the sea; yet Daniel speaks of this incredible event just as if it had already taken place, and were matter of history. These points must be diligently noticed that the Scriptures may inspire us with the confidence which they deserve.
‘The great horn’, says he, ‘which was between his eyes was the first (1st) king, and when it was broken, four (4) others sprang up’. Alexander, as we have mentioned, perished in the flower of his age, and was scarcely thirty (30) years old when he died, through the influence of either poison or disease. Which of the two (2) is uncertain, although great suspicion of fraud attaches to the manner of his death; and whichever way it happened, that horn was broken. In his place there arose four (4) horns, ‘which sprang up’, says he, from that nation. Here we must notice this, since I very much wonder what has come into some persons’ minds, to cause them to translate it “from the nations,” and yet these are persons skilled in the Hebrew language. First, they shew great ignorance by changing the number, and next, they do not comprehend the intention of the angel. For he confirms what he formerly said concerning the unity of the kingdom and its division into four (4) parts, and he assigns the reason here. They shall spring, says he, from a nation, meaning the Greeks, and all from a single origin. For by what right did Ptolemy obtain the empire? solely by being one of Alexander’s generals. At the beginning, he dared not use the royal name, nor wear the diadem, but only after a lapse of time. The same is true of Seleucus, and Antigonus, and Cassander. We see, then, how correctly the kingdom of the Greeks is represented to us under the figure of a single (1) beast, although it was immediately dispersed and torn into four (4) parts. The kingdoms, then, which sprang from ‘the nation’, meaning Greece, ‘shall stand, but not in full strength’. The copula is here taken in the sense of “but ;” ‘the four (4) kingdoms’ shall stand, ‘but not by his strength’, for Alexander had touched upon the Indian sea, and enjoyed the tranquil possession of his empire throughout the whole east, having filled all men with the fear of his industry, valour, and speed. Hence, the angel states the four (4) horns to be so small, that not one of them should be equal to the first (1st) king.
‘And at the end of their reign, when the wicked shall be at their height, one (1) king shall stand’. By saying at the end of their kingdom, he does not mean to imply the destruction of the four (4) kingdoms had ceased. The successors of Antiochus were not directly cast down from their sway, and Syria was not reduced into a province till about eighty (80) or a hundred (100) years after Antiochus the Great had been completely conquered. He again left heirs, who, without doubt, succeeded to the throne, as we shall see more clearly in the eleventh (11th) chapter. But this point is certain —Perseus was the last king of Macedon, and the Ptolemies continued to the times of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and we are well aware how completely Cleopatra was conquered and ruined by Antony. As women succeeded to the throne, we could not place the destruction of the Macedonian empire under Antiochus Epiphanes. But the angel means, ‘at the end of their kingdom’, when they had really come to the close of their reigns, and their final ruin was at hand. For when Antiochus Epiphanes returned to his country, he seemed to have re-established his power, though it very soon afterwards began to die away. Similar circumstances also happened to Egypt and to Macedon, for the reign of all their kings was precarious, and although not directly overthrown, yet they depended on the Romans, and thus their royal majesty was but fleeting. ‘At the end’, therefore, ‘of their kingdom’, that is, when they arrived at the height, and their fall led them on to ruin, then, says he, ‘when the wicked were consummated’ or ‘perfected’. Some apply this to the professed and outward enemies of the Church, but I rather approve of another opinion, which supposes the angel to be speaking of the impious, who provoked God’s wrath, till it became necessary for grievous and severe penalties to be inflicted on the people, to whom God had so magnificently promised a happy and a tranquil state. This, however, was no common temptation, after the prophets had treated so fully of the happy and prosperous state of the people after their return from captivity, to be hold the horrible dispersion, and to witness these tyrants making their assault not only upon men, but upon the temple of God itself. Wherefore the angel, as before, fortifies the Prophet and all the rest of the pious against this kind of trial, and shews how God had not changed His counsels in afflicting His Church, to which He had promised tranquillity, but had been grievously provoked by the sins of the people. He then shews the urgent necessity which had compelled God to exercise this severity. When, therefore, ‘the impious had come to their height’, that is, when they had arrived at the highest pitch, and their intolerable obstinacy had become desperate. We perceive how the angel here meets the trial, and instructs the pious beforehand, unfolding to them the inviolability of God’s word, while the people’s impiety compelled Him to treat them severely, although He had determined to display liberality in every way. ‘Then’, he says, ‘a king shall stand with a fierce countenance’. But the rest tomorrow.” }}

Lecture 52nd.
{{ 9:27. “In the last Lecture we explained how ‘Christ confirmed the covenant with many during the last week’; for he gathered together the sons of God from their state of dispersion when the devastation of the Church was so horrible and wretched. Although the Gospel was not instantly promulgated among foreign nations, yet Christ is correctly said ‘to have confirmed the covenant with many’, as the nations were directly called to the hope of salvation. (Matt. 10:5.) Although He forbade the disciples to preach the Gospel then to either the Gentiles or Samaritans, yet He taught them that many sheep were dispersed abroad, and that the time at which God would make one (1) sheep-fold was at hand. (John 10:16.) This was fulfilled after His resurrection. During His lifetime He began to anticipate slightly the calling of the Gentiles, and thus I interpret these words of the Prophet, ‘he will confirm the covenant with many’. For I take the word “many” here, (rbym), ‘rebim’, comparatively, for the faithful Gentiles united with the Jews. It is very well known that God’s covenant was deposited by a kind of hereditary right with the Israelites until the same favour was extended to the Gentiles also. Therefore Christ is said not only to have renewed God’s covenant with a single (1) nation, but generally with the world at large. I confess, indeed, the use of the word many for all, as in the fifth (5th) chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in other places, (ver. 19,) but there seems to be a contrast between the ancient Church, included within very narrow boundaries, and the new Church, which is extended over the whole world. We know how many, formerly strangers, have been called from the distant regions of the earth by the gospel, and so joined in alliance to the Jews as to be all in the same communion and all reckoned equally sons of God.
The Prophet now subjoins, ‘He will make to cease the sacrifice and offering for half (1/2) a week’. We ought to refer this to the time of the resurrection. For while Christ passed through the period of his life on earth, he did not put an end to the sacrifices; but after he had offered himself up as a victim, then all the rites of the law came to a close. By the words “sacrifice and offering” the Prophet implies all ceremonies, a part being put for the whole; as if he had said, after Christ had offered up one eternal sacrifice, all the customary ceremonies of the Law were abolished; for otherwise Christ’s death would have been superfluous, had he not put an end to all the old shadows of the Law. Although the sacrifices were continued for many years after Christ’s death, yet we can no longer call them “legitimate,” for no reason can be offered why the sacrifices of the Law should be pleasing to God, except their reference to that heavenly pattern which Moses saw on the mount. (Exod. 25:40.) Hence, after Christ had appeared and expiated all the sins of the world, it became necessary for all sacrifices to cease. (Heb. 8:5.) This is the Prophet’s intention when he says, ‘Christ should cause the sacrifices to cease for half (1/2) a week’. He embraces two points at the same time; first, Christ really and effectually put an end to the sacrifices of the Law; and secondly, he proved it to the world in the preaching of the Gospel by his Apostles. We observe, then, the sense in which God testified by his Prophet ‘the cessation of sacrifices after Christ’s resurrection’. The veil of the temple was then rent in twain; true liberty was proclaimed; the faithful might then feel themselves to be full grown men, and no longer subject to that government of childhood to which they had submitted under the Law.
The second (2nd) clause of the verse now follows: we have read it before, but we now repeat it to refresh the memory. ‘And over the extension’, or expansion, ‘of abominations he shall cause astonishment’, or stupefaction; ‘and even to consumption and determination he shall pour himself upon the desolator’. Some translate, It shall be poured or shall distil: we shall treat the words afterwards. The passage is obscure, and may be rendered in a variety of ways, and consequently interpreters differ much from each other. Some take (knph), ‘knaph’, “a wing,” for a “cherub ;” then they change the numbers from singular (1) to plural, and think the Prophet alludes to winged cherubim. This gives those who adopt this rendering a two-fold (2-fold) method of explaining it. Some say the abomination shall be ‘above the wings’, that is, the ark of the covenant, because the temple was profaned, and the abomination was so ruinous that it destroyed even the very cherubim. Others take it causally —the abominations shall be for the sake of the cherubim. But I leave these subtleties, as they do not seem to me to have any solidity. Others, again, follow the Greek version, as quoted by Christ in the 24th chapter of Matthew and elsewhere, although Christ seems rather to refer to the 12th chapter of our Prophet. But as these two (2) passages refer to the same abomination, I will not insist on this point; I will only remark upon the translation of one (1) word. Those who translate “the abominations of desolation” treat the words of Daniel too carelessly, for there is no grammatical dependence of one (1) word on the other, or, technically speaking, no ‘state of regimen’. The preferable opinion is that which considers the word “wing” to mean extremity or extension. Others, again, treat “extremity” as if it meant a state of despair; as if the angel had said, on account of the extremity of the abominations, as evils should accumulate upon evils without end till matters came to the last pitch of despair. Others, again, explain “the wing of abominations” more simply for the expansion itself, as if the angel had stated, the temple shall be openly profaned, and the pollution shall be apparent far and wide.
Interpreters differ again about the words (msmm ), ‘mesmem’, and(smm), ‘sem-em’, usually translated “make desolate,” and “desolation.” Some take the former transitively, and others as neuter; the latter signifies to destroy and lay waste, and also to wonder and be astonished. I think these two words ought to be used in the same sense; as if the Prophet had said, all shall be astonished at the extent of the abominations; when they shall perceive the temple worship swept away as by a deluge, then they shall be mightily astonished. He afterwards adds the calamity which commenced when God shewed the pollution of the temple ‘shall distil’ or pour itself ‘upon him who is astonished’. We will treat the occurrence itself to enable us to understand the sense of the words better. I have no hesitation in stating God’s wish to cut off all hope of restoration from the Jews, whom we know to have been blinded by a foolish confidence, and to have supposed God’s presence confined to a visible temple. As they were thus firmly persuaded of the impossibility of God’s ever departing from them, they ought to be deprived of their false confidence, and no longer deceive themselves by such flattering hopes. Thus the temporary pollution of the temple was shewn by Ezekiel (Chap. 10:18.) For when the prophets constantly proclaimed the approach of their enemies to destroy both the city and temple, the greater part of the people derided them. In their opinion this would overthrow all their confidence in God, as if He had been false to His word, in promising them perpetual rest on Mount Zion. (Ps. 132:14.) Here Ezekiel relates his vision of God sitting in the temple —He then vanished, and the temple was deprived of all its glory. This was but temporary.
But we are now treating of a profanation of the temple, which should prove, if I may use the phrase, eternal and irreparable. Without the slightest doubt, this prophecy was fulfilled when the city was captured and overthrown, and the temple utterly destroyed by Titus the son of Vespasian. This satisfactorily explains the events here predicted. Some consider the word “abominations” to be used metaphorically, and to signify the overthrow of the city; but this seems to me forced. Others explain it of the statue of Caligula erected in the temple; and others again, of the standard of Tiberius, who ordered the eagles to be placed on the pinnacle of the temple. But I interpret it simply of that profanation which occurred after the gospel began to be promulgated, and of the punishment inflicted upon the Jews when they perceived their temple subject to the grossest forms of desecration, because they were unwilling to admit the only-begotten Son of God as its true glory. Others, again, understand the impious doctrines and superstitions, as well as the perverse errors with which the priests were imbued. But I think the passage marks generally the change which took place directly after Christ’s resurrection, when the obstinate impiety of the people was fully detected. They were then summoned to repentance; although they had endeavoured to extinguish all hope of salvation through Christ, yet God stretched forth His hand to them, and tried whether their wickedness was curable or not. After the grace of Christ had been obstinately rejected, then the ‘extension of abominations’ followed; that is, God overwhelmed the temple in desecration, and caused its sanctity and glory to pass utterly away. Although this vengeance did not take place immediately after the close of the last week, yet God sufficiently avenged their impious contempt of His gospel, and besides this, He shews how He had no longer need of any visible temple, as He had now dedicated the whole world to Himself from east to west.
I now return again to the explanation of the words separately. The angel says, ‘Upon the extension of abominations, astonishment’, or astonishing; for some think it an adjective, and others a substantive; but the meaning is, ‘all should be stupified’, or astonished. I do not altogether object to the meaning already referred to —namely, rendering the word “wing” as “extremity;” for the sense will then be —when the abominations come to their height or extremity; and the sense is the same, if we use the word “expansion.” God intends to shew us the extensive range of the pollutions, —upwards, downwards, and all around, they should obscure and bury the temple’s glory. Hence ‘on account of the extremity or expansion of abominations there shall be astonishment’, for all shall be amazed. The angel seems to oppose this stupor to pride; for the Jews were thoroughly persuaded of God’s being strictly bound to themselves, and of the impossibility of His being torn away from His own temple where He had fixed His eternal dwelling-place. He predicts the approach of this amazement instead of their supine security.
He adds next, ‘And unto consumption’. (klh), ‘keleh’, signifies “end” and “perfection,” as well as “destruction.” I take it here for consumption or destruction. ‘It shall flow even unto astonishment’. I have already remarked upon the words implying this astonishment; slaughter, or something like it, ought to be understood before the verb. There is no doubt at all about the Prophet’s meaning. He says this slaughter should be like a continual shower, consuming the whole people. He speaks of the people as astonished by their calamities, and deprived of all hope of escape from them; for the slaughter shall flow forth upon the astonished people. Meanwhile he shews how foolishly the Jews indulged in pride, and how fallaciously they flattered themselves in supposing the Almighty permanently attached and bound to themselves and their visible temple. The slaughter shall flow forth even to consumption, meaning, until the whole people should perish. He adds also another noun, ‘even to a determined end’. We have already unfolded the meaning of this noun. Here the Prophet explains the cause of that eternal distinction which the Almighty had determined and decreed to be irrevocable.” }}

Lecture 56th.
{{ 11:2. “We must now understand God’s intention in thus informing his servant Daniel of future events. He was clearly unwilling to gratify a vain curiosity, and he enlarged upon events necessary to be known, thus enabling the Prophet not only privately to rely on God’s grace, through this manifestation of his care for his Church, but also to exhort others to persevere in the faith. This chapter seems like a historical narrative under the form of an enigmatic description of events then future. The angel relates and places before his eyes occurrences yet to come to pass. We gather from this very clearly how God spoke through his prophets; and thus Daniel, in his prophetic character alone, is a clear proof to us of God’s peculiar favour towards the Israelites. Here the angel discusses, not the general state of the world, but first the Persian kingdom, then the monarchy of Alexander, and afterwards the two (2) kingdoms of Syria and Egypt. From this we clearly perceive how the whole discourse was directed to the faithful. God did not regard the welfare of other nations, but wished to benefit his Church, and principally to sustain the faithful under their approaching troubles. It was to assure them of God’s never becoming forgetful of His covenant, and of His so moderating the convulsions then taking place throughout the world, as to be ever protecting His people by His assistance. But we shall have to repeat this again, and even more than once, as we proceed.
First of all, the angel states, ‘Three (3) kings shall yet stand up in Persia’. With respect to the clause, ‘Behold! I announce to you the truth’, I explained in yesterday’s Lecture how frequently he confirmed his prophecy whenever he treated events of the greatest importance, which seemed almost incredible. ‘I shall tell you the real truth; three (3) kings shall stand up’. The Jews are not only very ignorant of everything, but very stupid also: then they have no sense of shame, and are endued with a perverse audacity; for they think there were only three (3) kings of Persia, and they neglect all history, and mingle and confound things perfectly clear and completely distinct. There were eight (8) kings of Persia of whom no mention is made here. Why, then, does the angel say, ‘three (3) kings should stand up’! This was the first (1st) year of Darius, as we saw before. Hence, in their number of kings, Cyrus, the first (1st) monarch, is included, together with his son Cambyses. When these two (2) kings have been decided on, a new question will arise again; for some add Smerdis to Cambyses, though he was only an impostor; for the Magi falsely thrust him in as the son of Darius, for the purpose of acquiring the sovereignty to themselves. Thus he was acknowledged as king for seven (7) months; but when the cheat was discovered he was slain by seven (7) of the nobles, among whom was Darius the son of Hystaspes, and he, according to the common narrative, was created king by the consent of the others on the neighing of his horse. The variations of interpreters might hinder us from reading them, and so we must gather the truth from the event. For Smerdis, as I have stated, cannot be reckoned among the kings of Persia, as he was but an impostor. I therefore exclude him, following the prudence of others who have considered the point with attention.
We must now observe why Daniel mentions four (4) kings, ‘the fourth (4th) of whom’, he states, ‘should be very rich’. Cambyses succeeded Cyrus, who was reigning when the prophecy was uttered. He was always moving about to distant places; he scarcely allowed himself rest for a single (1) year; he was exceedingly desirous of glory, insatiable in his ambition, and ever stirring up new wars. Cambyses, his son, who had slain his brother, died in Egypt, and yet added this country to the Persian empire. Darius, the son of Hystaspes, succeeded, and Xerxes followed him. They are deceived who think Darius, the son of Hystaspes, is the fourth (4th) king; without doubt the Prophet meant Xerxes, who crossed the sea with a mighty army. He led with him 900,000 men; and, however incredible this may appear, all historians constantly affirm it. He was so puffed up with pride that he said he came to put fetters upon the Hellespont, while his army covered all the neighbouring country. This is one (1) point; the four (4) kings were Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius the son of Hystaspes, and Xerxes, omitting Smerdis. We may now inquire why the angel limits the number to four (4), as the successor of Xerxes was Artaxerxes, or Darius Longimanus, the long-handed, and some others after him. This difficulty is solved by the following probable method, Xerxes destroyed the power of the Persian empire by his rashness; he escaped with the greatest disgrace, and was scarcely saved by the baseness of his flight. He brought away but few companions with him hastily in a small boat, and could not obtain a single transport, although the Hellespont had been previously covered with his ships. His whole army was almost cut to pieces, first (1st) at Thermopylae, then at Leuctra, and afterwards at other places. From that period the Persian empire declined, for when its warlike glory was annihilated, the people gave themselves up to sloth and idleness, according to the testimony of Xenophon. Some interpreters expound the phrase, ‘three (3) kings stood up’, of the flourishing period of the Persian monarchy: they take the words “stood up” emphatically, since from that period the nation’s power began to wane. For Xerxes on his return was hated by the whole people, first for his folly, then for his putting his brother to death, for his disgraceful conduct towards his sister, and for his other crimes; and as he was so loaded with infamy before his own people, he was slain by Artabanus, who reigned seven (7) months. As the power of Persia was then almost entirely destroyed, or at least was beginning to decline, some interpreters state these three (3) kings to stand up, and then add Xerxes as the fourth (4th) and the most opulent. But suppose we take the word “stood up” relatively, with respect to the Church? For the angel states that the Persian prince, Cambyses, stood before him, in an attitude of hostility and conflict. The angel seems rather to hint ‘at the standing up of four (4) kings of Persia’, for the purpose of reminding the Jews of the serious evils and the grievous troubles which they must suffer under their sway. In this sense I interpret the verb “to stand,” referring it to the contests by which God harassed the Church until the death of Xerxes. For at that period, when the power of the Persians declined, a longer period of rest and relaxation was afforded to the people of God. This is the reason why the angel omits and passes over in silence all the kings from Artabanus to Darius the son of Arsaces; for Arsaces was the last king but one (1), and although Ochus reigned before him, we know from profane historians how his posterity were reduced to the lowest rank under the last Darius, whom Alexander conquered, as we shall see bye and bye. For this reason I think this to be the genuine sense of the passage, from Cyrus to Xerxes kings of Persia should stand up against the Israelites, and during the whole of that period the contests should be renewed, and the Jews would almost perish through despair under that continued series of evils. Some say, four (4) kings should stand forth until all the Jews were led out; and we know this never to have been completed, for a small portion only returned. As to my own opinion, I am unwilling to contend with others, yet I hesitate not to enforce the angel’s wish to exhort all the pious to endurance, for he announced ‘the standing up of these four (4) kings’, who should bring upon them various tribulations. As to the fourth (4th) king, the statement of this passage suits Xerxes exactly. ‘The fourth’ (4th), he says, ‘shall be enriched with wealth’; for the noun is of similar meaning with the verb, as they both spring from the same root. Truly enough Darius the son of Hystaspes determined to carry on war with Greece; he made the attempt but without success, especially at the battle of Marathon. He was cut off by sudden death when his treasures were prepared and many forces were collected. He thus left the material of war for his son. Xerxes, in the flower of his age, saw every preparation for war made ready to his hands; he eagerly embraced the occasion, and gave no heed to sound advice. For, as we have already stated, he destroyed himself and the whole monarchy, not by a single (1) slaughter only, but by four (4). And this power of raising an army of 900,000 men was no ordinary occurrence. If he had only carried with him across the sea 100,000 men, this would have been a large force. But his power of feeding such large forces while he passed through so many provinces, and then of passing them across the sea, exceeds the ordinary bounds of our belief. We are not surprised, then, at the angel’s predicting the extreme wealth of this king.
He adds, ‘In his fortitude and in his riches he shall stir them all up against the realm of the Greeks’. This was not accomplished by Darius the son of Hystaspes. According to my former statement, he attacked certain Grecian cities, but without producing confusion throughout the whole East, as Xerxes his successor did. As to the phrase, the kingdom of Javan, I willingly subscribe to their opinion who think the word equivalent to the Greek word Ionia. For Javan went forth in that direction, and dwelt there with his posterity in the Grecian territory, whence almost the whole of Greece obtained its present name. The whole Grecian nation is often called “Chittim,” and some see good reason for their being termed “Machetae,” from Chittim the son of Javan, and thus by the addition of a letter we arrive at the Macedonians. For the conjecture is probable that this people were first called Maketae, and afterwards Macedonians. Without doubt, in this passage and in many others, Javan is put for the whole of Greece, since Ionia was the portion of the country most celebrated in Judea and throughout the East generally. Xerxes then stirred up against the realm of Javan —meaning Greece— all the people of the East; for it is very well known how his empire spread far and wide in every direction. It follows:”
11:3. “This refers to Alexander of Macedon. I have already shortly stated the reason why the angel passed over all the Persian kings from Artabanus to the last Darius, they did not engage in any contests with the Jews up to Xerxes. But when Alexander invaded Asia, he struck the Jews with terror, as well as all other nations. He came like lightning, and it is by no means surprising that the Jews should be frightened at his arrival, because, as we formerly expressed it, he flew with amazing swiftness. Alexander then rose up, not only by the riches and might of his warlike preparations, but he necessarily inspired the Jews with trepidation when they perceived their inability to resist him, and thus he was deservedly hostile to them, because, from the very beginning, they had despised his empire. Josephus also informs us how he was moved at the sight of the high priest, and how he determined to mitigate his rage against the Jews. For when he was at home, before passing over into Asia, the vision of the high priest was offered to him, for God had sent His angel under that disguise.” Alexander supposed it to be some deity; but when the high priest met him in procession, the vision returned to his recollection, and he was struck as if he had seen God appearing to him from heaven. Whatever was the object of this occurrence, Alexander clearly came into Judea with the intention of utterly destroying the whole nation. This is the reason why the angel carefully predicts this change. ‘A brave king, therefore, shall stand up, and rule with extensive dominion, and do according to his pleasure’; that is, he shall succeed as if he had all the events of the war under his own hand and according to his own pleasure, as the event itself most fully proved. It follows:”
11:4. “This language is concise, but there is no ambiguity in the sense. First of all the angel says, After that brave king had stood up, his empire should be broken in pieces: for when Alexander had arrived at his height, he suddenly fell sick, and shortly afterwards died at Babylon. Ambassadors had assembled round him from every quarter. He was quite in toxicated by prosperity, and very probably poisoned himself. Historians, however, have viewed him as a remarkable example of singular valour, and so they have pretended and have related, because at least they thought so, that he was deceitfully poisoned by Cassander. But we all know how in temperately and immoderately he indulged in drinking; he almost buried himself in wine, and was seized with disease amidst his cups, and sank under it, because no remedy was found for him. This, then, was Alexander’s poison. Whichever way we understand it, he fell suddenly, almost as soon as he began to stand. After conquering nearly the whole East, he came to Babylon, and was uncertain in his plans as to the employment of his forces, after he had procured peace for the whole East. He was then anxious to transfer his armies to either Europe or Africa. The angel says, ‘After he had stood up’, meaning, after he had acquired the monarchy of the whole East, ‘his kingdom should be broken up’. He uses this simile, because the whole power of Alexander was not so much extinguished as broken into separate parts. We know how the twelve (12) chiefs who were his generals drew the spoils to themselves; everyone took a portion of his kingdom, and divided it among themselves, as we have previously stated, just as if it were torn from their master’s body. All consented in raising his brother Aridaeus to the dignity of king, and they called him Philip, that, while his sons were young, the memory of his father might commend them to the world. But four (4) kingdoms at length issued from Alexander’s monarchy. It is unnecessary here to refer to what we may read at our leisure in the writings of historians.
The Prophet only touches shortly on those points which relate to the instruction of the Church; he does not relate in order or in detail the events narrated in history; he only says, ‘His empire shall be broken, and shall be divided, says he, towards the four (4) winds of heaven’. The angel omits that partition which assigned the treasure to one (1), and gave the office of counsellor to Philip: Perdiccas was the guardian of his son, and he with others obtained a portion of his dominions. Seleucus obtained Syria, to whom his son Antiochus succeeded; Antigonus became prefect of Asia Minor; Cassander, the father of Antipater, seized the kingdom of Macedon for himself; Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, who had been a common soldier, possessed Egypt. These are the four (4) kingdoms of which the angel now treats. For Egypt was situated to the south of Judea, and Syria to the north, as we shall afterwards have occasion to observe. Macedonia came afterwards, and then Asia Minor, both east and west. But the angel does not enter into any complicated details, but shortly enumerates whatever was necessary for the common instruction of the elect people. The common consent of all writers has handed down these facts, four (4) kingdoms were constituted at length out of many portions, after the chiefs had been so mutually slain by one another that four (4) only survived, namely, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Antigonus, and Cassander. Afterwards the kingdom of Antiochus was extended when Antigonus was conquered; for Antiochus added Asia Minor to the kingdom of Syria. But Antiochus stood only for a time, and hence the angel truly and properly states this empire to have been divided into four (4) parts.
He next adds, ‘And not to his posterity’. No one could have guessed what the angel predicted so many years before Alexander’s birth; for he was not born till a hundred (100) years after this period. Those who know the boldness of his warlike schemes, the rapidity of his movements, and the success of his measures, would never be persuaded of this result, the complete destruction of all his posterity, and the utter extinction of his race.
Had Alexander lived quietly at home, he might have married, and have become the father of children who would have been his undisputed successors. He died young, soon after reaching the age of thirty (30); still he might have married, and have had heirs to his throne. He had a brother, Aridaeus, and other relations, among whom was his uncle Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and a royal offspring might thus have been preserved, and a successor prepared for him. After he had subdued both upper and lower Asia, he became master of Syria, Egypt, and Judea, and extended his power to the Persian sea, while his fame extended over Africa and Europe. Since no one dared to raise a finger against him, as he possessed a most magnificent army, and all his generals were bound to him by most important benefits, and so many of his prefects were enriched by his extreme liberality, who would have thought that all his posterity and relations would be thus blotted out! He left two (2) sons, but they were slain as well as his brother Aridaeus, while his wives and his mother, aged eighty (80) years, shared the same fate. Nor did Cassander spare her, for she intrigued against him. At length, as if God would punish so many slaughters committed by Alexander, He wished his whole posterity to be extinguished. And yet, as I have stated, no foreign enemy was the agent in inflicting such heavy punishments. He had subjugated the whole East, and his bearing was such, as if the whole monarchy of that portion of the world had descended to him from his ancestors by hereditary right. As the world contained no enemy for him, his foes sprang from his own home; they slew his mother, his wives, his children, and all his relatives, and utterly rooted out all his race. We observe, then, with what clearness and certainty the angel predicts events entirely concealed from that age, and for a hundred (100) years afterwards, and such as would never be credited by mankind. There seems a great contrast in the language; ‘his kingdom shall be broken, it shall be divided towards the four (4) winds of heaven, and not to his posterity’; that is, although the four (4) kingdoms should spring up in the four (4) quarters of the world, yet none of Alexander’s posterity should remain in a single place, or obtain even the least portion of his dominions. This was a remarkable proof of God’s wrath against the cruelty of Alexander; not that he was savage by nature, but ambition seized upon him, and made him bloodthirsty, and indisposed him to desire any end to his warfare. God, therefore, avenged that grasping disposition of Alexander’s, by allowing the whole of his race thus to perish with disgrace and horrible cruelty. On this account that pride of his which wished to be thought a son of Jupiter, and which condemned to death all his friends and followers who would not prostrate themselves before him as a god; —that pride, I say, never could secure a single (1) descendant to reign in his place, or even to hold a single (1) satrapy. ‘Not to his posterity’, says the angel, ‘and not according to his dominion’.
He passes to the four (4) kings of which he had spoken: It shall not break forth, he says, namely, from the four (4) kings. He had already stated their foreign extraction, not in any way derived from the family of that king; for none of the four (4) should equal his power, because his kingdom should be extirpated. Here the angel seems to omit intervening events, and speaks of an ultimate destruction. We know how the last king Perseus was conquered by the Romans, and how the kingdom of Antiochus was partly destroyed by war, and partly oppressed by fraud. And the angel seems to mark this. We may interpret it more to the point, by considering the cessation of Alexander’s empire, with reference to his own race, as if the angel had stated that none of his successors should acquire equal power with himself. And why so? Not one of them could accomplish it. Alexander acquired so mighty a name that all people willingly submitted to his sway, and no single (1) successor could sustain the burden of the whole. Hence his kingdom, as far as it related to himself and his posterity, was divided, and no one succeeded to his power and his opulence. ‘And it shall be given to others’. The angel here explains his meaning. The destruction of the kingdom ought not to be explained particularly of single parts, for each seized his own portion for himself, and his successors were all strangers. And ‘to others besides those’; meaning, his kingdom shall be seized upon by others who are not of his posterity; that is, strangers shall rush into Alexander’s place, and no successor shall arise from his own kindred. It afterwards follows,”
11:5. “Here the angel begins to treat of the kings of Egypt and of Syria. He does not mention the king of Syria yet, but will do so in the next verse; but he begins with the king of Egypt, the neighbouring monarchy to that of Israel. He says, the king of the south, meaning, the king of Egypt, would be brave. He next adds, ‘and one (1) of his princes’. Many take this in one (1) context; but I think the angel transfers his discourse to Antiochus the son of Seleucus. ‘And one (1) of his princes’, he says, meaning, one (1) of Alexander’s princes, shall strengthen himself against him. For the letter (w), ‘vau’, is taken in the sense of opposing, and implies an opposition between Ptolemy the son of Lagus, and Antiochus king of Syria. Hence ‘the king of the south shall grow strong’ —another of Alexander’s chiefs shall grow strong against him, and shall have dominion. We know how much larger and more wealthy the kingdom of Syria was than that of Egypt, especially when Asia Minor was added to it. Without doubt, the angel was acquainted with the future superiority of Antiochus to Ptolemy, when these two (2) kings are mutually compared. But the rest to-morrow.” }}

Lecture 57th.
{{ 11:6. “As to the explanation of the words, the king of the south, we have stated to be the king of Egypt, and that of the north, of Syria. To do right things, means to make mutual peace; he shall not retain the strength of his arm, is, his arm shall not retain its strength; he shall not stand refers to his father Ptolemy, or Antiochus Theos, as we shall afterwards see. And then we must take the (w), ‘vau’, negatively, and read, nor his seed, which some translate his arm. She shall be delivered up, implies being given up to death, while some understand her parent, to be her mother or her nurse. Here, then, the angel prophesies the state of the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria; and still he has respect to the Church of God, as we stated yesterday, which was placed in the midst of these two nations. We must always strive to ascertain the intention of the Holy Spirit. He wished to support the pious under those convulsions by which they would be agitated and afflicted. Their confidence might have been utterly subverted unless they had been persuaded that nothing happens at random, since all these events were proclaimed beforehand. Again, God had sent His angel to Daniel, which proved both His power and His determination to defend His Church, and He would accomplish this, because He wished the faithful admonished beforehand neither rashly nor yet without profit. But we must first relate the history —the angel says, ‘At the end of the times two (2) kings should enter into covenant and friendship’. He had announced the superiority of the king of Syria; for when Antigonus was conquered, and his son was dead, Seleucus the first king ofSyria far surpassed Ptolemy in his power and the magnitude of his dominion. But a mutual rivalry arose between them, and there were some slight skirmishes on both sides, till the condition of Ptolemy became weakened, and then Seleucus rushed tumultuously, with the ferocity of a robber rather than the magnanimity of a king. After they had continued the contest for some time, Berenice the daughter of the second Ptolemy, named Philadelphus, was given in marriage to Antiochus Theos. She is also called Ber nice and Bernice. He was so blinded with pride, as to take the name of Theos, which means God; he was the third (3rd) of that name, the former king being called Soter, meaning preserver. For, as Seleucus had acquired so many and such mighty possessions, his sons did not consider their authority fully established, and so they assumed these magnificent titles for the sake of inspiring all nations with the terror of their name. Hence the first (1st) Antiochus was called Soter, and the second (2nd) Theos. Now the second (2nd) Ptolemy, named Philadelphus, gave his daughter in marriage to Antiochus Theos. By this bond peace and friendship were established between them, just as at Rome, Pompey married Julia the daughter of Caesar. And we daily observe similar occurrences, for when one (1) king has in his power a daughter, or niece, or other relatives, another king finds himself possessed of male and female relations, by whose intermarriage they confirm a treaty of peace. It was so in this case, although historians attribute some degree of craft to Philadelphus in bestowing his daughter on Antiochus Theos. He supposed this to be a means by which he might ultimately acquire the dominion over all Syria, and over the other provinces under the sway of Antiochus. Whether this really was so or not, profane historians prove the fulfilment of the angel’s prediction. Without the slightest doubt, God, in His wonderful counsels, dictated to these historians what we read at the present time, and made them witnesses of His own truth. This thought, indeed, never entered their minds, but when God governs the minds and tongues of men, He wishes to establish clear and convincing testimony to this prophecy, for the purpose of shewing the real prediction of every occurrence. ‘At the end of the years’, says he, ‘they shall become united’.
He next states, ‘And the daughter of the king of the south’, meaning Berenice, whom we have mentioned, ‘shall come to the king of the north’, meaning the king of Syria, Antiochus Theos. This alliance was contracted in defiance of justice. For Antiochus repudiated his wife Laodice, who was the mother of two (2) sons whom she had born to Antiochus; namely, Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus the younger, named Hierax, a hawk, on account of his rapacity. We perceive, then, how he contracted a second (2nd) marriage, after an unjust and illegal divorce of his first (1st)wife. Hence it is not surprising if this alliance was cursed by the Almighty. It turned out unhappily for both (2) the kings of Egypt and Syria. Ptolemy ought not to have thrust his daughter upon Antiochus, who was already married, nor yet to have allowed her to become a second (2nd) wife, while the king’s real (1st) wife was divorced. We perceive, then, how God became the avenger of these crimes, while the plans of Antiochus and Philadelphus turned out ill. Some think that Antiochus was fraudulently poisoned by his first (1st) wife, but as the point is doubtful, I pronounce no opinion. Whether it was so or not, Antiochus had a son by Berenice, and died immediately after being reconciled to his former (1st) wife. Some historians state, that after she had recovered her dignity and rank as queen, having once (1st) experienced her husband’s fickleness and perfidy, she took sure means of preventing another repudiation. When Antiochus was dead, this woman was enflamed with vengeance, and in the perverseness of her disposition, she impelled her son to murder her rival, especially stimulating Seleucus Callinicus who succeeded to his father’s throne. Hierax was then prefect of Asia Minor; hence she stimulated her son with fury to murder her rival. For, although Antiochus Theos had been reconciled to her, yet some degree of rank and honour still attached to Berenice the daughter of Ptolemy. And her son perpetrated this murder with the greatest willingness, and with the basest cruelty and perfidy; for he persuaded her to entrust herself to his care, and then he murdered both her and her son.
The angel now says, ‘When the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north, his arm shall not retain his strength’. The language is metaphorical, as that marriage was like a common arm to both (2) sides; for the king of Egypt stretched forth his hand to the king of Syria for mutual protection. ‘That arm’, then, ‘did not retain its strength’; for Berenice was most wickedly slain by her stepson, Seleucus Callinicus, as we have stated. He says, also, ‘she should come to make alliances’. Here, by way of concession, the angel calls that conjugal bond (myshrym), ‘misrim’, “rectitudines,” “conditions of agreement,” because at first all parties thought it would tend to that result. But Antiochus had already violated his marriage vow, and departed from his lawful alliance. Nothing, therefore, was right on his side. Without the slightest doubt he derived some advantage from the plan, as kings are always in the habit of doing. And with respect to Ptolemy, many historians, as we have already mentioned, suppose him to have longed for the kingdom of Syria. Whether or not this was so, their mutual transactions were not sincere, and so the word signifying “rectitude” is used, as we have said, only by concession. The angel does not speak in their praise, or excuse the perfidy of either, but he rather enlarges upon their crime, and from this we gather how they abused the sanctity both of marriage and of treaties, which God wished to be held sacred by all mankind. Hence, though the word is honourable in itself, yet it is used in a disgraceful sense, to shew us how the angel condemned King Ptolemy for this base prostitution of his daughter, and Antiochus for rejecting his wife, and marrying another who was not a real wife, but only a concubine. And, perhaps, God wished to use the lips of His angel to point out the tendency of all royal treaties. They always have the most specious appearances —national, quiet public peace, and similar objects which can be dexterously made prominent. For kings always court favour and praise for themselves from the foolish vulgar, whenever they make treaties of peace. Thus all these alliances have no other tendency than to produce social deception, and at length they degenerate into mutual perfidy, when one (1) party plots insidiously and wickedly against another (1).
The angel adds next, ‘He shall not stand’; using the masculine gender, and most probably referring to Antiochus, as well as to Ptolemy his father-in-law. ‘Neither he nor his seed shall stand’, meaning his son by Berenice the daughter of Ptolemy. I dare not translate it “arm,” because in my opinion the letter (w), ‘vau’, is needed in the word for “arm;” so I take it to denote “seed.” He afterwards adds, ‘And she shall be delivered up’ —thus returning to Berenice— either by treachery or to death; ‘and those who led her forth’ —meaning her companions. Whenever any incestuous marriage is contracted, some persons of disgraceful character are sure to be concerned in bringing his new wife to the king. And very probably there were factions in the palace of Antiochus; one (1) party being more attached to Seleucus and his brother, and his mother Laodice; while others desired a change of government, according to the usual state of affairs. The advisers of the marriage between Antiochus and Berenice were sent as a guard of honour to attend them to Syria, and the angel states all these to have been delivered up together with the queen. He afterwards adds, ‘And those who were her parents’. From the absence of a grammatical point under the letter (h), ‘he’, many think the noun to be of the feminine gender. And as it may mean mother, they treat it as if her nurse was intended, but I leave the question in doubt. He now adds, ‘and those who strengthened her at those times’. He, doubtless, intends to designate all those who wished to curry favour with the king, and thus took part in this marriage between him and the daughter of the king of Egypt. The whole of that faction perished, when Berenice was slain by Seleucus Callinicus. If, then, he did not spare his stepmother, much less would he spare the faction by which he was deprived of his hope of the kingdom, and through whom his mother Laodice had suffered the disgrace of a divorce. It now follows:”
11:7. “The angel treats here of Ptolemy Euergetes, the third (3rd) king of Egypt, who succeeded his father Philadelphus. He collected large forces to revenge the insult offered to his sister, and thus carried on the war with Seleucus Callinicus, who had become king after his father’s death. The angel, therefore, now touches shortly on this war, by saying, ‘There shall stand up a shoot from the root of that queen’. Very possibly he was younger than his sister Berenice. He says, ‘He shall stand in his own degree’, meaning, in the royal rank. The interpretation of those who translate, He shall stand in his father’s rank, is forced. What is it then ‘He shall stand in his own rank’; that is, he shall arrive at his own rank by hereditary right. Although, therefore, at first (1st) all thought the death of Berenice would be unrevenged through her father being dead, here the angel announces that her brother should be like a branch, and become the avenger of this great wickedness. ‘He shall stand’, then, ‘in his rank’, meaning, he shall arrive at the royal throne, ‘from’ the ‘branch’ or germ ‘of her root’, namely, Berenice. ‘He shall come with an army against Callinicus’. Profane writers bear witness to this. ‘And he shall come even to the fortification of the king of the north’. He entered Syria, and caused so great a terror that many fortified cities surrendered themselves to him. During this war he drew to himself many cities which seemed impregnable; whence it is not surprising to find the angel stating his arrival at the fortifications. Some translate it “dwelling-place,” but without reason, and thus injure the Prophet’s meaning. ‘He shall come unto the very fortification’, meaning, he shall arrive in Syria, and shall possess many fortified cities.
He next adds, ‘And he shall work on them’, meaning, he shall prosper; for this word when used without any addition, implies in Hebrew performing great exploits. ‘He shall proceed’ and acquire power over the greater part of Syria, ‘and shall prevail’. By this last word he explains how superior he should be to Callinicus. For this king sent for his younger brother whose fidelity he suspected, and thought it the safest course to treat with his enemy. But young Hierax, the hawk, determined to use that expedition to his own advantage. He was not content with his own province of Asia Minor, but he anticipated being his father’s sole heir, especially as he had hired some troops from Gaul, who had invaded Asia Minor, Bithynia, and other provinces. He was greatly puffed up, and betrayed his own covetousness. Seleucus Callinicus preferred making peace with his enemy to fostering his brother’s resources. At length Hierax more and more developed the perversity of his mind. For he openly declared war against his brother, to whose assistance he pretended to have come, after having been sent for according to agreement. His brother Seleucus had promised him a portion of Asia as far as Mount Taurus; and when he saw himself the victim of his impious and disgraceful snares, he openly waged war with his brother. But he was conquered at length, and thus received the reward of his impiety. Thus Ptolemy Euergetes prevailed, while he departed from Syria after spoiling his enemy, according to what follows:”
11:8. “The angel explains more fully what he had already stated briefly, namely, Ptolemy should be the conqueror, and spoil the whole of Syria almost according to his pleasure. Profane writers also shew us the great number of images which were taken away, and how Egypt recovered its gods of silver and gold which it had lost a long time ago. Thus the event proved the truth of the angel’s prophecy. The particle (gm), ‘gem’, is interposed for the sake of amplifying the subject, to inform us of the unequal condition of the peace, and how Ptolemy exercised the rights of a conqueror in spoiling the whole of Syria according to his lust. It is added, ‘He shall stand for more years than the king of the north’. Some restrict this to the duration of the life of each king, and others extend it farther. Probably the angel speaks of Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned forty-six (46) years. As God extended his life so long, we are not surprised at the angel’s saying it should last longer than the king of Syria’s. This explanation is applicable to the present case, for if he had died before, Callinicus might have recovered the effects of the war; but as Ptolemy survived, he dared not attempt anything, being assured of the utter fruitlessness of any effort against the king who had vanquished him. It follows:—”
11:9. “This clause belongs to the former verse; as if he had said, Ptolemy shall return by a peaceful march after this hostile invasion of Syria. For he might have some fears lest his enemy should not be completely prostrated. But as he departed as conqueror, the angel announces his safe arrival in his own land. The words “come” and “return” are used emphatically, implying the absence of all harass, fear, and danger.’ He returned to his kingdom and his own land, since he could not trust to the quietness of the enemies whom he had laid prostrate. It follows:– ”
11:10-11. “Here the angel passes to the third (3rd) war, namely, that which the son of Callinicus stirred up against Ptolemy Philopator. After the death of Euergetes, the two (2) sons of Callinicus united their forces, and endeavoured to recover Syria, and especially that part of it of which they had been deprived. When they were already on their expedition, and their forces were on their march, the elder Seleucus died, and his surviving brother was Antiochus, called the Great. Ptolemy, called Philopator, which means a lover of his father, was then alive. He was so called in consequence of the parricide of which he was guilty, having put to death both parents, together with his brother. The word is used by way of ridicule, and a sense the opposite to that expressed is implied by this epithet, which is honourable in itself, and expresses the virtue of filial piety. But he slew his father, mother, and brother, and on account of all these impious murders, the name of Philopator was applied to him as a mark of disgrace. As, therefore, he was so thoroughly hated by his own people, the sons of Callinicus, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus the elder, and Antiochus the Great, thought the time had arrived for the recovery of the lost cities of Syria. For he was detested and despised in consequence of his numerous crimes. They therefore anticipated little trouble in recovering their possessions, when their enemy was thus branded with infamy, and had many domestic foes. This is the reason why the angel says of the sons of Callinicus, ‘They shall be provoked, and shall lead a multitude of great armies’; it may mean “great forces,” as some historians relate the collection of two very strong armies. Unless I am mistaken, Antiochus the Great had 70,000 foot and 5,000 horse. Ptolemy excelled in cavalry, as he had 6,000 horse but only 62,000 foot, as Polybius informs us in his fifth (5th) book. (*Calvin quoting from memory has not stated the numbers accurately. See Polyb., lib. v. p. 421, edit. Casaubon. Paris; also the Dissertations at the end of this volume.—Ed.) They were nearly equal in forces, but the confidence of the two (2) sons of Callinicus, of whom alone the angel now speaks, was increased when they beheld their wicked enemy so greatly detested in consequence of his parricide. He afterwards says, He shall come. He changes the number, since the elder (1st) brother, being the eldest (1st) son of Callinicus, namely, Seleucus Ceraunus, died while they were preparing for the war, and they say he was slain by his attendants in passing through Asia Minor. Whether this was so or not, all historians unite in stating that Antiochus the Great alone carried on the war with Philopator. He shall come so as ‘to overflow and pass through’. He recovered that part of Syria which he had lost, and when he approached Egypt, then Philopator met him. Profane historians state him to have been a coward, and never to have obtained power by open bravery, but by fraud alone. He was too late in preparing his forces for resisting his enemy.
This is the reason why the angel says, ‘The king of Syria’, or of the north, ‘should come, even to the citadels’, or fortifications; for at length Philopator roused himself from slumber, for he never put on his arms to repel an enemy except when compelled by the direst necessity. Hence he adds, ‘The king of the south shall be irritated’, or exasperated. He uses the word “exasperated,” because, as I have just said, he would never have opposed himself to his enemy Antiochus except he had perceived his own kingdom placed in great jeopardy. He might have taken patiently the loss of Syria, so long as Egypt had been safe; but when his life and all his possessions were in danger, he became sufficiently exasperated to attack his foe; and yet he prevailed, as we shall afterwards see. I cannot complete this subject to-day, and so I shall draw to a close. Philopator became victorious, and yet he was so sluggish that he distrusted his friends and foes alike, and was forced by this very fear to make peace with his enemy, although he was really the conqueror. Not only could he have driven back his enemy whom he had vanquished, but he might have taken possession of his territories; but he did not dare to do this: he was conscious of being a parricide, and knew to his cost how hateful his name was among all men. Hence, although superior in strength, and actually the conqueror of his enemy in battle, he dared not proceed further. But we will explain the remainder another time.” }}

Lecture 58th.
{{ 11:11. “In our last Lecture we explained why the angel mentions the exasperation of King Ptolemy. Unless he had been dragged into the war, his disposition was so sluggish that he would have suffered many cities to be wrested from him, and he would never have been moved by either the disgrace or the loss. But at length he took up arms, on seeing with what a stern and bold enemy he had to deal. He afterwards adds, ‘He shall go out to battle against the king of the North’, meaning Antiochus king of Syria. ‘And he shall set din array a large multitude’. This may be referred to either of them, for Antiochus then brought into the field a large army; he had 5,000 horse and 70,000 foot. Ptolemy was superior in his cavalry, which amounted to 6,000 men. This clause will suit the case of Antiochus. ‘He shall bring into the field a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand’, meaning Ptolemy’s. The context seems thus to flow on more easily: yet if anyone (1) prefers considering it as applicable to Ptolemy himself, I will not contend the point. It is not of much consequence, because the angel simply pronounces the superiority of Ptolemy in this battle, in which he conquered Antiochus the Great. Besides, we must notice, that he was not the conqueror by his own industry, or valour, or counsel, or military skill; but because the Lord, who regulates the events of battles, wished at that time to subdue the pride of Antiochus the Great. It now follows,”
11:12. “The angel here marks the close of the war. Had Ptolemy’s valour seconded (2nd) his good fortune, he might easily have seized upon the whole kingdom of Syria, as profane historians report. But he was so given up to his own lusts, that he willingly entered into treaty with his enemy. On his return to his kingdom he slew his wife Eurydice, and was guilty of other enormities; he suffered a wicked woman, the sister of Agathocles, a victim of his passions, to rule over his kingdom, and lastly, he became a very foul example of a very cruel and degraded man. Therefore, the angel says at the beginning, ‘his army should raise him aloft; his heart should be elevated’, in consequence of his prosperity. He not only caused terror to Antiochus, but through all the neighbouring regions. Where he might have drawn to himself the whole power of the East, he then declined in his course. He subdued, indeed, a hostile army, and in this exploit he was in no slight degree assisted by his sister Arsinoe, as historians relate, but yet after great slaughters he did not retain his position. And what was the obstacle: His idleness and drunkenness, and his caring for nothing but banquets and debaucheries, and the most obscene pleasures. This caused his fall, after he had been raised even to the clouds by his victories. It afterwards follows:”
11:13-14. “Here the angel prophesies of other wars. For he first describes the war which was carried on by Antiochus against the Egyptians, after the death of Philopater, who left as his heir, a little son named Ptolemy Epiphanes. When, therefore, he perceived the land deprived of its king, he drew up an army and invaded Egypt. As the Egyptians had no strength to resist him, an embassy was sent to Rome; and we know how eager the Romans were to become involved in all the business of the world. With the view of extending their empire still further and wider, they sent immediately to Antiochus the Great, and commanded him to desist from the war; but after many trials he failed of success, until he engaged in a very desperate battle with Scopas, and at length obtained a victory. In the meantime, the Egyptians were far from idle: although they hoped to be able to subdue the empire of Antiochus by the assistance of the Senate, yet they carefully fitted out an armament of their own under their General Scopas, who was successful in many of his plans, but was finally defeated in the borders of Judea. The angel now describes this war. ‘The king of Syria shall return’, he says; meaning, after the death of Ptolemy Philopator, he rested for a while, because he had been unsuccessful with his forces, and they were so entirely disorganized that he had no confidence in the success of any expedition. But he thought Egypt would give him no trouble, as it had lost its head and was like a lifeless corpse. Then he was elevated with fresh confidence, and returned to Egypt. ‘And he shall arrange a greater multitude than at the first’. He had a large and powerful army, as we have said, and a noble armament of cavalry: he had 70,000 foot, and was still collecting greater forces. The angel signifies the future arrival of the king of Syria, after the interval of a certain time. ‘At the end of the times of the years he shall surely come’, that is, he shall break forth. The angel seems to use this expression for the sake of increasing its certainty; for he at first (1st) despised the Romans in consequence of their great distance from him, and he had no fear of what afterwards occurred. He never. supposed they had such boldness in them as to cross the sea against him.
He afterwards adds, ‘And in those times many shall stand against the king of the South’, or Egypt. The angel hints, that Antiochus the Great would not be his only enemy; and historians inform us of his treaty and alliance with Philip king of Macedon, for carrying on this war. Without doubt, the two (2) kings stirred up the whole of Asia Minor, and they were so unitedly powerful, that many were excited to take part with them. It seemed to be all over with the kingdom of Egypt, and thus the angel says, ‘many should stand up against the king of the South’. He adds, and his sons dissipating. The Hebrews call “robbers” (phrytzym), ‘pheritzim’. The root of this word is (phrtz), ‘pheretz’, which signifies to break or dissipate, and sometimes to destroy. Without doubt, the angel here uses the word to imply factious men, for the people had no other chance of standing, except by remaining quiet and united. The word then applies to those who violated that unity; for when anyone attached himself to foreign monarchs, Judea became exposed as a prey to either the Syrians or Egyptians. Some interpreters apply this passage to the younger Onias, who seized on Heliopolis, and drew some exiles with him, and there built a temple, as we learn from Josephus and the Book of Maccabees. For he pretended to have the prophecy in Isaiah, chap. 19, on his side, where it is said, “And there shall be an altar to God in the midst of Egypt”, (v. 19.) Without doubt, the Prophet here predicts the enlargement of God’s kingdom through the propagation of his religion throughout the whole world. As Egypt was to the last degree devoted to idolatry, Isaiah here shews how the pure and perfect worship of God should prevail in Egypt. As if he had said, Even the Egyptians who have hitherto endeavoured to abolish true and sincere piety, shall be added to God’s people, and shall worship him acceptably. We know the Prophet to be here treating figuratively of the spiritual reign of Christ, and to be always bringing forward the shadows of his own time. By the word “altar” he simply means the worship of God. That impostor, Onias, when he erected his profane temple and polluted the sacred altar, boasted in his fulfilment of this prophecy of Isaiah.
This then is the meaning of the passage: ‘The sons —dissipators of thy people— shall exalt themselves to establish the vision’ ; that is, under a fallacious pretext of fulfilling Isaiah’s prediction, ‘and yet they shall fall’. It may also have an indefinite meaning, as if the angel declared that these multitudes should not come forth unless by God’s secret counsel. We know how much this thought tends to lighten the sorrow of the pious, and how much consolation it brings, when we recognise all the tumults of the world as springing from the fixed counsel of God. Nothing then appears to happen at random, but mortals are agitated because God desires to inflict His punishments upon them, and the Church is often shaken because God wishes to prove and examine the patience of His people. We may, therefore, take this prophecy absolutely; as if the angel had said: These apostates and dissipators never proposed to fulfil this prophecy of Isaiah’s, and yet there was nothing confused, or out of order in all these events, as God was fulfilling what He had testified by His own Prophets. Wherefore we may receive this prediction simply, just as we do other similar ones scattered throughout the prophets. We have already heard how the Prophet was forewarned of the many distresses of the Church, on purpose to lead the faithful to acquiesce in the providence of God, when they saw things so disturbed throughout the world. It afterwards follows:”
11:15. “The angel follows up the same sentiment. He says, When Antiochus the Great shall burst forth, there shall be no valour in the Egyptians to resist him, for he shall take a fortified city. There is a change of number here, for he means fortified cities. For he should recover the cities which he had formerly lost, and should arrive at the city Raphia in Egypt. The explanation follows, ‘The arms of Egypt shall not stand, nor the people of its levies’. This relates to Scopas, who was sent forth with large forces: at first he prospered, but he was afterwards vanquished in the conflict, and had no courage to persevere in resistance. It afterwards follows.”
11:16. “The angel proceeds with the same discourse. He says, Antiochus the Great should accomplish his wishes, and should spread the terror of his arms in every direction, and thus no one would dare to oppose him. ‘He shall do’ therefore ‘according to his will’, he says, ‘and none shall stand before his face; and he shall stand in the desirable land’; meaning, he shall bring his victorious army into Judea, ‘and there shall be a great consumption under his hand’, or Judea shall be consumed and ruined under his hand. We originally stated that the angel’s mission did not authorize him to treat these events as military exploits are usually narrated by historians. Enough is revealed to lead the faithful to acknowledge God’s continual regard for their safety. Experience also assures us of every occurrence being divinely foreseen, and thus they would acknowledge how everything tended to promote their welfare. God’s predictions of future events were never in vain, and the angel now declares the future coming of Antiochus ‘to the desirable land’. We have previously given the reason for the use of this epithet as applied to Judea, not through any natural excellence over other lands, but because God had chosen it for Himself as His seat and dwelling-place. The excellence of this land depended entirely on the gratuitous beneficence of God. It might seem inconsistent to grant such license to an impious tyrant and robber, and to allow him to overrun Judea, which God had marked out with peculiar honour, in adopting it as His dwelling-place, and calling it His residence. (Psalm 132:14.) But we know that the Church, while on its pilgrimage in this world, enjoys no freedom from many inflictions; for it is profitable for the sons of God to be humbled under the cross, lest they should grow restive in the world, and give themselves up to luxuries, and sleep upon the desires of the flesh. The angel, indeed, omits the reason why God suffered Antiochus thus cruelly to oppress the sacred land; but the faithful had been taught by the Law and the Prophets how the Church was subject to various tribulations. It is sufficient, then, to relate the event with simplicity: ‘and the pleasant land shall be consumed under his hand’, or there shall be a consumption. It matters but little which way we read it as far as the sense is concerned. The angel here encourages Daniel and all others to the exercise of patience, lest they should faint under this divine scourge; for he permitted Antiochus to wander about like a robber, and to exercise severe tyranny and cruelty against the Jews. I need not discuss these events at greater length, as they are found in the Books of the Maccabees. I will only touch on one point briefly; Antiochus did not of his own accord harass the Jews by leading his army into their country, but he was stirred up by impious priests. So great was their perfidy and barbarity that they willingly betrayed God’s Temple, and exposed their nation to the most distressing calamities. That was a severe trial: hence God consulted the interests of His own worshippers by predicting events which might weaken their confidence and cause them to indulge in despair. It follows,”
11:17. “He here describes the second war of Antiochus against Epiphanes, who was then growing old; and so he gave him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, hoping in this way, by subtle contrivances, to subdue the kingdom of Egypt. For he thought his daughter would remain faithful to his interests; but she rather preserved her conjugal fidelity to her husband, and hesitated not to espouse her husband’s quarrel against her father. She faithfully adhered to her husband’s interests according to her duty, and never listened to the cunning designs of Antiochus. Thus he was deprived of his expectation, and his daughter never became the means of his acquiring authority over Egypt. Before this marriage of his daughter with Ptolemy, he had tried the effect of war, but in this he failed; and when he perceived the interposition of the Romans, he desisted from future hostilities, and consoled himself with the thought which we have already expressed, of receiving immediate assistance against Egypt through his daughter. ‘He turns’, therefore, ‘to come with the power of his whole kingdom’; meaning, he collects all his forces to overwhelm Ptolemy Epiphanes, who was then but a young man, and had neither obtained any great authority, nor arrived at sound wisdom and discretion. When he perceived his want of success in the fortune of war, ‘he gave him the daughter of women’, referring to her beauty. This is the explanation of interpreters, who suppose the phrase to imply her remarkable beauty.
As to the next clause, those who translate it, ‘and the upright with him’, think the Jews are intended, for Antiochus had received them in surrender, and there were many who openly espoused his cause. They think the Jews so called as a mark of honour, and as upright with respect to the worship of God. But this appears to me too forced. I hesitate not to suppose the angel to signify the superior character of the agreement between Antiochus and Ptolemy, when the former found the impossibility of obtaining his adversary’s kingdom by open warfare. Although the Romans had not yet sent forth any armament, yet Antiochus began to fear them, and he preferred the use of cunning in providing for his own interests. Besides this, as we lately mentioned, he was longing for other booty, for he immediately transferred the war into Greece, as the angel will inform us. But he first announces, ‘his giving away his daughter to destroy her’. He here reproves the artifice of Antiochus the Great, in thus basely selling his daughter, as if she were a harlot. As far as he possibly could, he induced her to slay her husband either by poison or by other devices. Hence, ‘he gave up his daughter to destroy her, but she did not stand by him’, and was not for him; meaning, she did not assent to her father’s impious desires, and was unwilling to favour such monstrous wickedness. We read in profane writers the fulfilment of these predictions of the angel, and thus it more clearly appears how God placed before the eyes of the pious, a mirror in which they might behold His providence in ruling and preserving His Church. It now follows,”
11:18. “There is some obscurity in these words, but the history will afterwards determine the angel’s meaning. First (1st), as to the word “islands,” he doubtless means Asia Minor and the maritime coasts; also Greece, Cyprus, and all the islands of the Mediterranean Sea. It was a Jewish custom to call all places beyond the sea “islands,” as they were not very well skilled in navigation. Therefore he says, ‘He will turn his face to the islands’; that is, he shall turn to the opposite regions of the world. The Mediterranean Sea is known to be between Syria and Asia Minor; Cilicia, too, is between them, which was also under the dominion of Antiochus, although the seat of his power was Syria. Hence he calls Asia Minor, and Greece, and the Mediterranean islands, all “isles,” with respect to Syria and Judea. This occurred when the AEtolians renewed the war after the defeat of Philip. The Romans were the originators of this war in Greece, and they had the honourable pretext of liberating the whole of Greece after Philip of Macedon had seized upon many cities most skilfully fortified. But the AEtolians were proud and puffed up with the desire of superiority, as the event ultimately proved. They boasted themselves to be the liberators of Greece; they used the help of the Romans, but professed to be the principal leaders in the war, and when they saw Chalcis and other cities held by the Romans, the spirit of envy took possession of them. Titus Flaminius withdrew his garrisons from their cities, but yet the AEtolians were not satisfied; for they wished for the sole pre-eminence and the entire departure of the Romans. With this view they sent their ambassadors to Nabis the tyrant of the Lacedaemonians, to king Philip, and also to Antiochus. Thoas was the principal author of this contention, for after stirring up the neighbouring nations, he set out himself to Antiochus. When the AEtolians were puffed up by the large promises which he brought back, they expected to produce peace throughout Greece without the slightest trouble. Meanwhile Antiochus only advanced as far as Asia Minor with but a small force. He led Hannibal with him, whose fame alone inspired the Romans with dread; and had he taken his advice, he would certainly have had no difficulty in expelling the Romans. But the flatterers of his court did not allow Hannibal’s advice to prevail with this foolish king. Then Willius also cunningly rendered Antiochus suspicious of his advice: for he had been sent as ambassador into Asia Minor, had insinuated himself into his favour, and had acquired his friendship, and was so engaged in daily conference with him, that Antiochus suspected the fidelity of Hannibal to his interests. Hence he carried on that war entirely without method, or plan, or perseverance. When he arrived at Chalcis, he was smitten with the passion for a damsel there, and celebrated a foolish marriage with her, as if he had been completely at peace. Thus he had a citizen of Chalcis for his father-in-law, while he was a mighty monarch, unequalled by any throughout the world. Although he conducted himself thus inconsiderately, yet the celebrity of his fame rather than his personal exertions, enabled him at first to take many cities, not only in Asia Minor and on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, but also in Greece itself. He recovered Chalcis and other cities which had been seized upon by the Romans. The angel relates this as if the event had already occurred, and yet we are aware of them all being as yet future.
‘He will turn his face to the islands, and will take many, and a general shall cause him to cease, and shall turn his reproach against himself’. Antiochus often fought against the Romans, and always without success, although he sometimes thought himself superior; but from the time when Attilius the prefect of the fleet intercepted his supplies, and thus stopped his progress, M. Acilius the consul began to gain the mastery by land, and his power became gradually more and more enfeebled. When conquered in a naval engagement by Livius the praetor, he suffered a severe loss, and then when too late he acknowledged his error in not obeying the counsels of Hannibal; but he had lost the opportunity of renewing the war. Hence the angel here says, ‘A leader should make his reproach return upon himself’. This signifies how Antiochus should be puffed up with foolish pride, and how his insane boastings should rebound upon his own head, as he had vomited them forth with open mouth against the Romans. When he speaks here of his disgrace, I interpret it actively, as making his reproach remain; for the word (chrphth), ‘cherepheth’, means reproach, but there are two (2) ways of interpreting it, actively and passively. But as I have already said, the angel more probably speaks of his foolish boasting, for he had despised the Romans with contempt and insult. We know how foolishly he insulted them by his ambassadors among all the assemblies of Greece. ‘A leader’, then, either Acilius or Lucius Scipio, who drove him beyond Mount Taurus, ‘made his disgrace rest upon himself’, and ‘he shall not turn away his own disgrace’; that is, Antiochus vomited forth his reproaches against the Romans with swollen cheeks, but with utter futility. All these disgraceful speeches came to nothing, and never injured the Romans in the least; ‘but that leader’, either Lucius Scipio or Acilius, according to my statement, returned these reproaches upon himself by which he hoped to lay the Romans prostrate, but they turned out nothing but wind. The angel therefore derides the pride of Antiochus by saying, ‘A leader should come who should throw back these reproaches upon himself’, and prevent them from returning upon either this leader or the Romans. He takes the head as representing the whole body.” }}

Lecture 59th.
{{ 11:19. “Here either the base end of Antiochus is denoted, who was slain in a popular tumult while spoiling the temple of Belus, or else the event of the war between him and the Romans is described. This war was conducted under the auspices of Lucius Scipio, because Cneius Scipio, the conqueror of Africa, had offered himself as his brother’s lieutenant-general, and after his death that province was committed to him. But, as we have said, the resources of Antiochus had been cut off before this. He had lost the cities of Asia, and if he had ceded them at first, he might have quietly retained the greater part of Asia Minor. But as he extended his wings over Greece, and hoped by this means to become completely master of the whole of Greece and Macedonia, he could not be induced to withdraw his garrisons from those cities, but at length was compelled to give up Asia Minor. In this way, then, the angel describes the progress of the war by saying, He will turn his face to wards the fortifications of his own land; that is, when compelled to relinquish Greece, he will betake himself to fortified places. He was very safe there, and in a region sufficiently at peace; he had almost impregnable towns on all sides, and appeared to be free from warfare. Historians relate this to have been done by the skill of Cheius Scipio. For his son was then a captive under Antiochus, and he knew him to have greater authority than his brother, although he only possessed the title of lieutenant-general. They record his persuading Antiochus not to try his fortune by any decisive engagement. However it was, it is quite evident that he delayed fighting till he was compelled by a sense of shame, as all men accused him of cowardice in not daring to try the issue of an engagement when he possessed so large an army. The Romans had scarcely ever taken the field against so strong a force, and yet, according to the narrative of Titus Livius, they never displayed less terror or concern. The extent of the forces of Antiochus is readily apparent from the slaughter which occurred; in one day 50,000 men perished; and this would be almost incredible, unless it were borne out by numerous and trustworthy testimonies. In this way the angel said, Antiochus should return, as he did not go forth to meet Lucius Scipio, but suffered him to pass on. Had he given the least sign of resistance, without doubt Philip had in his hand and power the whole force of the Romans. Many indeed pronounced the conduct of L. Scipio to be rash, in daring to allow Philip such license, as he had been lately conquered, and was still exasperated in consequence of the loss and disgrace which he had suffered. For if Antiochus had been on the alert to restrain the enemy, it would have been all over with the Roman army in those narrow and rugged defiles; but, as we have stated, he kept his army in idleness and luxury among fortified towns. If another and a probable sense is preferred, the sentence applies to his base retreat to further Asia, where he fell, slain by the rustic population. ‘He shall fall, and shall not be found’. Antiochus in truth continued to reign from the period of the destruction of his army and of his acceptance of the conditions which the Romans imposed. He obtained peace, but not without the payment of a heavy fine while he retained the name of king. Although he united with the Romans in an honourable treaty, yet he was forced to retire beyond Mount Taurus, to pay a large sum of money on account of the expenses of the war, to give hostages, and to divide the ships equally with the Romans. In this latter case he was grossly and fraudulently deluded, for L. Scipio commanded all the ships to be cut to pieces, and delivered the materials to Antiochus, to whom they were utterly worthless. He knew the man to be deceptive and restless, and so he treated him with barbarity, according to his deserts. As far as the hostages are concerned, we find Antiochus and Demetrius his sons as hostages at Rome even after his death. He was left in peace indeed, but was deprived of the cities of Asia Minor, and was ordered to betake himself beyond Mount Taurus. Those ravines were the boundary of his empire; a part of Asia was assigned to Eumenes, and many cities became independent. Antiochus, by way of concealing his disgrace, made a joke of it, saying he had managed cleverly, for the government of Asia Minor was a great trouble to him. He had another ample and opulent kingdom with which he might well be content: I have hitherto been but a steward in Asia, he used to say, and the Romans have relieved me of that encumbrance.
When, therefore, the angel says, ‘After his fall, he should be no longer king’; this may be understood of his ignominious death which followed shortly afterwards. His avarice was insatiable, and when compelled to pay a large tribute to the Romans, he pretended to be reduced to extreme poverty; then he wished to spoil the temple of Jupiter Dodoneus, and was slain there during a tumult. This last word ought properly to be referred to this event, for King Antiochus was not found, because these rustics slew him in the tumult which arose. Thus far concerning Antiochus the Great; Seleucus now follows, who was his first successor. He had three (3) sons, Seleucus whom many call Ceraunus, then Antiochus Epiphanes, and Demetrius. Concerning Seleucus the angel speaks as follows:
11:20. “Seleucus, it is well known, did not long survive his father, for he was put to death either by poison, or by his domestics. Suspicion fell upon his brother Antiochus, who was sent back to his country after his father’s death was known. Demetrius alone was retained, who afterwards escaped by flight, for he left the city under the pretence of hunting, and followed the bank of the Tiber as far as Ostia, where he embarked on a small vessel, preferring to run all risk to remaining in perpetual banishment. Concerning Seleucus the angel says, ‘he shall stand in his place’, meaning, he shall succeed by hereditary right to the office of Antiochus the Great. Thus ‘he shall cause the exactor to pass over’. Some translate, He shall take away the exactor; for the verb (`br), ‘gneber’, in Hiphil, signifies to take away. The Hebrews use the verb of this clause in the sense of excluding. Some interpreters think this language implies the praise of Seleucus for lessening the tributes imposed by his father, but historians shew this view to be false, and condemn his avarice and rapacity. In some points he was superior to his brother Antiochus; although both lustful and cruel to those around him. Through indulgence in great expenses, he could not be moderate and lenient towards his subjects; for luxury and prodigality always draw with them cruelty in the exaction of tribute. For he who is thus profuse, must necessarily extract the very blood from his people. As Seleucus was thus devoted to self-indulgence, this sense is more appropriate —’he made the exactor to pass through’, meaning, he laid new and fresh taxes on all his subjects. Nothing but this is said of him, since he was immediately put to death, as the second clause of the verse informs us. If we prefer taking the words —the glory of the kingdom— by way of opposition, Seleucus will be praised as an honour and an ornament. But I think we must supply the letter (l), ‘l’, and understand the passage thus: ‘He who shall cause the exactor to pass through shall stand in his place, and shall be destroyed in a few days’. By the word “destroyed,” he signifies a bloody death. ‘But not in anger’, says he. I wonder why some translate it “in mutual conflict,” because the Hebrews imply “anger” by this word; meaning, he should not perish in open warfare, or in the course of a battle, but by the hands of his domestics. Historians differ as to the kind of death which he died, some saying he was poisoned, and others, slain by the sword. But this difference is of no consequence. Antiochus Epiphanes next succeeds him.”
11:21. “Historians agree in representing Antiochus Epiphanes to have been of a very crafty disposition, and some state his departure from Rome to have been by stealth. He was most probably dismissed by the Romans, on the news of his father’s death, as they were content with his brother Demetrius. They had other hostages besides, who were among the chief nobles of the land, as well as this third (3rd) son of the king. However this was, all are agreed in relating his cunning. He was so cruel and fierce, that Polybius says he was called ‘Epimanes’ by way of a nickname, and as he assumed the name of ‘Illustrious’, he was called the ‘Madman’, on account of his turbulent disposition. He was a monster puffed up with various vices; being of a slavish and flattering temperament, he endeavoured to acquire the favour of Rome by artifice, as we shall afterwards discover. But when he was not actuated by fear, his cruelty and ferocity were beyond all bounds. For this reason he is called ‘contemptible’. He was held in some esteem at Rome, and was received by a portion of his people with great applause. But he was not endued with any heroic or even regal qualities, for he always flattered the Romans, and insinuated himself into the favour of the citizens in this way, until he came to his kingdom as a suppliant; and then the angel calls him a contemptible or despicable person. Another reason equally probable may be brought forward, namely, his seizing upon the throne by fraud and wickedness, after setting aside the legitimate heir. For Seleucus left a successor whom this perfidious plotter deprived of his rights, and thus fraudulently acquired the kingdom for himself. We know of what importance God makes every one’s calling, and how He restrains men from rashly arrogating anything to themselves, as they ought always to be satisfied with that station which is assigned them by God. As, therefore, Antiochus seized on the kingdom without any right to it, and drove out the lawful heir, he was contemptible before God, and would never have been king at all except by violence and tyranny on his part, as well as by deceit and cunning devices. I have no hesitation in stating that the angel here censures the perverse conduct of Antiochus, by calling him ‘despised’ through the absence of all nobleness of feeling.
He next adds, ‘They shall not confer upon him the honour of royalty’. By these words he announces the injustice of his reign through not being chosen by the votes of the people. We have stated that the son of Seleucus ought to have reigned without any dispute, but the very person who should have been his nephew’s guardian, wickedly deprived his ward of his paternal inheritance. Hence the angel speaks of him rather as a robber than as a king, because he seized upon the kingdom, and was not elected by the popular choice. It follows: ‘he shall come in peace, and seize the kingdom by flatteries’. This is the explanation of the last clause. It might be asked, how did he deprive his nephew of his kingdom? the reply is —he shall come peacefully, meaning, he shall lay aside everything which he was agitating in his mind, and should not openly boast of his being king, but should deceitfully act in the character of guardian until he had the power of ruining his ward. He shall come, then, peacefully, and shall seize the kingdom by flatteries. Thus we see the angel’s meaning in these words. Besides, although Daniel did not see all these things, nor even many of the chosen people, yet they tasted enough of these prophecies to satisfy them, and to banish anxiety from their minds. They were permitted to perceive God speaking through His angel, and experience taught them the truth of everything which is contained here, even if many events should be hidden from them. But it was God’s object to support the spirits of the pious, even to the advent of Christ, and to retain them in tranquillity amidst the greatest disturbances. Thus they would acknowledge the value of the promise of the Redeemer, after he had been set forth, as will be mentioned at the close of the chapter. I will now proceed to the next words.”
11:22. “We may naturally conjecture that the dominions of Antiochus were not immediately at peace, because a portion of his court favoured the lawful heir. As it always happens in every change of government, there were many tumults in Syria before Antiochus could remove his adversaries out of his way. For although the kingdom of Egypt was then destitute of a head, as Ptolemy, called Philometor, was then only a boy, his counsellors were in favour of the son of Seleucus, and so by secret supplies afforded their aid to the faction opposed to Antiochus. He had much trouble not only with his own people, but also with the neighbouring nations. All pitied the lot of his ward, and his being quite undeserving of it, moved many to render him every possible help. The boy was aided by the favour of Egypt, and of other nations. Thus Antiochus was subject to many severe commotions, but the angel announces his final conquest. ‘The arms’, he says, ‘shall be inundated’. This is a metaphorical expression; for whatever aid the son of Seleucus acquired, was not by his own efforts, for he could use none, but by that of his friends. ‘The arms’, then, meaning, all the auxiliaries which should assist in the restoration of the son of Seleucus, ‘should be overwhelmed by an inundation’. This is another metaphor, signifying, they shall be drowned as by a deluge; and by this figure the angel hints not only at the victory of Antiochus, but at its great facility. It was like a deluge, not by its own strength, but because God wished to use the hand of this tyrant in afflicting the Israelites, as we shall afterwards see, and also in harassing both Egypt and Syria. Antiochus was in truth God’s scourge, and is thus compared to a deluge. Hence he says, ‘out of his sight’. He shews the terror of Antiochus to be so great, that at his very appearance he should dispirit and prostrate his enemies, although he was without forces, and was neither a bold nor a persevering warrior.
‘And they shall be broken’, says he, ‘and also the leader of the covenant’; meaning, Ptolemy shall take the part of his relative in vain. For the son of Seleucus was the cousin of Ptolemy Philometor, since, as we have said, Cleopatra had married Ptolemy Philopator, whence this Philometor was sprung, and Seleucus was the brother of Cleopatra. He, then, was the ‘leader of the covenant’. Ptolemy, indeed, who was but a boy, could neither undertake nor accomplish anything by his own counsel, but such was his dignity in the kingdom of Egypt, that he was deservedly called ‘leader of the covenant’, since all others followed the power of that king. The event fully proved with what ill success all who endeavoured to eject Antiochus from his possessions, contended against him. It now follows:”
11:23. “The angel points out some interruption of the wars, because Antiochus would be content for a time with Syria, and would not make an attempt of Egypt. It was a great point to repel the attempts of all those who wished to recover the rights of his nephew. There is no doubt that the whole country was impoverished and exhausted with the continual expense of these wars; for whenever fresh commotions arose, it was necessary to draw new levies from these provinces, and this occasioned very great expense. It is not surprising, then, if Antiochus, who was of a cunning disposition, negotiated a temporary peace with his nephew Ptolemy Philometor the king of Egypt. His sister Cleopatra still survived, and this was an honourable excuse. The angel, then, states first, the proposal of a truce leading to settled peace between the two (2) sovereigns. He adds, however, the perfidious conduct of Antiochus in his friendships. ‘During’, or ‘after these agreements’, he ‘shall deal treacherously with him’. Although, therefore, he pretended to be the friend and ally of his nephew, yet he conducted himself deceitfully towards him. ‘And he shall ascend, and shall prevail by a small band’; meaning, he shall attack the boy suddenly. For when Ptolemy anticipated a lasting friendship with his uncle, Antiochus took the opportunity of fraudulently attacking some cities with a small force: He thus deceived his enemy, who thought all things would be tranquil with him; and so when Ptolemy had no fear of his uncle, he suddenly lost some of his cities. The angel means this; ‘he shall rise’ by deceit, and ‘shall prevail without large forces’, because there shall be no suspicion of warfare. It is easy enough to oppress an enemy in a state of tranquillity, and in the absence of all fear. It is afterwards added,— ”
11:24. “The history is here continued: The angel shews how Antiochus in a short time and with a small band should acquire many cities, ‘as he should come in peace upon the fatness of the province’, implying his oppressing them while sleeping in security. He shews also how he should become conqueror, not by any hostile invasion of Egypt, but by cunning and stealth he should deprive King Ptolemy of his cities when he least expected it. There should be no appearance of war; hence he says, ‘he shall come in peace upon the fatness of the land’. The word “fatness” is used metaphorically for “richness.” When the Egyptians supposed all danger to be far removed, and were persuaded of the friendship of Antiochus towards them, and relied on him as an ally should any adversity arise, they indulged themselves in luxuries till Antiochus came suddenly and subdued them. He next adds, ‘He shall despise the spoil, and prey, and goods, which belonged to them’. Some take the words for spoil and prey in the sense of “soldiers,” and join it with the verb (ybzur), ‘ibzor’, “he shall disperse,” meaning, he shall distribute their possessions among his soldiers, to conciliate their good will, and to prepare them for new wars, as we know how easily soldiers are enticed when they receive the rewards of their service; for they are actuated solely by covetousness and avarice. Some writers expound it in this way —Antiochus shall divide the prey among his soldiers, but I prefer the other sense —’he shall disperse the prey, and the spoil, and the goods, of the Egyptians’. After suddenly oppressing the Egyptians, he shall proceed to spoil them like a robber.
He afterwards adds, ‘And against the fortifications shall he devise machinations’, meaning, he shall lay his plans for seizing the fortified cities. For at first (1st) he penetrated as far as certain cities, and occupied first (1st) Coelo-Syria, and afterwards Phoenice, but could not quickly possess the fortified towns; hence he deferred the execution of his plans to a more suitable time. Therefore, the angel says, ‘he shall arrange his plans against the fortified cities, but only for the time’; meaning, he shall not immediately bring forward his intentions, hoping to oppress his nephew when off his guard. Thus under the disguise of peace an access to these cities would always be open to him, and he would reconcile to himself all whom he could corrupt by either gifts or other devices. We perceive, then, how a summary is here presented to us of the arts and schemes by which Antiochus should deprive his nephew of a portion of his territory and its towns, how suddenly he should invade some of the weakest in a state of unsuspecting tranquillity; and how by degrees he should invent machinations for seizing upon the stronger towns as well as he could. He also says, ‘for the time’. The cunning and malice of Antiochus was always apparent throughout these transactions. He did not engage in open warfare, but was always endeavouring to add to his possessions by indirect frauds, —a course which was not without its success.
When it is said, ‘He shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers did’, this must be restricted solely to Egypt. For Seleucus the first (1st) king of Syria enjoyed a wide extent of dominion: then he prospered in warfare, and his fame flourished even to a good old age, and though at last he was unsuccessful in battle, yet on the whole he was a superior and celebrated warrior. Besides this we know him to have been one (1) of the chief generals of Alexander the Great. As to his son Antiochus, we have previously observed the wide extent of his dominion, and how highly he was esteemed for prudence and valour. The angel does not compare Antiochus Epiphanes generally with either his father, or grandfather, or great-grandfather, but only with respect to Egypt. For his ancestors always longed after Egypt, but their designs against it were entirely frustrated; he, however, was more successful in his aggression where his ancestors had failed in their attempts. Hence it becomes manifest how God overrules the events of war, so that the conqueror and the triumphant hero is not the man who excels in counsel, or in prudence, or valour, but he who fights under the heavenly leader. It pleases God at one time to afflict nations, and at another to set over them kings who are really His servants. So He wished to punish Egypt by the hands of this robber. It afterwards follows.”
11:25. “The angel here announces how Antiochus Epiphanes after prevailing by fraud, should become bolder in his daring. He should venture to levy a hostile army and invade Egypt openly, without any further dissimulation. He therefore says, ‘at length he shall rouse his strength and his courage’. He had previously crept along through hiding-places and fastnesses, and had not roused either his strength or his courage when remaining quiet at home; meanwhile he obtained the possession of various towns by treachery and other artifices. This was only creeping on by burrowing underground. But he now openly declares war, and brings his forces into the field of battle, and thus ‘stirs up his strength and his courage’. As I have already said, his new method of warfare is here described as unusual with him, as his audacity, doubtless, gradually increased through that series of success which he had enjoyed, and by which he had become more powerful than his nephew, through the practice of deceit. He afterwards adds, ‘with a great army’. He had mentioned a small band, he now places opposite to it a large army; for it required a long space of time to collect extensive pecuniary resources for carrying on the war, and also for enlarging and extending his own boundaries. He was thus able to enrol fresh levies, while his prosperity induced many to become his auxiliaries. As he found himself in every way superior to his nephew, he collected a great army. ‘The king of the south also shall be irritated’; that is, he shall not dare to harass his own uncle Antiochus, but shall be forced to open warfare. ‘He shall come, then, with a great army’, verygreat, strong, and powerful, says he, ‘but he shall not stand, because they shall devise devices against him’; meaning, he shall be conquered by treachery. Here the angel signifies that Ptolemy should have sufficient courage to resist, had he not been betrayed by his adherents. We shall more clearly perceive this in the next verse to-morrow.” }}

Lecture 60th.
11:26. “The angel predicted, yesterday, that Ptolemy should not stand forth in battle, through the treachery of his own adherents. He now expresses the kind of treachery, for his chief courtiers or counsellors should be the authors of this perfidy. He opposes the common soldiers to their leaders, for in the second (2nd) clause, he shews how the soldiers should discharge their duty without sparing either their life or their blood. We now understand the Holy Spirit’s intention in this verse, for he says the authors of this perfidy should not be ordinary men, but the chief among the counsellors. They are said to eat at the king’s table, as in the first (1st) chapter we saw how a portion was given to Daniel, and to his companions, from the royal food at the king’s table. Thus he shews how dishonourable this perfidy was, as they eat at his table, and were his intimate companions. ‘They shall destroy him’, says he, ‘and his army shall be overwhelmed’. He shews that many were prepared for this duty, who would boldly and freely expose their lives to danger for their king’s safety and their country’s defence, ‘but many should fall wounded’. He signifies that there should be a great slaughter in his army, and the issue of the battle would not be according to his wish, because his generals would not preserve their fidelity to their sovereign. By this example the angel describes to us the ordinary situation of kings. They choose their counsellors not by their honesty, but by the mere appearance of congeniality in their affections and tastes. If a king is avaricious, or cunning, or cruel, or sensual, he desires to have friends and attendants who will not check either his avarice or his craftiness, his cruelty or his lust. Hence they deserve the conduct which they receive, and experience treachery from those whom they ought not to treat with so much honour, if they considered themselves in duty bound to God and to their people. It now follows,”
11:27. “The angel here narrates that the close of this war should be by treaties and a hollow pretence of peace after the slaughter which Ptolemy had sustained. Although Antiochus might have followed up his own good fortune, yet he durst not venture to push his advantage to the extremity, but according to his disposition, he thought it more to his interest to make peace with his enemy. We have already alluded to his craftiness and his want of openness and integrity. The angel predicts the existence of bad faith in both these kings; the uncle and nephew will meet, says he, and sup together, and pretend the greatest friendship, ‘but they shall speak lies’, says he, ‘at the same table’; meaning, they shall plot against each other, and each shall act fraudulently for his own ends. This prophecy indeed seems to be of little consequence to the faithful; but it was needful to shew that in such a state of confusion they could not hold out without being furnished with all kinds of support. If the angel had only said generally, first there shall be war, and then a temporary peace, this would not have been sufficient to sustain the minds of the pious; but when the details are so clearly pointed out, a remarkable confirmation is afforded them. Thus the faithful have no reason for doubting that God has spoken, when the angel predicts the future so exactly, and so openly narrates it, as if a matter of history.
He next adds, ‘Yet it shall not prosper, because the end is for the time’, says he. The angel recalls the faithful to the providence of God, as our minds always naturally rest in the midst of earthly things. We apprehend with our minds only as far as we see with our eyes. We always ask the reasons “why this happens” and “why that course of proceeding has not turned out well,” entirely omitting the will of God. Hence the angel meets this fault and stupidity of men by saying, that whatever these kings were plotting should fail of success, ‘since the end was for the time’; meaning, God would hold many occurrences in suspense. While, therefore, we are considering only second (2nd) causes, we perceive how the supreme power resides with God alone, and He governs by His will the mutual transactions of mankind. No slight advantage would result to the faithful from this instruction, because, while kings are devising many schemes, and using great cunning and all the perverse artifices of diplomacy, God still restrains their minds. He holds events by His secret bridle, and allows nothing to happen without His heavenly decree. Although we may gather this general instruction from this passage, yet the angel doubtless restricts what I have said to the historical events immediately before us. The end had not yet approached, yet the fitting time was fixed beforehand by God’s secret counsel, so that Antiochus conquers at one (1) period and retreats at another, as we shall see. It follows:”
11:28. “Here the angel predicts the calamitous nature of that peace for the people of God, because Antiochus should turn his arms against Jerusalem and the whole Jewish people. It is said, ‘He shall return to his own land’, because he shall not possess Egypt. This return implies the victory of Antiochus, and yet his betaking himself within the boundaries of his own realm. When he adds, with great pomp, or great riches, he shews the source whence that wealth should be derived, —’his heart should be against the holy covenant’. He partially destroyed Jerusalem and the temple of God. He was compelled to leave the temple and many treasures, through either shame, or reverence, or a miracle, as we read in the 2nd Book of Maccabees. (Chap. 5:2.) He would willingly have stripped the whole temple, but God then restrained him, while he had gathered for himself great wealth. Hence the angel joins the two (2) events, he should return to Syria with great wealth, and his heart should be against the holy covenant. Some refer this to persons, as if the angel meant the people who were in covenant with God. But the simpler sense pleases me better, he should carry on war against God, because he was not enriched with such ample spoils as he had expected. We have mentioned his making peace with his enemy: lest, therefore, this expedition should be fruitless, he spoiled the temple of God. ‘Thus his heart was elated against God and against his holy covenant’. The other exposition is too cold and too forced.
‘And he shall do it and shall return to his own land’. This return at the end of the verse is taken in a different sense from that at the beginning, as now he should use his own will as a conqueror, and no one should oppose his arrival in his own territories. These two expressions are to be read together, ‘he shall do it and return to his own dominions’. The meaning of the word for “do” we have already explained. The angel signifies the absence of every obstacle which could prevent the destruction of the city and temple by Antiochus. This was a severe trial, and would cause the minds of the faithful to be disturbed and tossed about because God gave up His temple to this cruel tyrant, and permitted the sacred vessels and the hidden treasures to be carried off with the greatest ignominy. It was necessary, then, to inform the faithful beforehand of this grievous slaughter, lest its novelty should astonish them and overthrow the constancy of their faith. Hence we gather this practical instruction —God often predicts many sorrowful events for us, and yet this instruction ought not to imbitter our feelings; for He wishes to fortify us against the trial which the novelty of the event must occasion. Thus the angel, while treating of occurrences by no means agreeable, was a useful herald of all the calamities which must happen, lest anything unusual or unexpected should fall upon the pious. Thus they would acknowledge the affliction to proceed from God’s hand; and while they were exposed to the lust of Antiochus, yet God by His certain and incomprehensible counsel allowed much license to this impious tyrant. It afterwards follows:”
11:29-30. “First of all, the angel says, Antiochus should return a short time afterwards and take possession of Egypt. This was the fruit of that pretended peace and perfidious friendship which has already been mentioned. For the uncle and nephew banqueted together in mutual distrust, as the angel has already stated, and as we found in the 27th verse of this chapter. This deception was shortly afterwards dissolved, when Antiochus, without any reasonable impulse, returned to Egypt. In this way he shewed his want of nothing but an opportunity for-breaking the truce, and he only delayed it for a time, because he had no wish to oppress his nephew in haste. This, then, is one point. We may take the word (mw`d), ‘mogned’, “time,” for a period divinely predetermined; but as this explanation may seem too forced, I am contented with the common one. ‘He shall return’, then, ‘for a time, and shall come’, says he, ‘to Egypt; but the latter exposition shall not be like the former’; for the whole preparation for war which had struck such terror into Egypt should lose its effect. He had seized on a portion of the kingdom, and King Ptolemy Philometor was besieged when Publius Popilius arrived, of whom the angel will presently speak. For the cause of his return is added, —’ships shall come from Chittim’. We have explained this word elsewhere. By comparing all the passages of Scripture in which the word occurs, we shall find all the Gentiles denoted by it, from Macedon through the whole of Greece, as far as Illyricum and Italy. The ancients used another term for the Macedonians; they call them ‘Maketae’, and some think the letter ‘M’ a useless addition. But whether this be so or not, the circumstances shew the Macedonians, and Greeks, and other transmarine nations, to have been called Chittim. If any one still disputes about this word, let us desist from all contention; still, we cannot help observing what the perpetual tenor of Scripture enables us to discover, —that the Macedonians, Greeks, and Italians are included under this term. This passage is free from all doubt, because Antiochus was restrained not by the Greeks but by the Romans. Ambassadors were sent by them, not for this purpose alone, but to investigate the whole state of Greece and Asia Minor. The affairs of Greece were then very unsettled, and the Romans were turning their attention towards Achaia, for they thought the Achaean league would become too powerful. Among these ambassadors was P. Popilius, a stern man, as we may venture to conjecture, but austere and barbarous. When he met with Antiochus, who was then besieging Alexandria, and held the boy-king in captivity, he addressed him after his own manner. King Antiochus received him graciously, and mildly, and even blandly, and wished even to salute him, for, as we have already stated, his disposition was naturally servile. Popilius rejected all these advances, and ordered him to keep his familiarities for private intercourse; for Antiochus had been intimate with him when a hostage at Rome, during his father’s lifetime. He rejected all these acts of courtesy, and explained to him the commands of the Senate, and ordered him instantly to depart from Egypt. The king said he would consult with his friends. But he was unable to lay aside his accustomed sternness; he drew a circle with the wand which he held in his hand, and ordered the king to summon his counsellors, and to deliberate on the spot, otherwise he must declare war at once. When the king perceived this barbarian acting so decisively, he dared no longer to hesitate or dissemble, but threw himself at once into the power of the Senate, and suddenly retired from the country. This history is now described by the angel. All these events were as yet unperformed, but God set before the eyes of the pious what was then entirely concealed and contrary to the expectation of mankind. The angel therefore states the reason why that expedition of Antiochus should be quite unlike the last one (1). ‘There shall come against him’, says he, ‘ships of Chittim’, meaning Italy, and he shall grieve and return; that is, he shall obey, although he shall feel indignant at such imperious treatment, and be compelled to retreat with every mark of disgrace. It was unworthy of a king to demean himself so humbly at the mere word of his adversary.
This accounts for his indignation: ‘But he shall return and be indignant against the covenant of holiness’; meaning, he shall turn his rage against the temple and city of God. This second return involved the Jews in a far longer period of slaughter than the former one. Antiochus was then unwilling to return home, unless laden with spoil, after pretending to establish peace; but now he was compelled to retreat with great disgrace, and this only exasperated and enraged him. Hence he acted most outrageously towards both the people and the temple of God. Thus the angel says, ‘He shall be indignant against the holy covenant, and shall do so and return’. He repeats the same language twice; as if he had said, Antiochus should return to Syria without effecting his object, through obeying the Roman Senate, or rather his old friend whom he had known at Rome. We have already stated the reason, which we shall afterwards more fully explain, why the angel predicted the fury of the king as turned against the holy covenant. It is this, —the confidence of the pious would naturally be injured by observing the divine permission granted to the tyrant for spoiling the temple.
He next adds, ‘And he shall act with intelligence towards the forsakers of the holy covenant’. The angel here points out the manner in which secret agreements should take place between Antiochus and those apostates who should desert God’s holy covenant. It is quite clear that he was summoned to Jerusalem, first (1st), by Jason, and then by Menelaus. (2nd Macc. 4:19-23.) I shall touch but briefly events recorded in history. Profane authors inform us accurately of these occurrences, and besides this, a whole book of Maccabees gives us similar information, and places clearly before us what the angel here predicts. Everyone who wishes to read these prophecies with profit, must make himself familiar with these books, and must try to remember the whole history. Onias the elder was a holy man; his son has been previously mentioned. (2nd Macc. 3:1.) For, with the view of escaping from snares, he set out for Egypt and built a temple, as Josephus informs us, and pretended to fulfil that passage in Isaiah which says, “There shall be an altar to God in Egypt”. But Onias the elder, who discharged faithfully and sacredly the office of high priest, was put to flight, and eventually put to death. Then Jason, whom he had sent to appease Antiochus, assumed the high priesthood, and betrayed the temple and the whole nation, as well as the worship of God. (2nd Macc. 4:35-37; also 7) He afterwards met with the reward which he deserved, for he was slain, and then Menelaus succeeded him, and conciliated the favour of Antiochus. (2nd Macc. 5:9; 4:27.) The authority of the priesthood prevailed so far as to enable him to draw with him a great portion of the people. Here, then, the angel predicts how Antiochus, on approaching the city, should have deserters and apostates as his companions. The words are, ‘He shall apply his mind to the forsakers of the holy covenant’, and the sense is by no means obscure. Antiochus should not make open war against the Jews, but one faction should go forth to meet him and ingratiate themselves with him. I run through these events briefly, because when I afterwards arrive at a general summary, it will be far more convenient to elicit the general improvement. The angel says next:”
11:31-32. “Here the angel describes the intestine evils of the Church, and more fully explains what he touched on in the last verse. He says, ‘The arms shall stand up for Antiochus’. Some explain this of the garrison which that tyrant imposed on Jerusalem. But this seems too far-fetched. I do not hesitate to suppose the angel to refer here to the apostates and forsakers of the Law. ‘Arms’, then, ‘shall stand up from him’, meaning, he shall not contend in his own strength, but shall rely upon the people’s assistance. Many should offer themselves in obedience to him, and thus Antiochus would find a party devoted to himself at Jerusalem, which should willingly prostitute itself to his will. He afterwards adds, ‘They shall profane the sanctuary of strength’. The angel here joins together Antiochus and these impious apostates. (2nd Macc. 6:2.) To favour him, the temple is said to be polluted, and this was fulfilled when the statue of Jupiter Olympius was erected there. The tyranny and violence of Antiochus continued long afterwards, as we shall see in its own place. He brought the statue of the Olympian Jove into the temple, for the purpose of overthrowing the worship of God, and then he introduced other corruptions, which vitiated the purity of God’s service. He might in one moment have overthrown the whole Law, but he first tried to mingle many superstitions with God’s Law, and thus to estrange the Jews by degrees from true and sincere piety. The angel speaks of ‘the sanctuary of power’, to shew the faithful that Antiochus is not the conqueror of God, who was never deprived of his power, but continued the guardian and keeper of his temple even unto the end. He uses this epithet for the temple, to assure the pious that God had not given way to the violence of the tyrant. His authority stood untouched and untainted, although his temple was exposed to such foul pollution.
Lastly, he wished the faithful to retain by this teaching a sense of God’s unconquered power in choosing that temple for His dwelling-place, although for a time Antiochus was so insulting, and was permitted to profane it with His impious crew. This instruction urged the pious to look upon God’s power with the eye of faith, although it was then hidden from their view, and was trampled under foot by the impious in the pride of their audacity. Sorrowful indeed was the spectacle of this statue erected within the temple, for God, according to our previous statement, promised to be the defender of that sacred mountain. When the impious were raging thus insultingly, who would not have thought God to be altogether conquered and unable to defend His residence any longer? The angel then here encourages the faithful to cultivate far different thoughts from those suggested by the prospect before them. The temple, then, seemed weak and deprived of every protection, and yet with respect to God it was still a sanctuary of strength. He next adds, ‘And they shall abolish the continual sacrifice’, which really occurred; but I pass it over shortly now, as I shall have another opportunity of explaining it suitably and fully. ‘And they shall place’, or set up, ‘that abomination which shall cause astonishment’. For who would not have been astonished when he saw the temple deserted by the Almighty? For if God cared for the temple services, why did He not resist rage like this? Why did He suffer Himself to be subjected to such disgraceful indignity? The angel meets such temptations as these by saying, even if the very best men are astonished at such disgrace, yet nothing happens by chance; for God had already foreseen and decreed all things. They would not have been predicted, unless God had wished to prove the people’s faith, and to exact the penalty for their ingratitude. But I cannot complete the subject to-day.” }}

Lecture 61st.
{{ 11:31-32. “We stated in the last Lecture, the seriousness of the test by which God proved the faithfulness of His people, in allowing Antiochus such unbounded liberty to pollute the Temple, and to abolish, for a time, all the sacrifices and services. He next set up in the midst of the Temple that abomination which cast down the spirits of the pious; for that prodigy could not be witnessed without the most profound astonishment. No one could suppose it possible, that God would expose His own sanctuary to such dishonour, as it was the only one which He had chosen in the whole world. It now follows, ‘And he shall deceive the transgressors of the covenant with blandishment, but a people knowing their God will retain it firmly and practise it’. Here Daniel more clearly expresses what he had previously said of the corruption and overthrow of God’s worship, as Antiochus should enticingly win over to himself a perfidious portion of those who were nominally, at least, God’s people. He thus repeats what we observed before. These hypocrites were like the arms of Antiochus; for had he captured the city by the force of arms, still he would not have dared to offer these insults to God’s Temple, unless he had received assistance from those apostates who rejected all fear of the Almighty, and whom ambition and avarice alone had impelled to unite with that impious tyrant, who was the avowed and professed enemy of their religion. The angel, then, here confirms what he had previously said, shewing how the wicked and impious despisers of the covenant should be tools in the hand of this robber. For the first word of verse 32 is derived from (rsh`), ‘reshegn’, “to do wickedly,” and refers to that special act of sinfulness, their despising God’s covenant. This refers to those intestine enemies who had previously boasted themselves to be sons of Abraham, and who were masked by circumcision, the sign of that covenant. He does not here point out any of the mere dregs of the people, but the impious priests, Menelaus, Jason, and others like them, as the passage has already been explained. He says then, ‘these should be deceived by the blandishments of Antiochus’. He doubtless offered to the priests and to others what he thought they would value most; one he set over the Temple, another he deceived with vain and fallacious promises for a time, by distributing a variety of gifts among them. In this way he corrupted them all by his flatteries. To these the Prophet opposes the sincere worshippers of God, and the Hebrew copula ought to be understood here as implying this contrast. He had already spoken of many as deceived by vain promises, and had called them transgressors of the covenant: he now adds, ‘But the people who know God shall strengthen themselves and shall do it’. The angel means that the perfidy of those of whom he had spoken, should not prevail with the pious to lead them into the same alliance of wickedness, and to hurl them headlong into the same snares. Although such was the perfidy of these revolters, yet ‘all who know God’, says he, ‘shall strengthen themselves’-….
11:33-34…..”God shews how He would afford help to His elect, although it might possibly seem of no consequence to them. For He dwells on ‘the smallness of the assistance’ —which literally happened. Without doubt the angel referred to Mattathias and his sons, usually called the Maccabees. (1st Macc. 2:1.)…….
This passage may lead us to inquire whether the angel approved of all the exploits of the Maccabees. We may reply to the question in two opposite ways. First of all, if anyone persists in contending from the angel’s words for God’s approval of every action of the Maccabees, this view is by no means correct. God might use the Maccabees in succouring the wretched Israelites, and yet it does not follow that they conducted the good cause properly and lawfully. It very often occurs, when the faithful offer their services to God, and have one object set before them, that they fail either through inconsiderate zeal, or through partial ignorance. Whether we take this view or not, our object is often good when our manner of proceeding is objectionable. And thus it was with the Maccabees; God, doubtless, stirred up Mattathias to collect the dispersed remnant of the people, to restore His worship, and to purge His temple from the abominations which Antiochus had set up. Yet in the troublous times which occurred, his sons, doubtless, failed in many points of duty. The cause which they undertook was just, while particular actions of theirs cannot be approved by us. It now follows.
11:35……The severity of the despotism of Antiochus is notorious, no one dared to utter a word, all the sacred books were burnt, and he thought the worship of God entirely abolished. Women with their children were promiscuously seized for burning, and the satellites of this tyrant did not spare the mothers with infants hanging on their breasts. (1st Macc. 1) During the progress of such atrocious cruelty, who would not have thought the whole seed of God to have been extinct? ”
11:36. “This passage is very obscure, and has consequently been explained in very opposite ways by interpreters. And whatever is obscure, is usually doubtful, and there would be little utility and no termination, if I were to narrate the opinions of them all. I shall therefore follow another method, and omitting all superfluous labour, I shall simply inquire the angel’s meaning. I must, however, refer briefly to opinions received by the consent of the majority, because they occupy the minds of many, and thus close the door to the correct interpretation. The Jews, for instance, are not agreed among themselves, and their difference of opinion only serves to produce and perpetuate darkness, rather than to diffuse the clearness of light. Some explain it of Antiochus, and others of the Romans, but in a manner different to that which I shall afterwards state. The Christian expositors present much variety, but the greater number incline towards Antichrist as fulfilling the prophecy. Others, again, use greater moderation by supposing Antichrist to be here obliquely hinted at, while they do not exclude Antiochus as the type and image of Antichrist. This last opinion has great probability, but I do not approve of it, and can easily refute it. Antiochus did not long survive the pollution of the Temple, and then the following events by no means suit the occurrences of his time. Nor can his sons be fairly substituted in his place, and hence we must pass on to some other king, distinct from Antiochus and his heirs. As I have already stated, some of the Rabbis explain this of the Romans, but without judgment, for they first apply the passage to Wespasian, and Titus his son, and then extend it to the present times, which is utterly without reason, as they chatter foolishly, according to their usual custom. Those who explain it of Antichrist, have some colour of reason for their view, but there is no soundness in their conclusion, and we shall perceive this better in the progress of our exposition. We must now discover what king the angel here designates. First of all, I apply it entirely to the Roman Empire, but I do not consider it to begin at the reign of the Caesars, for this would be unsuitable and out of date, as we shall see. By the word “king” I do not think a single person indicated, but an empire, whatever be its government, whether by a senate, or by consuls, or by proconsuls. This need not appear either harsh or absurd, as the Prophet had previously discussed the four (4) monarchies, and when treating of the Romans he calls their power a kingdom, as if they had but a single (1) ruler over them. And when he spoke of the Persian monarchy, he did not refer to a single (1) ruler, but included them all, from Cyrus to the last Darius, who was conquered by Alexander. This method of speech is already very familiar to us, as the word “king” often means “kingdom.” The angel, then, when saying, ‘a king shall do’ anything, does not allude to Antiochus, for all history refutes this. Again, he does not mean any single (1) individual, for where shall we find one (1) who exalted himself against all gods? who oppressed God’s Church, and fixed his palace between two seas, and seized upon the whole East! The Romans alone did this. I intend to shew more clearly to-morrow how beautifully and appositely everything related by the angel applies to the Roman empire; and if anything should appear either obscure or doubtful, a continued interpretation will bring it to light and confirm it.
We lay this down at once; the angel did not prophesy of Antiochus, or any single (1) monarch, but of a new empire, meaning, the Roman. We have the reason at hand why the angel passes directly from Antiochus to the Romans. God desired to support the spirits of the pious, lest they should be overwhelmed by the number and weight of the massacres which awaited them and the whole Church even to the advent of Christ. It was not sufficient to predict the occurrences under the tyranny of Antiochus; for after his time, the Jewish religion was more and more injured, not only by foreign enemies, but by their own priesthood. Nothing remained unpolluted, since their avarice and ambition had arrived at such a pitch, that they trode underfoot the whole glory of God, and the law itself. The faithful required to be fortified against such numerous temptations, until Christ came, and then God renewed the condition of his Church. The time, therefore, which intervened between the Maccabees and the manifestation of Christ ought not to be omitted. The reason is now clear enough why the angel passes at once from Antiochus to the Romans.
We must next ascertain how the Romans became connected with the elect people of God. Had their dominion been limited to Europe alone, the allusion to them would have been useless and out of place. But from the period of the kings of Syria being oppressed by many and constant devastations in war, both at home and abroad, they were unable to injure the Jews as they had previously done; then new troubles sprang up through the Romans. We know, indeed, when many of the kings of Syria were indulging in arrogance, how the Romans interposed their authority, and that, too, with bad faith, for the purpose of subjecting the east to themselves. Then when Attalus made the Roman people his heir, the whole of Asia Minor became absorbed by them. They became masters of Syria by the will of this foolish king, who defrauded his legal heirs, thinking by this conduct to acquire some regard for his memory after his death. From that period, when the Romans first acquired a taste of the wealth of these regions, they never failed to find some cause for warfare. At length Pompey subdued Syria, and Lucullus, who had previously carried on war with Mithridates, restored the kingdom to Tigranes. Pompey, as I have already remarked, subjected Syria to the Romans. He left, indeed, the Temple untouched, but we may conjecture the cruelty which he exercised towards the Jews by the ordinary practice of this people. The clemency of the Romans towards the nations which they subdued is notorious enough. After Crassus, the most rapacious of all men, had heard much of the wealth of the Jews, he desired that province as his own. We know, too, how Pompey and Caesar, while they were friends, partitioned the whole world among themselves. Gaul and Italy were assigned entirely to Caesar; Pompey obtained Spain, and part of Africa and Sicily; while Crassus obtained Syria and the regions of the east, where he miserably perished, and his head, filled with gold, was carried about in mockery from place to place. A second calamity occurred during that incursion of Crassus, and from this time the Jews were harassed by many and continual wars. Before this period, they had entered into an alliance with the Romans, as we are informed by the books of the Maccabees, as well as by profane writers. Therefore, when they granted liberty to the Jews, (1st Macc. 8 & 14) it was said, they were generous at the expense of others. This was their ordinary and usual practice; at first they received with friendship all who sought their alliance by treaty, and then they treated them with the utmost cruelty. The wretched Jews were treated in this way. The angel then alludes to them first, and afterwards speaks of Antiochus. All these points, thus briefly mentioned, we must bear in mind, to enable us to understand the context, and to shew the impossibility of interpreting the prophecy otherwise than of the Romans.
I now proceed to the words, ‘The king shall do according to his will’. I have stated that we need not restrict this expression to a single person, as the angel prophesies of the continued course of the Roman monarchy. ‘He shall raise himself, and magnify himself’, says he, ‘above every god’. This will be explained by and bye, where the king is said to be a despiser of all deities. But with reference to the present passage, although impiety and contempt of God spread throughout the whole world, we know how peculiarly this may be said of the Romans, because their pride led them to pass an opinion upon the right of each deity to be worshipped. And, therefore, the angel will use an epithet for God, meaning fortitudes and munitions, (m`zym), ‘megnezim’, as in verse 38. That passage, I shall shew you to-morrow, has been badly explained; for interpreters, as we shall discover, are utterly “at sea” as to its meaning.” But here the angel, by attributing contempt of the one God and of all deities to the Romans, implies their intense pride and haughtiness, in which they surpassed other profane nations. And, truly, they did not preserve even a superstitious fear of God; and while they vauntingly paraded the superior piety of both their ancestors and themselves, yet an accurate perusal of their writings will disclose what they really thought. They made a laughingstock of all divinities, and ridiculed the very name and appearance of piety, and used it only for the purpose of retaining their subjects in obedience. The angel then says most truly of this empire, ‘it shall magnify itself against all deities’; and ‘it shall speak wonderful things against the God of gods’, by which the Jewish religion is intended. For before they had passed into Asia Minor, and penetrated beyond Mount Taurus, they were ignorant of the law of God, and had never heard of the name of Moses. They then began to take notice of the worship of some peculiar god by that nation, and of the form of their piety being distinct from that of all other people. From the period of the knowledge of the peculiarities of the Jewish religion being spread among the Romans, they began to vomit forth their blasphemies against ‘the God of gods’. We need not gather together the proof of this from their histories; but Cicero in his oration for Flaccus, (sec. 28,) tears most contemptuously to pieces the name of the true God; and that impure slanderer —for he deserves the name— so blurts out his calumnies, as if the God who had revealed Himself to His elect people by His law, was unworthy of being reckoned with Venus or Bacchus, or their other idols. Lastly, he treats the numerous massacres to which the Jews were exposed, as a proof of their religion being hated by all the deities; and this he thinks ought to be a sufficient sign of the detestable character of their religion. The angel then has every reason to declare the Romans puffed up with pride and haughtiness, as they did not hesitate to treat the name of the true God with such marked contempt.
‘He shall utter’, says he, ‘remarkable things against the God of gods’. The angel seems to refer to a single (1) individual, but we have stated his reference to be to this empire. He adds next, ‘And he shall prosper until the consumption’, or completion, or consummation ‘of the indignation, since the determination has been made’. Here also the angel treats of a long succession and series of victories, which prevent the application of the passage to Antiochus. For he died immediately after he had spoiled the Temple; all his offspring perished by each other’s hands; and the Romans, to their great disgrace, acquired possession of Syria and that portion of the East. We must necessarily explain this of the Romans, as they notoriously prospered in their wars, especially on the continent of Asia. And if they were sometimes in difficulties, as we shall see to-morrow when treating the words which the angel will then use, they soon recovered their usual success. The angel here says, ‘This king shall prosper till the end of the indignation’; meaning, until God should punish the hypocrites, and thus humble His Church. I refer this to God, as I shall explain more at length tomorrow.” }}

Lecture 63rd.
{{ 11:37. “We yesterday commenced an explanation of the prophecy, in which the angel begins to treat of the Roman Empire. I then shewed the impossibility of applying any other exposition to the passage, as it would have been absurd to pass by the point most necessary to be known. At the very beginning, we stated that God did not inform Daniel of other occurrences for the purpose of pandering to the foolish and vain curiosity of the many, but to fortify his servants, and to prevent their falling away in the midst of these most grievous contests. But after the death of Antiochus, we know by what various and grievous machinations Satan had endeavoured to overthrow the faith of all the pious. For this reason their courage required propping up. If the whole of this period had been passed over in silence, God would have appeared to have neglected His servants. Therefore either our yesterday’s subject of comment would have been useless, or else this clause ought to be added, lest the prophecy should appear either defective or mutilated. And we previously observed, while the angel was predicting future changes, there was no omission of the Roman Empire, which is again introduced here. Let us remember, then, that the angel is not now speaking of Antiochus, nor does he make a leap forwards to Antichrist, as some think, but he means a perpetual series. Thus the faithful would be prepared for all assaults which might be made upon their faith, if this rampart had not been interposed. The remainder of the verse now remains to be explained, ‘Even to the end of the wrath, because the decision has been made’. The angel had narrated the perverseness of this king in not sparing the living God, but in darting his calumnies against Him……”
11:37. “I do not wonder at those who explain this prophecy of Antiochus, experiencing some trouble with these words; for they cannot satisfy themselves, because this prediction of the angel’s was never accomplished by Antiochus, who did neither neglect all deities nor the god of his fathers. Then, with regard to the love of women, this will not suit this person. But it is easy to prove by other reasons already mentioned, the absence of all allusion here to Antiochus. Some refer this prophecy to the Pope and to Mahomet, and the phrase, the love of women, seems to give probability to this view. For Mahomet allowed to men the brutal liberty of chastising their wives, and thus he corrupted that conjugal love and fidelity which binds the husband to the wife. Unless every man is content with a single (1) wife, there can be no love, because there can be no conjugal happiness whenever rivalry exists between the inferior wives. As, therefore, Mahomet allowed full scope to various lusts, by permitting a man to have a number of wives, this seems like an explanation of his being inattentive to the love of women. Those who think the Pope to be intended here remind us of their enforcing celibacy, by means of which the honour of marriage is trodden under foot. We know with what foulness the Roman Pontiffs bark when marriage is hinted to them, as we may see in the decrees of Pope Siricius, in the seventh (7th) chapter of the first (1st) volume of the Councils.” They quote the passage, ‘Those who are in the flesh cannot please God’; and thus compare marriage with fornication, thereby disgracefully and reproachfully throwing scorn upon an ordinance sanctioned by God. We observe, then, some slight correspondence, but the remaining points will not suit this idea. Some assert that as Mahomet invented a new form of religion, so did the Pope; true indeed, but neither of them are intended here, and the reason is, because God wished to sustain the spirits of His people until the first coming of Christ. Hence He predicts by His angel the sufferings to be endured by the Church until Christ was manifest in the flesh. We must now come to the Romans, of whom we began to explain the passage.
The angel says, ‘The king shall pay no regard to the ‘gods’ of his fathers’. The application of this clause is at first (1st) sight obscure; but if we come to reflect upon the outrageous pride and barbarity of the Romans, we shall no longer doubt the meaning of the Prophet’s words. The angel states two circumstances; this king should be a despiser of all deities, and yet he should worship one (1) ‘god’, while the singular (1) and magnificent pomp displayed should exceed all common practices. These two (2) points, so apparently opposite, were found united in the Romans. Our explanation will appear clearer by adding the following verses:”
11:38-39. “As I have already hinted, at the first glance these statements seem opposed to each other; the king of whom we are now treating shall despise all deities, and yet shall worship a certain ‘god’ in no ordinary way. This agrees very well with the Romans, if we study their dispositions and manners. As they treated the worship of their deities simply as a matter of business, they were evidently destitute of any perception of the divinity, and were only pretenders to religion. Although other profane nations groped their way in darkness, yet they offered a superstitious worship to some divinities. The Romans, however, were not subject to either error or ignorance, but they manifested a gross contempt of God, while they maintained the appearance of piety. We gather this opinion from a review of their whole conduct. For although they fetched many deities from every quarter of the world, and worshipped in common with other nations Minerva, Apollo, Mercury, and others, yet we observe how they treated all other rites as worthless. They considered Jupiter as the supreme deity. But what was Jupiter to them in his own country? Did they value him a single farthing, or the Olympian deity? Nay, they derided both his worshippers and himself. What then really was their supreme ‘god’? why the glory of the Capitol; without the additional title of ‘Lord’ of the Capitol, he was nobody at all. That title distinguished him as specially bound to themselves. For this reason the Prophet calls this Roman Jupiter ‘a god of bulwarks’, or of powers. The Romans could never be persuaded that any other Jupiter or Juno were worthy of worship; they relied upon their own inherent strength, considered themselves of more importance than the ‘gods’, and claimed Jupiter as theirs alone. Because his seat was in their capital, he was more to them than a hundred (100) heavenly rulers, for their pride had centred the whole power of the deity in their own capital. They thought themselves beyond the reach of all changes of fortune, and such was their audacity, that everyone fashioned new deities according to his pleasure. There was a temple dedicated to fortune on horseback; for this gratified the vanity of the general who had made good use of his cavalry, and obtained a victory by their means; and in building a temple to equestrian fortune, he wished the multitude to esteem himself as a deity. Then Jupiter Stator was a ‘god’, and why because this pleased somebody else; and thus Rome became full of temples. One (1) erected an image of fortune, another (1) of virtue, a third (3rd) of prudence, and a fourth (4th) of any other divinity, and everyone dared to set up his own idols according to his fancy, till Rome was completely filled with them. In this way Romulus was deified; and what claim had he to this honour? If anyone object here —other nations did the same— we admit it, but we also know in what a foolish, brutal, and barbarous state of antiquity they continued. But the Romans, as I have already intimated, were not instigated to this manufacture of idols by either error or superstition, but by an arrogant vanity which elevated themselves to the first rank among mankind, and claimed superiority over all deities. For instance, they allowed a temple to be erected to themselves in Asia, and sacrifices to be offered, and the name of deity to be applied to them. What pride is here! Is this a proof of belief in the existence of either one (1) ‘god’ or many? Rome is surely the only (1) deity —and she must be reverently worshipped before all others.
We observe then how the expression of this verse is very applicable to the Romans; ‘they worshipped the ‘god’ of bulwarks’, meaning, they claimed a divine power as their own, and only granted to their ‘gods’ what they thought useful for their own purposes. With the view of claiming certain virtues as their own, they invented all kinds of deities according to their taste. I omit the testimony of Plutarch as not quite applicable to the present subject. He says in his problems, it was unlawful to utter the name of any deity under whose protection and guardianship the Roman State was placed. He tells us how Valerius Soranus was carried off for foolishly uttering that deity’s name, whether male or female. These are his very words. And he adds as the reason, their practice of using magical incantations in worshipping their unknown divinity. Again, we know in what remarkable honour they esteemed “the good ‘goddess’.” The male sex were entirely ignorant of her nature, and none but females entered the house of the high priest, and there celebrated her orgies. And for what purpose? What was that “good ‘goddess’? Surely there always existed this ‘god’ of bulwarks, since the Romans acknowledged no deity but their own selves. They erected altars to themselves, and sacrificed all kinds of victims to their own success and good fortune; and in this way they reduced all deities within their own sway, while they offered them only the specious and deceptive picture of reverence. There is nothing forced in the expression of the angel, —’he will pay no attention to the ‘gods’ of his fathers’; meaning, he will not follow the usual custom of all nations in retaining superstitious ceremonies with error and ignorance. For although the Greeks were very acute, yet they did not dare to make any movement, or propose any discussions on religious matters. One thing we know to be fixed among them, to worship the ‘gods’ which had been handed down by their fathers. But the Romans dared to insult all religions with freedom and petulance, and to promote atheism as far as they possibly could. Therefore the angel says, ‘he should pay no attention to the ‘god’ of his fathers’. And why? They will have regard to themselves, and acknowledge no deity except their own confidence in their peculiar fortitude. I interpret the phrase, ‘the desire of women’, as denoting by that figure of speech which puts a part for the whole, the barbarity of their manners. The love of women is a scriptural phrase for very peculiar affection; and God has instilled this mutual affection into the sexes to cause them to remain united together as long as they retain any spark of humanity. Thus David is said to have loved Jonathan beyond or surpassing the love of women. (2nd Sam. 1:26). No fault is there found with this agreement, otherwise the love of David towards Jonathan would be marked with disgrace. We know how sacred his feelings were towards him, but “the love of women” is here used ‘par excellence’, in plying the exceeding strength of this affection. As therefore God has appointed this very stringent bond of affection between the sexes as a natural bond of union throughout the human race, it is not surprising if all the duties of humanity are comprehended under this word by a figure of speech. It is just as if the angel had said; this king of whom he prophesies should be impious and sacrilegious, in thus daring to despise all deities; then he should be so evil, as to be utterly devoid of every feeling of charity. We observe then how completely the Romans were without natural affection, loving neither their wives nor the female sex. I need not refer to even a few examples by which this assertion may be proved. But throughout the whole nation such extreme barbarity existed, that it ought really to fill us with horror. None can obtain an adequate idea of this, without becoming thoroughly versed in their histories; but whoever will study their exploits, will behold as in a mirror the angel’s meaning. This king, then, should cultivate neither piety nor humanity.
‘And he shall not pay attention to other ‘gods’, because he shall magnify himself against them all’. The cause is here assigned why this king should be a gross despiser of all deities, and fierce and barbarous against all mortals, ‘because he should magnify himself above them all’. That pride so blinded the Romans, as to cause them to forget both piety and humanity; and so this intolerable self-confidence of theirs was the reason why they paid no honour to any deity, and trampled all mortals under foot. Humility is certainly the beginning of all true piety; and this seed of religion is implanted in the heart of man, causing them whether they will or not to acknowledge some deity. But the Romans were so puffed up by self-consequence, as to exalt themselves above every object of adoration, and to treat all religions with contemptuous scorn; and in thus despising all celestial beings, they necessarily looked down on all mankind, which was literally and notoriously the fact. Now, the second clause is opposed to this, ‘He shall worship’ or honour ‘the god of fortitudes’. He had previously used this word of the Temple, but this explanation does not seem suitable here, because the angel had before expressed the unity of God, while he now enumerates many ‘gods’. But the angel uses the word “fortitudes,” or “munitions,” for that perverse confidence by which the Romans were puffed up, and were induced to treat both God and men as nothing in comparison to themselves. How then did these two (2) points agree —the contempt of all deities among the Romans, and yet the existence of some worship! First, they despised all tradition respecting the ‘gods’, but afterwards they raised themselves above every celestial object, and becoming ashamed of their barbarous impiety, they pretended to honour their deities. But where did they seek those deities, as Jupiter for instance, to whom all the tribe of them were subject? why, in their own capitol. Their deities were the offspring of their own imaginations, and nothing was esteemed divine but what pleased themselves. Hence it is said, ‘He shall honour him in his own place’. Here the angel removes all doubt, by mentioning the place in which this ‘god’ of fortitudes should be honoured. The Romans venerated other deities wherever they met with them, but this was mere outward pretence. Without doubt they limited Jupiter to his own capitol and city; and whatever they professed respecting other divinities, there was no true religion in them, because they adored themselves in preference to those fictitious beings. Hence ‘he shall worship the ‘god’ of ramparts in his place, and shall honour a strange ‘god’ whom his fathers knew not’.
Again, ‘He shall honour him in gold, and silver, and precious stones, and all desirable things’; meaning, he shall worship his own deity magnificently and with remarkable pomp. And we know how the riches of the whole world were heaped together to ornament their temples. For as soon as any one purposed to erect any temple, he was compelled to seize all things in every direction, and so to spoil all provinces to enrich their own temples. Rome, too, did not originate this splendour for the sake of superstition, but only to raise itself and to become the admiration of all nations; and thus we observe how well this prophecy is explained by the course of subsequent events. Some nations, in truth, were superstitious in the worship of their idols, but the Romans were superior to all the rest. When first they became masters of Sicily, we know what an amount of wealth they abstracted from a single (1) city. For if ever any temples were adorned with great and copious splendour and much riches, surely they would confess the extreme excellence of those of Sicily. But Marcellus stripped almost all temples to enrich Rome and to ornament the shrines of their false deities. And why so? Was it because Jupiter, and Juno, and Apollo, and Mercury, were better at Rome than elsewhere? By no means; but because he wished to enrich the city, and to turn all sorts of deities into a laughingstock, and to lead them in triumph, to shew that there was no other deity or excellence except at Rome, the mistress of the world. He afterwards adds, ‘He shall perform’. Here, again, the angel seems to speak of prosperity. Without doubt he would here supply courage to the pious, who would otherwise vacillate and become backsliders when they observed such continued and incredible success, in a nation so impious and sacrilegious, and remarkable for such barbarous cruelty. Hence he states how the Romans should obtain their ends in whatever they attempted, as their fortitude should prevail, as if it were their deity. Although they should despise all deities, and only fabricate a ‘god’ for themselves through a spirit of ambition; yet even this should bring them success. This is now called a ‘foreign deity’. Scripture uses this word to distinguish between fictitious idols and the one (1) true God. The angel seems to say nothing which applies especially to the Romans. For the Athenians and Spartans, the Persians and the Asiatics, as well as all other nations, worshipped strange ‘gods’. What, then, is the meaning of the name? for clearly the angel did not speak after the ordinary manner. He calls him ‘strange’, as he was not handed down from one to another; for while they boasted vainly in their veneration of the idols received from their ancestors, together with all their sacred institutions and their inviolable rites, yet they inwardly derided them, and did not esteem them worth a straw, but only wished to retain some fallacious form of religion through a sense of shame. We remember the saying of Cato concerning the augurs, “I wonder when one (1) meets another how he can refrain from laughing!” thus shewing how he ridiculed them. If anyone (1) had asked Cato either in the senate or privately, What think you of the augurs and all our religion? he would reply, “Ah let the whole world perish before the augurs; for these constitute the very safety of the people and of the whole republic: we received them from our ancestors, therefore let us keep them forever!” Thus that crafty fellow would have spoken, and thus also would all others. But while they prated thus to each other, they were not ashamed to deny the existence of a Deity, and so to ridicule whatever had been believed from the very beginning, as entirely to reduce to nothing the traditions received from their forefathers. It does not surprise us to find the angel speaking of a strange ‘god’ which was worshipped at Rome, not, as I have said, through superstition or mistake, but only to prevent their barbarity from becoming abominable throughout the world. ‘That God’, says he, ‘whom he had acknowledged’: great weight is attached to this word. The angel means, that the whole divinity rested on the opinion and will of the sovereign people, because it was agreeable to its inclination, and promoted its private interest. As the plan of worshipping any ‘gods’ would be approved, and they would pride themselves in their own pleasure, they should boast with great confidence, that there could be no piety but at Rome. But why so Because they acknowledge strange ‘gods’, and determine and decree the form of worship which was to be preserved. The angel thus places the whole of the religion of Rome in lust, and shews them to be impure despisers of God.
He afterwards says, ‘He shall multiply the glory’. This may be referred to God, but I rather approve of a different interpretation. The Romans should acquire great wealth for themselves, and should increase wonderfully in opulence, in the magnitude of their empire, and in all other sources of strength. Therefore ‘they shall multiply the glory’, meaning, they shall acquire new territories, and increase their power, and accumulate a multitude of treasures. This explanation fits in very well with the close of the verse, where he adds, ‘he shall make them rule far and wide’. This is a portion of that glory which this king shall heap upon himself, for he should be superior to the kings over many lands, and should distribute the booty which he had acquired, and that, too, for a price. He says, therefore, he shall make them rule over many; for the relative is without a subject, which is a frequent practice of the Hebrews. Whom, then, should the Roman king, or the Roman empire, thus cause to have dominion? Whoever rendered them any assistance should receive his reward from a stranger, as we know Eumenes to have been enriched by the booty and spoil of Antiochus. The provinces also were distributed according to their will. The island was given up to the Rhodians, while a kingdom was wrested from another, and the AEtolians enlarged their dominions. As each party laboured hard for their benefit, and incurred large expenses, so the Romans conferred riches upon them. After conquering Antiochus, they became the more liberal towards Attalus and Eumenes, and thus they became masters of the greater part of Asia. Again, when they had deprived Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta, of the greater part of his territories, those who had taken care to gratify the Romans, were favoured with the spoils they had seized from him. We have another instance in the favours conferred upon Massinissa after the conquest of Carthage; for after being expelled from his own kingdom, his dominion extended far and wide throughout the continent of Africa: after being deprived of his paternal sovereignty, he had not a spot in the world on which to plant his foot until they bestowed upon him what they had seized from the Carthaginians. And how did they manage this? ‘They shall divide the soil for a price’, says the angel; thus obliquely reproving the cunning of the senate and Roman people, because they did not give away these ample dominions gratuitously; they would willingly have devoured whatever they had acquired, but they found it better policy to sell them than to retain them. They did not sell at any fixed price —for the word “price” here need not be restricted to a definite sum of money —but displayed their avarice, and sold and distributed for the sake of gain, just as much as if all these territories had been immediately reduced into provinces of their empire. They had need of great resources; it was objectionable to continue their garrison in perpetuity in the cities of Greece, and hence they proclaim perfect freedom through them all. But what sort of liberty was this? Each state might choose its senate according to the pleasure of the Romans, and thus as each acquired rank and honour in his own nation, he would become attached and enslaved to the Roman people. And then, in this condition of affairs, if any war should spring up, they sought aid from these friends and allies. For had they been only confederate, the Romans would never have dared to exact so much from each tributary state. Let us take the case of the Carthaginians. After being reduced by many exactions to the lowest pitch of poverty, yet when the Romans made war against Philip and Macedon, and against Antiochus, they demanded ships from these allies. They demanded besides, as a subsidy, an immense quantity of gold, silver, provisions, garments, and armour, till at length these wretched Carthaginians, whose very life-blood the Romans had drained, still sent for the war whatever gold they had remaining, and all they could scrape together. Thus Philip king of Macedon is compelled to destroy himself, by plunging his own sword into his body; for every state of Greece was forced to contribute its own portion of the expenses of the war.
We perceive, then, how ‘the lands were divided for a price’, each with regard to its own utility, not by fixing a certain defined money value, but according to the standard of political expediency. And what kind of bargaining did they afterwards mutually execute? We have an instance of it in the prevalence of proscription among the Romans, by which they turned their rapacity against their own vitals. They had previously confiscated the goods of their enemies. Philip, for instance, was forced to pay a large sum of money to repurchase the name of king and the portion of territory which remained his own. Antiochus and the Carthaginians were subject to the same hardship. The Romans, in short, never conquered anyone without exhausting both the monarch and his dominions to satisfy their insatiable avarice and cupidity. We now perceive ‘how they divided the lands for a price’, holding all kings in subjection to themselves, and bestowing largesses upon one from the property of another.
We now perceive the angel’s meaning throughout this verse, ‘The king should be so powerful as to bestow dominion on whomsoever he pleased in many’ and ample territories, but not gratuitously. We have had examples of some despoiled of their royal dignity and power, and of others restored to the authority of which they had been deprived. Lucullus, for instance, chose to eject one king from his dominions, while another general restored him to his possessions. A single Roman citizen could thus create a great monarch; and thus it often happened. Claudius proposed to the people to proscribe the king of Cyprus, although he was of the royal race; his father had been the friend and ally of the Roman people, he had committed no crime against the Roman empire, and there was no reason for declaring war against him. Meanwhile he remained in security at home, while none of those ceremonies by which war is usually declared took place. He was proscribed in the market-place by a few vagabonds, and Cato is immediately sent to ravage the whole island. He took possession of it for the Romans, and this wretched man is compelled to cast himself into the sea in a fit of despair. We observe, then, how this prediction of the angel was by no means in vain; the Roman proconsuls distributed kingdoms and provinces, ‘but yet for a price’, for they seized everything in the world, and drew all riches, all treasures, and every particle of value into the whirlpool of their unsatisfied covetousness. We shall put off the remainder.” }}

Lecture 64th.
11:40. “As to the time here mentioned, it is a certain or predetermined period: the kings of the south and the north we have already shewn to refer to Egypt and Syria, such being their position with respect to Judea. The word (negch), ‘negech’, ‘confliget’, is literally he shall “push with the horns,” while the word translated, “he shall rush as a whirlwind,” is deduced from (sh`r), ‘segmer’, “to be stormy.” The angel here predicts the numerous victories by means of which the Romans should extend their empire far and wide, although not without great difficulties and dangers. He states, ‘The king of the south should carry on war with the Romans for a definite period’. I dare not fix the precise time intended by the angel. So great was the power of Egypt, that had the kings of that country relied upon their native resources, they might have summoned courage to make war upon the Romans. Gabinius the proconsul led his army there for the sake of restoring Ptolemy. He expelled Archelaus without much trouble, and then like a mercenary he risked his life and his fame there, as well as his army. Caesar was in danger there, after vanquishing Pompey; then Antony next made war upon Augustus, assisted by the forces of Cleopatra; then Egypt put forth all her strength, and at his failure was reduced herself to a province of Rome. The angel did not propose to mark a continued series of times, but only briefly to admonish the faithful to stand firm amidst those most grievous concussions which were then at hand. Whatever be the precise meaning, the angel doubtless signified the difficult nature of the struggle between the Romans and the Egyptians. I have already stated the witness of history to the fact, that the Egyptians never made war against the Romans in their own name; sometimes events were so confused that the Egyptians coalesced with the Syrians, and then we must read the words conjointly —thus the king of the south, assisted by the king of the north, should carry on war with the Romans. The angel thus shews us how the king of Syria should furnish greater forces and supplies than the Egyptian monarch, and this really happened at the beginning of the triumvirate. He states next, ‘The king of the south’ should come ‘with chariots and horses and many ships’. Nor is it necessary here to indicate the precise period, since the Romans carried on many wars in the east, during which they occupied Asia, while a part of Lybia fell to them by the will of its king without arms or force of any kind.
With reference to these two (2) kingdoms which have been so frequently mentioned, many chiefs ruled over Syria within a short period. First(1st) one of the natives was raised to the throne and then another (1), till the people grew tired of them, and transferred the sovereignty to strangers. Then Alexander rose gradually to power, and ultimately acquired very great fame: he was not of noble birth, for his father was of unknown origin. This man sprang from an obscure family, and at one period possessed neither authority nor resources. He was made king of Syria, because he pretended to be the son of Seleucus, and was slain immediately, while his immediate successor reigned for but a short period. Thus Syria passed over to the Romans on the death of this Seleucus. Tigranes the king of Armenia was then sent for, and he was made ruler over Syria till Lucullus conquered him, and Syria was reduced to a province. The vilest of men reigned over Egypt. Physcon, who was restrained by the Romans when attempting to wrest Syria from the power of its sovereign, was exceedingly depraved both in body and mind: and hence he obtained this disgraceful appellation. For the word is a Greek one (1), equivalent to the French ‘andauille’ ; for ‘physce’ means that thicker intestine into which the others are usually inserted. This deformity gave rise to his usual name, signifying “pot-bellied,” implying both bodily deformity and likeness to the brutes, while he was not endowed with either intellect or ingenuity. The last king who made the Romans his son’s guardians, received the name of Auletes, and Cicero uses this epithet of “flute-player,” because he was immoderately fond of this musical instrument. In each kingdom then there was horrible deformity, since those who exercised the royal authority were more like dogs or swine than mankind. Tigranes, it is well known, gave the Romans much trouble. On the other side, Mithridates occupied their attention for a very long period, and with various and opposite success. The Romans throughout all Asia were at one (1) period put to the sword, and when a close engagement was fought, Mithridates was often superior, and he afterwards united his forces with those of Tigranes, his father-in-law. When Tigranes held Armenia, he was a king of other kings, and afterwards added to his dominions a portion of Syria. At length when the last Antiochus was set over the kingdom of Syria by Lucullus, he was removed from his command by the orders of Pompey, and then, as we have stated, Syria became a province of Rome. Pompey crossed the sea, and subdued the whole of Judea as well as Syria: he afterwards entered the Temple, and took away some part of its possessions, but spared the sacred treasures. Crassus succeeded him —an insatiable whirlpool, who longed for this province for no other reason than his unbounded eagerness for wealth. He despoiled the Temple at Jerusalem; and lastly, after Cleopatra was conquered, Egypt lost its royal race, and passed into a Roman province. If the Romans had conquered a hundred (100) other provinces, the angel would not have mentioned them here; for I have previously noticed his special regard to the chosen people. Therefore he dwells only on those slaughters which had more or less relation to the wretched Jews. First (1st) of all he predicts the great contest which should arise between the kings of Egypt and Syria, ‘who should come on like a whirlwind’, while the Romans ‘should rush upon the lands like a deluge, and pass over them’. He compares the king of Syria to a whirlwind, for at first he should rush on impetuously, filling both land and sea with his forces. Thus he should possess a well-manned fleet, and thus excite fresh terrors, and yet vanish away rapidly like a whirlwind. But the Romans are compared to a deluge. The new king of whom he had spoken ‘should come’, says he, ‘and overflow’, burying all the forces of both Egypt and Syria; implying the whole foundations of both realms should be swept away when the Romans passed over them. ‘He shall pass over’, he says; meaning, wherever they come, the way shall be open for them and nothing closed against them. He will repeat this idea in another form. He does not speak now of one (1) region only, but says, ‘they should come over the lands’, implying a wide-spread desolation, while no one should dare to oppose them by resisting their fury.”
11:41-42. “The land of Judea is called the pleasant or desirable land, because God thought it worthy of His peculiar favour. He chose it for His dwelling-place, called it His resting-place, and caused His blessing to remain in it. In this verse also, regions are treated, and not merely cities, as the regions of Edom and of Moab. After the angel had briefly predicted the occurrence of the most grievous wars with the Romans, he now adds what he had briefly commenced in the last verse, namely, their becoming conquerors of all nations. ‘They shall come’, he says, ‘into the desirable land’. This is the reason why the angel prophesies of the Roman empire, for he was not sent to explain to Daniel the history of the whole world, but to retain the faithful in their allegiance, and to persuade them under the most harassing convulsions to remain under the protection and guardianship of God. For this reason he states, ‘they shall come into the desirable land’. This would be a dreadful temptation, and might overthrow all feelings of piety, as the Jews would be harassed on all sides, first by the Syrians and then by the Egyptians. And we know with what cruelty Antiochus endeavoured not only to oppress but utterly to blot out the whole nation. Neither the Syrians nor the Egyptians spared them. The Romans came almost from the other side of the globe; at first they made an alliance with these states, and then entered Judea as enemies. Who would have supposed that region under God’s protection, when it was so exposed to all attacks of robbery and oppression? Hence it was necessary to admonish the faithful not to fall away through this utter confusion.
‘They shall come’, then, ‘into the desirable land, and many regions shall fall’; meaning, no hope should remain for the Jews after the arrival of the Romans, as victory was already prepared to their hand. The angel’s setting before the faithful this material for despair was not likely to induce confidence and comfort, but as they were aware of these divine predictions, they knew also that the remedy was prepared by the same God who had admonished them by means of the angel. It was in His power to save His Church from a hundred (100) deaths. This prophecy became an inestimable treasury, inspiring the faithful with the hope of the promised deliverance. The angel will afterwards add the promise intended to support and strengthen and revive their drooping spirits. But he here announces that God’s aid should not immediately appear, because He would give the Romans full permission to exercise a cruel sway, tyranny, and robbery, throughout the whole of Asia and the East. He says, ‘The lands of Edom, Moab, and a portion of Ammon should escape from their slaughter’. This trial would in no slight degree affect the minds of the pious: What does he mean He suffers the land that He promised should be at rest, to be now seized and laid waste by its enemies. The land of Moab is at peace and enjoys the greatest tranquillity, and the condition of the sons of Ammon is prosperous! We should here bear in mind what the prophets say of these lands: Esau was banished into the rugged mountains, and God assigned to the Moabites a territory beyond the borders of the land of blessings. (Malachi 1:3.) The Jews alone had any peculiar right and privilege to claim that territory in which the Lord had promised them perfect repose. Now, when Judea is laid waste and their foes according to their pleasure not only seize upon everything valuable in the city and the country, but seem to have a special permission to ravage the land at their will, what could the Jews conjecture? The angel therefore meets this objection, and alleviates these feelings of anxiety to which the faithful could be subject from such slaughters. He states that the territories of ‘Edom and Moab, and of the children of Ammon’, should be tranquil and safe from those calamities. By the expression, ‘to the beginning of the children of Ammon’, he most probably refers to that retreat whence the Ammonites originated. For doubtless the Romans would not have spared the Ammonites unless they had been concealed among the mountains, for every district in the neighbourhood of Judea was subject to the same distress. Those who interpret this passage of Antichrist, suppose safety to be extended only to that portion of the faithful who shall escape from the world and take refuge in the deserts. But there is no reason in this opinion, and it is sufficient to retain the sense already proposed as the genuine one (1). He afterwards adds, ‘The Romans should send their army into the land, and even in the land of Egypt, they should not escape’. The angel without doubt here treats of the numerous victories which the Romans should obtain in a short time. They carried on war with Mithridates for a long period, and then Asia was almost lost; but they soon afterwards began to extend their power, first over all Asia Minor, and then over Syria; Armenia was next added to their sway, and Egypt after that: meanwhile this was but a moderate addition, till at length they ruled over the Persians, and thus their power became formidable. Wherefore this prophecy was fulfilled by ‘their extending their power over many regions’, and ‘by the land of Egypt becoming a portion of their booty’. It follows:”
11:43. “I have previously stated that though the language applies to a single (1) king, yet a kingdom is to be understood, and our former observations are here confirmed. Although many nations should endeavour to resist the Romans, they should yet be completely victorious, and finally acquire immense booty. Their avarice and covetousness were perfectly astonishing; for he says, ‘they should acquire dominion over the treasures of gold and silver, and should draw to themselves all the precious things of Egypt, Lybia, and Ethiopia; and that, too, in their footsteps’. In these words he more clearly explains our previous remarks upon the emblem of the deluge. All lands should be laid open to them; although the cities were fortified, and would thus resist them by their closed gates, yet the way should be open to them, and none should hinder them from bursting forth over the whole east, and subduing at the same time cities, towns, and villages. This we know to have been actually accomplished. Hence there is nothing forced in the whole of this context, and the prophecy is fairly interpreted by the history. He afterwards adds: ”
11:44. “The angel’s narrative seems here to differ somewhat from the preceding one, as the Romans should not succeed so completely as to avoid being arrested in the midst of their victorious course. He says, ‘they shall be frightened by rumours’, and the events suit this case, for although the Romans subdued the whole east with scarcely any trouble, and in a few years, yet they were afterwards checked by adversity. For Crassus perished miserably after spoiling the temple, and destroyed himself and the flower of the Roman army; he was conquered at Carrae, near Babylon, in an important engagement, through betrayal by a spy in whom he had placed too much confidence. Antony, again, after dividing the world into three (3) parts between himself, and Octavius, and Lepidus, suffered miserably in the same neighbourhood against the Parthians. We are not surprised at the angel’s saying, ‘The Romans should be frightened fram the east and the north’, as this really came to pass. Then he adds, ‘they should come in great wrath’; meaning, although they should lose many troops, yet this severe massacre should not depress their spirits. When their circumstances were desperate, they were excited to fury like savage beasts of prey, until they rushed upon their own destruction. This came to pass more especially under the reign of Augustus; for a short period he contended successfully with the Parthians, and compelled them to surrender. He then imposed upon them conditions of peace; and as the Roman eagles had been carried into Persia, much to their disgrace, he compelled this people to return them. By this compulsion he blotted out the disgrace which they had suffered under Antony. We see, then, how exceedingly well this suits the context, —’the Romans shall come with great wrath to destroy many’; as the Parthians expected to enjoy tranquillity for many ages, and to be perfectly free from any future attempt or attack from the Romans. It now follows, ”
11:45. “The angel at length concludes with the settled sway of the Romans in Asia Minor and the regions of the east, as well as in Syria, Judea, and Persia. We have already shewn how everything here predicted is related by profane historians, and each event is well known to all who are moderately versed in the knowledge of those times. We must now notice the phrase, The Roman king ‘should fix the tents of his palace’. This expression signifies not only the carrying on of the war by the Romans in the east, but their being lords of the whole of that region. When he had said they should fix their tents according to the usual practice of warfare, he might have been content with the usual method of speech, but he contrasts the word “palace” with frequent migrations, and signifies their not measuring their camp according to the usage of warfare, but their occupying a fixed station for a permanence. Why then does he speak of tents? Because Asia was not the seat of their empire; for they were careful in not attributing more dignity to any place than was expedient for themselves. For this reason the proconsuls took with them numerous attendants, to avoid the necessity of any fixed palace: they had their own tents, and often remained in such temporary dwellings as they found on their road. This language of the angel —’they shall fix the tents of their palace’— will suit the Romans exceedingly well, because they reigned there in tranquillity after the east was subdued; and yet they had no fixed habitation, because they did not wish any place to become strong enough to rebel against them. When he says, ‘between the seas’, some think the Dead Sea intended, and the Lake of Asphalt, as opposed to the Mediterranean Sea. I do not hesitate to think the Persian Sea is intended by the angel. He does not say the Romans should become masters of all the lands lying between the two (2) seas, but he only says ‘they should fix the tents of their palace between the seas’; and we know this to have been done when they held the dominion between the Euxine and the Persian Gulf. The extent of the sway of Mithridates is well known, for historians record twenty-two (22) nations as subject to his power. Afterwards, on one side stood Asia Minor, which consisted of many nations, according to our statement elsewhere, and Armenia became theirs after Tigranes was conquered, while Cilicia, though only a part of a province, was a very extensive and wealthy region. It had many deserts and many stony and uncultivated mountains, while there were in Cilicia many rich cities, though it did not form a single province, like Syria and Judea, so that it is not surprising when the angel says the Romans ‘should fix their tents between the seas’, for their habitation was beyond the Mediterranean Sea. They first passed over into Sicily and then into Spain; thirdly (3rd), they began to extend their power into Greece and Asia Minor against Antiochus, and then they seized upon the whole east. On the one shore was Asia Minor and many other nations; and on the other side was the Syrian Sea, including Judea as far as the Egyptian Sea. We observe, then, the tranquillity of the Roman empire between the seas, and yet it had no permanent seat there, because the proconsuls spent their time as foreigners in the midst of a strange country.
At length he adds, ‘They should come to the mountain of the desire of holiness’. I have already expressed the reason why this prophecy was uttered; it was to prevent the novelty of these events from disturbing the minds of the pious, when they saw so barbarous and distant a nation trampling upon them, and ruling with pride, insolence, and cruelty. When, therefore, so sorrowful a spectacle was set before the eyes of the pious, they required no ordinary supports lest they should yield to the pressure of despair. The angel therefore predicts future events, to produce the acknowledgment of nothing really happening by chance; and next, to shew how all these turbulent motions throughout the world are governed by a divine power. The consolation follows, ‘they shall come at length to their end, and no one shall bring them help’. This was not fulfilled immediately, for after Crassus had despoiled the temple, and had suffered in an adverse engagement against the Parthians, the Romans did not fail all at once, but their monarchy flourished even more and more under Augustus. The city was then razed to the ground by Titus, and the very name and existence of the Jewish nation all but annihilated. Then, after this, the Romans suffered disgraceful defeats; they were cast out of nearly the whole east, and compelled to treat with the Parthians, the Persians, and other nations, till their empire was entirely ruined. If we study the history of the next hundred (100) years, no nation will be found to have suffered such severe punishments as the Romans, and no monarchy was ever overthrown with greater disgrace. God then poured such fury upon that nation as to render them the gazing-stock of the world. The angel’s words are not in vain, ‘their own end should soon come’; after they had devastated and depopulated all lands, and penetrated and pervaded everywhere, and all the world had given themselves up to their power, then the Romans became utterly ruined and swept away. ‘They should have none to help them’. Without doubt this prophecy may be here extended to the promulgation of the gospel; for although Christ was born about one (1) age before the preaching of the gospel, yet he truly shone forth to the world by means of that promulgation. The angel therefore brought up his prophecy to that point of time. He now subjoins:”. }}

Lecture 65.
{{ 12:1. “The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday’s Lecture, with the angel’s prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ. It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (ver. 28,29). As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent Him as standing forward for the defence of His elect people. He is called the ‘mighty prince’, because He naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls ‘Michael the mighty prince’. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people, He should exercise immense power, and He alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. Christ confirms the same assertion, as we just now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all His elect were given Him by His Father, and none of them should perish, because His Father was greater than all; no one, says He, shall pluck My sheep out of My hand. My Father, who gave them Me, is greater than all; meaning, God possesses infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom He has chosen before the creation of the world, and He has committed it to Me, or has deposited it in My hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates ‘Michael as the great prince’. For in consequence of the magnitude of the contest, we ought to enjoy the offer of insuperable strength, to enable us to attain tranquillity in the midst of the greatest commotions. It was in no degree superfluous for the angel to predict such great calamities as impending over the Church, and in the present day the same expressions are most useful to us. We perceive then how the Jews imagined a state of happiness under Christ, and the same error was adopted by the Apostles, who, when Christ discoursed on the destruction of the temple and the city, thought the end of the world was at hand, and this they connected with their own glory and triumph. (Matth. 24:3.) The Prophet then is here instructed by the angel how God should direct the course of His Church when He should manifest to them His Only-begotten Son. Still the severity of distress awaited all the pious; as if he had said, ‘The time of your triumph is not yet arrived; you must still continue your warfare, which will prove both laborious and harassing’. The condition of the new people is here compared with that of the ancient one, who suffered many perils and afflictions at God’s hands. The angel therefore says, even although the faithful suffered very severely under the law and the prophets, yet a more oppressive season was at hand, during which God would treat his Church far more strictly than before, and submit it to far more excruciating trials. This is the meaning of the passage, ‘a season full of afflictions should arise, such as the nations had never seen since they began to exist’. This may refer to the creation of the world, and if we refer it to the people themselves, the exposition will prove correct; for although the Church had in former periods been wretched, yet after the appearance of Christ, it should suffer far more calamities than before. We remember the language of the Psalmist: ‘The impious have often opposed me from my youth; they have drawn the plough across my back’. (Ps. 129:1-3.) Through all ages then God subjected His Church to many evils and disasters. But a comparison is here instituted between two different states of the Church, and the angel shews how after Christ’s appearance it should be far from either quietness or happiness. As it should be oppressed with heavier afflictions, it is not surprising that the fathers should wish us to be conformed to the image of His Only-begotten Son. (Rom. 8:29). Since the period of Christ’s resurrection, even if a more harassing warfare awaits us, we ought to bear it with great equanimity, because the glory of heaven is placed before our eyes far more clearly than it was before theirs.
At length he adds, ‘At that time thy people shall be preserved’. By this expression the angel points out to us the great importance of the protection of Michael. He promises certain salvation to His elect people, as if he had said, although the Church should be exposed to the greatest dangers, yet with respect to God Himself, it should always be safe and victorious in all contests, because Michael should be superior to every enemy. The angel then, in thus exhorting the faithful to bear their cross, shews how free they should be from all doubt as to the event, and the absolute certainty of their victory. Although at first sight this prophecy might inspire us with fear and dismay, yet this comfort ought to be sufficient for us: “We shall be conquerors amidst fire and sword, and amidst many deaths we are sure of life.” As perfect safety is here set before us, we ought to feel secure, and to enter with alacrity into every engagement. We are in truth obliged to fight, but Christ has conquered for us, as He says Himself, ‘Trust in Me, I have overcome the world’. (John 16:33.) But the angel restricts what he had said generally by way of correction. Many professed to belong to the people of God, and everyone naturally sprung from the stock of Israel boasted of being the offspring of divine seed. As all wished promiscuously to belong to God’s people, the angel restricts his expression by a limiting phrase, ‘all people’, says he, ‘who were found written in the book’. This clause does not mean all Israel after “the flesh,” (Rom. 9:6-8) but such as God esteems to be real Israelites according to gratuitous election alone. He here distinguishes between the carnal and spiritual children of Abraham, between the outward Church and that inward and true community which the Almighty approves. Upon what then does the difference depend between those who boast of being Abraham’s children, while they are rejected by God, and those who are really and truly His sons? On the mere grace and favour of God. He declares His election when He regenerates His elect by His Holy Spirit, and thus inscribes them with a certain mark, while they prove the reality of this sonship by the whole course of their lives, and confirm their own adoption. Meanwhile we are compelled to go to the fountain at once; God alone by His gratuitous election distinguishes the outward Church, which has nothing but the title, from the true Church, which can never either perish or fall away. Thus we observe in how many passages of Scripture hypocrites are rejected in the midst of their swelling pride, as they have nothing in common with the sons of God but the external symbols of profession…….”
12:11-12. “In consequence of the obscurity of this passage it has been twisted in a variety of ways. At the end of the ninth (9th) chapter I have shewn the impossibility of its referring to the profanation of the Temple which occurred under the tyranny of Antiochus; on this occasion the angel bears witness to such a complete destruction of the Temple, as to leave no room for the hope of its repair and restoration. Then the circumstances of the time convinces us of this. For he then said, Christ shall confirm the covenant with many for one (1) week, and shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease. ‘Afterwards, the abomination that stupifieth shall be added’, and desolation or stupor, ‘and then death will distil’, says he, ‘upon the astonished or stupified one’. The angel, therefore, there treats of the perpetual devastation of the Temple. So in this passage, without doubt, he treats of the period after the destruction of the Temple; there could be no hope of restoration, as the law with all its ceremonies would then arrive at its termination. With this view Christ quotes this passage in Matthew 24, where He admonishes His hearers diligently to attend to it. ‘Let him who reads, understand’, says He. We have stated this prophecy to be obscure, and hence it requires no ordinary degree of the closest attention. First of all, we must hold this point; the time now treated by the angel begins at the last destruction of the Temple. That devastation happened as soon as the gospel began to be promulgated. God then deserted His Temple, because it was only founded for a time, and was but a shadow, until the Jews so completely violated the whole covenant that no sanctity remained in either the Temple, the nation, or the land itself. Some restrict this to those standards which Tiberius erected on the very highest pinnacle of the Temple, and others to the statue of Caligula, but I have already stated my view of these opinions as too forced. I have no hesitation in referring this language of the angel to that profanation of the Temple which happened after the manifestation of Christ, when sacrifices ceased, and the shadows of the law were abolished. ‘From the time’, therefore, ‘at which the sacrifice really ceased to be offered’; this refers to the period at which Christ by His advent should abolish the shadows of the law, thus making all offering of sacrifices to God totally valueless. ‘From that time’, therefore. Next, ‘from the time at which the stupifying abomination shall have been set up’. God’s wrath followed the profanation of the Temple. The Jews never anticipated the final cessation of their ceremonies, and always boasted in their peculiar external worship, and unless God had openly demonstrated it before their eyes, they would never have renounced their sacrifices and rites as mere shadowy representations. Hence Jerusalem and their Temple were exposed to the vengeance of the Gentiles. This, therefore, was the setting up of this stupifying abomination; it was a clear testimony to the wrath of God, exhorting the Jews in their confusion to boast no longer in their Temple and its holiness.
Therefore, from that period there shall be 1290 days. These days make up three years and a half (3 1/2 yrs). I have no hesitation in supposing the angel to speak metaphorically. As he previously put one (1) year, or two (2) years, and half a (1/2) year, for a long duration of time, and a happy issue, so he now puts 1290 ‘days’. And for what reason? To shew us what must happen when anxieties and troubles oppress us. If a man should fall sick, he will not say, Here I have already been one (1) month, but I have a year before me —he will not say, Here I have been three (3) days, but now I languish wretchedly for thirty (30) or sixty (60). The angel, then, purposely puts days for years, implying —although that time may seem immeasurably prolonged, and may frighten us by its duration, and completely prostrate the spirits of the pious, yet it must be endured. The number of days then is 1290, yet there is no reason why the sons of God should despair in consequence of this number, because they ought always to return to this principle —if those afflictions await us for a time and times, the half time will follow afterwards.
Then he adds, ‘Happy is he who shall have waited and endured until the 1335 days’. In numerical calculations I am no conjurer, and those who expound this passage with too great subtlety, only trifle in their own speculations, and detract from the authority of the prophecy. Some think the days should be understood as years, and thus make the number of years 2600. The time which elapsed from this prophecy to the advent of Christ was about 600 years. From this advent 2000 years remain, and they think this is the assigned period until the end of the world, as the law also flourished about 2000 years from the date of its promulgation to its fulfilment at Christ’s advent. Hence they fix upon this sense. But they are quite wrong in separating the 1290 days from the 1335, for they clearly refer to the same period, with a slight exception. It is as if the angel had said, although half the time should be prorogued, yet the faithful ought constantly to persist in the hope of deliverance. For he adds, about two (2) months, or a month and a half (1 1/2 mnths), or thereabouts. By half (1/2) a time, we said, the issue was pointed out, as Christ informs us in Matt. 24:22. Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been safe. Reference is clearly made here to that abbreviation of the time for the Church’s sake. But the angel now adds forty-five (45) days, which make a month and a half (1 1/2), implying —God will put off the deliverance of His Church beyond six (6) months, and yet ye must be strong and of good courage, and persevere in your watchfulness. God at length will not disappoint you —He will succour you in all your woes, and gather you to His blessed rest. Hence, the next clause ofthe prophecy is this.”……..

Prayer: Grant, Almighty God, since Thou proposest to us no other end than that of constant warfare during our whole life, and subjectest us to many cares until we arrive at the goal of this temporary racecourse: Grant, I pray Thee, that we may never grow fatigued. May we ever be armed and equipped for battle, and whatever the trials by which Thou dost prove us, may we never be found deficient. May we always aspire towards heaven with upright souls, and strive with all our endeavours to attain that blessed rest which is laid up for us in heaven, in Jesus Christ our Lord. —Amen. ‘Praise be to God’. }}

Dissertations on Some Important Subjects Treated in this Volume:
Chapter 7th:
I. Vision of Four Beasts.
II. Ten Horns.
III. Little Horn.
IV. Ancient of Days & Son of Man.
V. Prophetic Meaning of Time.
Chapter 8th:
VI. Place of Vision.
VII. Ram & He-Goat.
VIII. Wonderful Numberer.
Chapter 9th:
IX. Seventy Weeks.
X. Hippolytus, Nicolaus Lyranus, &c.
XI. Abomination of Desolation.
Chapter 10th:
XII. Vision on Bank of Hiddekel.
XIII. Michael the Prince.
Chapter 11th:
XIV. Historical Proofs.
XV. Wilful King.
XVI. Pollution of Sanctuary.
XVII. Conquest of Glorious Land.
Chapter 12th:
XVIII. Sealing of the Book.
XIX. Expressions Relative to Time.
XX. Modern Discoveries Throwing its Light on Daniel’s Prophecies.

Chapter 7th:

Dissertation I: Vision of Four Beasts. 7:1-6.
{{ “Our preceding (1st) volume having closed the historical portion of Daniel’s Prophecies, our second (2nd) volume is occupied with Calvin’s comments upon those Prophetic Visions, which have ever excited the deepest interest in the minds of thoughtful Christians. The interval of time from the first (1st) verse of this chapter to the beginning of chap. 10, is about twenty-two (22) years. The vision of this chapter is the only one written in Chaldee, and its similarity to that of chap. 2 may account for the same language being used in both. The most appropriate method of illustrating these Lectures, is that of quoting the views of various eminent Reformers and later divines who have ably discussed the Prophet’s language, and then comparing them with the solutions proposed by our Lecturer.

7: 4. —The lion with eagle’s wings is supposed to bear some likeness to the vulture-headed Nisroch, with which the late Assyrian discoveries have rendered us familiar. ‘Vaux’, in his “Nineveh and Persepolis,” p. 32, quotes the inquiry of ‘Beyer’ in his notes to Selden’s work ‘De Diis Syriis’, as to a connection between this far-famed Assyrian deity and the representation recorded in this verse. ‘Rosenmüller’ explains the plucking of the wings as a deprivation of any ornament, or faculty, or innate vigour, and quotes Cicero, Ep. ad Att., lib. iv. ep. 2, in reference to this ‘deplumatio’. The last clause, “a man’s heart was given to it,” is well explained by Jerome of Nebuchadnezzar’s return to his kingdom after his banishment, and his receiving the heart which he had lost. The frontispiece on the title-page of ‘Bonomi’s’ “Nineveh and its Palaces,” is a most accurate representation of this verse. The work contains many excellent engravings, explanatory of the symbolic language of this Prophet.
7: 5. —The raising of the bear on one side is interpreted by Theodoret and Jerome of the invasion of the Chaldean empire by the Persian. The protrusions from its mouth are thought by ‘Wintle’ to be “tusks,” but ‘Rosenmüller’ objects to this supposition. ‘Wintle’s’ notes are on the whole so very judicious, that we do not hesitate again to recommend the reader to peruse them, as in most instances they confirm the interpretations adopted in these Lectures. ‘Hippolytus’, as quoted by OElampadius ‘in loc’., explains the three “ribs” of the three people, Assyrians, Medes, and Babylonians. The opinion of our Reformer, vol. ii. p. 16, is sound and satisfactory.
7:6. —“Four wings on its back.” This symbolical representation occurs in the Nineveh sculptures. See ‘Bonomi’, p. 257, and elsewhere.
7:7. —The Fourth Beast of this verse has so usually been treated as the Roman Empire, that it simply becomes necessary to cite the exceptions to this opinion. ‘Rosenmüller’ records an attempt to refute this interpretation by J. C. Becman, in a “Dissertation on the Fourth Monarchy”, published in 1671, at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, and gives a slight sketch of his argument. ‘Dr. Todd’, in his able “Lectures on Antichrist,” has made use of every possible argument against applying this to the Roman Empire, and his theory has been fairly stated and ably opposed by ‘Birks’ in his “First (1st) Elements of Sacred Prophecy.” London, 1843. With reference to this fourth (4th) beast, ‘Dr. Todd’ believes it to be still future; and hence his expositions are classed with those of the Futurists. Our readers will remember, that as an expositor of prophecy, Calvin is a Praeterist, and that his general system of interpretation is as remote from the year-day theory of Birks, Faber, and others, as from the futurist speculations of Maitland, Tyso, and Todd. Notwithstanding the disagreement between these Lectures and the writings of Birks, we strongly recommend their perusal by every student who would become thoroughly proficient in the prophecies of Daniel. The first (1st) step towards progress, is to surrender all our preconceived notions, and to prepare for the possibility of their vanishing away before the force of sanctified reason and all-pervading truth.
The Jewish commentators are specially careful to deny the application of this fourth (4th) empire to the Romans. Rabbis ‘Aben Ezra’ and ‘Saadiah’ interpret it of the Turkish sway, and extend it to times still present and yet future. The Son of man they hold to be Messiah, who in their opinion has not yet arrived. A different interpretation has been suggested by Lacunza in “La Venda del Messias en Gloria, y Magestad”, translated by the Rev. E. Irving. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1827. Parte ii. Fenemeno i. The opinion that the fourth (4th) empire is Alexander and his successors, is contained in ‘Venema’s’ Dissert. ad Vaticin. Dan. emblem. 4to. Leovard, 1745.
‘Rabbi Sal. Jarchi’ understands the three (3) ribs of ver. 5, to be those kings of Persia, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius who destroyed the Temple. The ten (10) kings he thinks to be the emperors of Rome from Julius Caesar to Vespasian. The mouth speaking proud things of ver. 8, he refers to Titus, thus adopting the supposition that the fourth (4th) empire is heathen Rome.
‘Maldonatus’ expounds the passage of heathen Rome, and feels his wrath stirred up against those “Heretics and Lutherans” who bring it down to Papal times, and rejoices in the opportunity of quoting ‘Calvin’, “their master,” against “the absurdity” of his disciples. See ‘Comment’. in Dan, p. 673. But the learned Jesuit ought to have known that the celebrated Abbot Joachim, the founder of the Florentine order at the close of the 12th century, interpreted this empire of the mystic Babylon and the Papal Antichrist. He did not hesitate to apply the dates of this prophecy to the definite period of three years and a half (3 1/2 yrs), from A.D. 1256 to 1260. He was a bold forerunner of those modern expounders, who take exactly the same view of the Papacy as himself. See ‘British Mag’., vol. xvi. pp. 370 and following; also pp. 494 and following; and ‘Liber de Flore’ Telesforus Cusentinus. Fol. 29, a. apud Todd, p. 460.” }}

Dissertation II. Ten Horns. 7:7.
“The controversy which has arisen between commentators respecting these ten (10) horns, refers first (1st) to the question, were they “kings” or “kingdoms ?” And next, if “kings,” who are they? and if kingdoms, what are they? They are usually supposed to be the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. ‘Vitringa’ in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, p. 788, enumerates them after his own method, and the variety in the reckoning of these kingdoms is so great, that it has been used by many writers as an objection to their being kingdoms at all. ‘Augustine’ (‘De, civit. Dei’, lib. xx. c. 23) considers the number “ten” (10) to be indefinite, and to include all the kings of the Roman Empire. ‘Willet, in loc’., has collected a variety of interpretations from different writers; while ‘Tyso’ gives a table of twenty-nine distinct lists, shewing that sixty-five different kingdoms and persons have been suggested. Elucidation of the Prophecies. 8vo, London, 1838, pp. 100-114.
‘Rosenmüller’ treats them as kings. With him the fourth (4th) empire is not Rome, but that of the Seleucidae and Lagidae. By this assumption ten (10) kings are easily found among those who reigned over both Egypt and Syria between Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes, who on this plan is the Little Horn. He simply states his opinion without supporting it by any arguments. It by no means requires any, as the statement itself becomes its best refutation. This view was adopted by ‘Bertholdt’, and has been overthrown by ‘Hengstenberg’, with his usual learning and ability. See pp. 164 and following, of the work cited in vol. i. The determination of some German writers to make Antiochus Epiphanes the Little Horn, has induced them to divide the four (4) empires thus: —the Chaldean, Median, Persian, and Macedonian, the last including the various kingdoms which sprung from it. See ‘Eichhorn’ ‘Einl’., 4to, Ausg., B. 4, p. 484; also the works of ‘Jahn, Dereser, De Wette’, and ‘Bleek, ap. Heng’., pp. 161-169.
Some light is thrown on this subject by ‘Fry’ in his ‘Second (2nd) Advent’, vol. ii. p. 16, edit. 1822, London. He translates this and other visions and prophecies of Daniel with great clearness, and the hundred pages which he devotes to their explanation are well worthy of perusal. They contain many judicious quotations from Sir Isaac Newton, Mede, Faber, and the most celebrated English expounders of prophecy. As he considers the fourth (4th) beast the Roman Empire, and extends its duration throughout the modern history of Europe, he adopts the views of Bishop Chandler and Faber, as to the ten (10) horns being ten (10) kingdoms into which that empire was divided after the irruption of the barbarians. The northern nations parcelled out the Roman Empire among themselves. These nations invaded the empire and settled within it. Now, it appears from history, that there were: ten (10) principal kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. These ten (10) primary kingdoms are then enumerated according to Machiavel; but it is beyond our province to pursue this view of the subject further; it is enough to refer to ‘Fry’s’ translations of difficult passages of this Prophet, as clear, sound, and judicious. The Editor deems it his duty to point out the best opinions and explanations wherever he may find them; and to direct the reader’s attention especially to those which illustrate our Reformer’s Commentary.” }}

Dissertation III. Little Horn. 7:8.
{{ “The Expositor who sympathizes most with our Lecturer among writers of our own day, is the late Professor ‘Lee’ of Cambridge. In his translations of the Hebrew Scriptures he is unrivalled; no scholar of our age can approach him in the extent of his learning or the soundness of his erudition. His expository system of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John will meet in these days with the most vehement condemnation, and it happily does not fall within the province of the Editor of these Lectures to express any other opinion, than that they throw light upon the views of our Reformer. It will be sufficient at present to refer the reader to his valuable work, entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy,” Cambridge, 1849. He discusses the subject of our second volume from p. 152, to p. 230, and translates the Hebrew and Chaldee text of Daniel, adding valuable explanatory notes. Before the student is competent to pass an opinion on the Professor’s hermeneutical conclusions, he should be intimately familiar with his elaborate verbal criticisms.
The fourth (4th) kingdom he holds to be the Roman, and specifies, especially, “the Lower Roman Empire;” the ten (10) horns are “a series of kings, each series constituting a universal empire for the time being.” The Little Horn is said to be “the latter rule of the Roman power,” (p. 165.) All reference to Antiochus Epiphanes is denied; and the argument is concluded by the following sentence, —“By every consideration, therefore, it is evident that the Little Horn of Daniel’s seventh (7th) and eighth (8th) chapters is identically the same, and that this symbolized that system of Roman rule which ruined Jerusalem, and then made war upon the sainted servants and followers of the Son of man; and in this he prospered and practised, until he in his turn fell, as did his predecessors, to rise no more at all,” (p. 168.)
This vision has been ably and fully illustrated by Professor ‘Bush’ of New York, in “the Hierophant,” 1844; and as the American Professor’s “exposition” is exceedingly clear, and full, and instructive, a few quotations from it are inserted here. “We propose, if possible, to ascertain the true character of the judgment here depicted, and by a careful collation of other Scriptures to determine its relations to the series of events connected with the second (2nd) coming of Christ and its grand cognate futurities.” “This Little Horn,” he asserts, “is unquestionably the ecclesiastical power of the Papacy,” and “the judgment commences a considerable time prior to the transition of the beast from his pagan to his Christian state.”… “This horn did not arise till after the empire received its deadly wound by the hands of the Goths.” This divergence from the sentiments of our Reformer compels us to avoid quoting at greater length Professor Bush’s scheme of interpretation. It is ably planned and carefully executed. He supposes the Little Horn to prevail against the saints for 1260 years; adding, “nothing is more notorious than that the Roman Empire, after subsisting not far from the space of 1260 years from its foundation, did succumb to the sword of its Gothic invader, and about A.D. 476 became imperially extinct, under its then existing head.” This forms another period for the supposed termination of the 1260 years, very different from that usually maintained by British authors. It is said to be renewed again in the time of Charlemagne, and the testimony of Sigonius, Hist. de Reg. Ital, Book iv. p. 158, is quoted in proof of this. See Hierophant, p. 156.” }}

Dissertation IV. Ancient of Days & Son of Man. 7:9, 13, 18.
{{ “This expression is treated actively by ‘Wintle’, —”He that maketh the days old,” and, consequently, ready to expire or cease. The Deity he supposes to be meant by this term, and refers us for an explanation of the human attributes assigned to the Divine Being, to Dr. Sam. Clarke’s Sermons, vol. i., Dis. v. ‘Grotius’ very appositely reminds us that the ancient thrones and ‘sellae curules’ had wheels; and ‘Rosenmüller’ treats them as indicating the velocity with which God beholds and judges all things. Some Jewish writers read —thrones were taken away; implying the overthrow of the dominions of this world, and the setting up of that of Messiah. Both Rabbis ‘Levi’ and ‘Saadias’ apply this passage to the future prosperity of Israel alone.
‘OEcolampadius’ supposes Christ to be here signified as the ‘lamb slain from the beginning of the world’, and therefore “Ancient.” After quoting Chrysostom and Basil on the phrase, “The books were opened,” he pointedly inquires, “But what need of books? every man’s conscience will be its own open volume.” The Christian tone of this commentator’s sentiments renders his writings far more valuable than most of those of his own and of succeeding ages. He treats this chapter with his usual skill and spirituality, differing however in some points from the general tenor of these Lectures. He enumerates the four (4) visions of these last six (6) chapters: the first (1st) and last (4th) of them, he states, relate to the persecutions to arise under Antichrist; the second (2nd), in chapter 8, to the profanation of the Temple under Antiochus; and the third (3rd), in the ninth (9th) chapter, to its devastation under Titus. He does not take the word “kings” for the monarch simply, but includes under the term their counsellors, warriors, and ministers of state. “A king” with him, refers to a monarch’s successors as well as himself. He quotes at length from Eusebius, Evan. Dem, book xv., the well-known passage in which this vision is recorded at full length. His illustrations of the first (1st) three (3) beasts is judicious, and we have previously stated (vol. i. p. 427) his view of the fourth (4th) empire as coinciding with Calvin’s. He refutes the comments of Polychronius and Aben Ezra, who apply the fourth (4th) kingdom to Alexander’s successors; and objects to Jerome, and Lactantius, and Irenaeus, who treat the ten (10) kings as ten (10) monarchies springing from heathen Rome. The number ten (10) is not taken literally, but mystically, for a perfect number, that is, one (1) made up by adding one (1) and two (2), and three (3) and four (4). The ten (10) horns, he thinks, follow the fourth (4th) beast, existing during his own age and leading on directly to Antichrist. He approves of Apollinarius, who interprets the 8th verse of Antichrist, and then explains, very copiously, his sentiments as to where he is to be found. “Very possibly,” he remarks, “the Gregories, the Alexanders, and the Julii, did not displease God so strikingly while occupying the Papal chair: God only is their judge. But during this reign such innumerable enormities are committed as are worthy of the true Antichrist, and thus rebound upon their heads.” He then runs the parallel between Mahomet and the Papacy, and with great accuracy and spirit treats the false prophet as the Antichrist of the east, and the Roman Pontiff as corresponding to him throughout the west. The “eyes of a man” of verse 8, are explained of the bland and benignant appearance of this insinuating personage, while the blasphemies of his mouth are interpreted of the impious boastings of Mahomet and the Pope. The manner in which both Mahomet and the Papacy have “changed the times,” is amply discussed, and the language of both Daniel and St. John made applicable to the modern history of the religions of the Crescent and the Cross throughout both Asia and Europe.
In commenting on verse 9, he refers it to the future destination of Antichrist, and comparing this passage with St. John, states his view of the three and a half (3 1/2) years, or forty-two (42) months, or half-week (1/2 wk). Seven (7) is a perfect number representing perpetuity, and God who is perpetually angry stops half (1/2) way in His course of punishment. OEcolampadius is severe upon the Chiliasts, similar to the Futurists of our day, who expect one personal Antichrist yet to be revealed. Although he calls them “semi-Jews,” yet their solution of this great problem of prophecy may after all turn out to be the right one, and Christendom hereafter may yet vindicate their far-seeing sagacity. The remainder of the chapter is connected with the second (2nd) coming of Christ to judgment, and the final victory of the saints when the harvest of the world shall be gathered in, and “the righteous shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” The introduction of the Antichrist and the Papacy with the Mahomedan imposture, existing as they have done for many years since the first (1st) advent, and as it is assumed they will do till the second (2nd) advent, gives a tone to the comments of OEcolampadius very different from that of ‘Calvin’. It becomes highly instructive to compare and contrast them, as in this way we may derive profit from both, and correct our own presumption, if we are tempted to esteem either as necessarily and exclusively perfect.
7:9 —“The thrones were cast down” —Authorized Version. Professor ‘Bush’ agrees with Calvin, vol. ii. p. 32, in preferring were ‘set, placed’, or ‘arranged’, bringing forward as his supporters, Jerome, Arias Montanus, the Syriac, Arabic, and Genevan versions, besides Luther’s and Diodati’s. “The saints who are subsequently said to have possessed the kingdom formed the celestial conclave, and sat upon the encircling thrones.” He prefers the meaning, “Permanent of days,” or, “Enduring of days,” to the common rendering “Ancient of days.” Cocceius favours this expression, and also Michaelis, who assigns the primary sense of enduring and abiding to the Hebrew word. See also Job 31:7, and Isaiah 33:18. The designation, ‘enduring of days’, undoubtedly carries with it a latent contrast to the many vicissitudes, and the transient nature of the thrones and kingdoms here shadowed forth as the antagonist dominions to that of God everlasting. He then quotes ‘Calvin’s’ remarks on this verse as “singularly appropriate and striking.” His garment (literally) was as the white snow. The resplendent white of His spotless garments indicated the exquisite equity, justice, and impartiality of His judgments, while the locks of His hair, purer than the washen wool of the fairest fleeces, indicate nothing of the imbecility of extreme old age, but the considerate gravity, the ripened reflection, the mature wisdom, the enlightened experience, the venerable authority, and the calm decision, which are naturally associated with the “hoary head.” Referring to the fairy throne and the burning wheels, he adds, “As the entire gorgeous apparatus described by the Prophet, has reference primarily to a period anterior to New Testament times, when the kingdom of God had not yet obtained that fixedness which is attributed to it in subsequent visions, therefore His throne is represented with the accompaniment of wheels.” The scene, he states, “Is a judgment which transpires on the earth in the providence of God, and not a judgment at the end of the world, as often understood by the readers of revelation.” . . . “The scenery is to be regarded as ‘ideal’ and not ‘real’. It is the celestial shadow of a terrestrial reality. The whole scene, which is impartially described as transpiring in heaven, does really take place in the providence of God on earth, so these judges and co-assessors are really men, who are made agents in executing the divine purposes relative to the overthrow of the anti-christian dominion represented by the Beast and the Little Horn.” The professor, though differing from ‘Calvin’ on some points, strongly corroborates his opinions on others. The statements on pp. 26 and 28 of this volume are expanded and enforced in various passages in the Hierophant. For instance, on p. 109, “That the visioned scene does not refer to what is usually termed ‘the last judgment’ to take place at some future period, and simultaneously with the final resurrection and consummation of all things, is obvious from the whole tenor of the vision. The judgment is a local judgment, and the object of it, not the whole race of men, but a particular despotic, persecuting, idolatrous, and blasphemous power, which the counsels of heaven have doomed to destruction.” This is entirely in accordance with ‘Faber’. See Cal. of Proph., vol. ii. p. 108.
7:13. —The Son of Man. He is usually admitted to be the Messiah. ‘Hengstenberg’ remarks upon our Lord’s reasons for using this designation of himself. He aptly compares various passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel with those of this chapter, and shews how they bear upon the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies, (p. 220.)
‘OEcolampadius’ refutes the notions of the Jews who treat the phrase “the Son of man,” as their own nation. He argues against Rabbi Saadias and the Chiliasts, and after fully upholding the union of the divine with the human natures in Christ, he approves of the instructive comments of Chrysostom and Cyril. His coming to the Ancient of days is explained by St. Paul’s assertion, He shall deliver up the kingdom to his Father; and thus the victory of the saints becomes that final triumph of righteousness, which shall be visibly displayed at the second (2nd) advent of the Redeemer.
The possession of the kingdom by the saints of the most High, (ver. 22,) was interpreted by the early Fathers, of the general spread of Christianity after ‘the first’ (1st) advent. Professor ‘Lee’, in replying to Dr. Todd, has collected their testimony to the reign of Christ and His saints, as spread far and wide in the very earliest period of the Gospel history. His list of authorities will support the system of interpretation adopted by Calvin. See ‘Tertullian adv. Jud’., p. 105. Ed. 1580. ‘Irenaeus’. Edit. Grabe, pp. 45, 46, 22.1, &c. ‘Justin Martyr’. Edit. Thirlby, pp. 369, 328, 400.” ‘Cyprian adv. Jud’, Bk. ii. ‘passim’, and ‘De Unit. Eccl’., p. 108. Edit. Dodwell. ‘Euseb. Hist. Eccl’., Bk. viii. and elsewhere. ‘De Vit. Const’., Bk. i. chaps, vii., viii., and his other writings. ‘Fabricii Lua. Sanct. Evan’. contains similar extracts from the earliest Fathers to the same purpose. For the Professor’s own view, see his Treatise on the Covenants, p. 112 and following. He is ably supported by Professor ‘Bush’, who correctly limits this vision to the first (1st) establishment of the reign of Messiah, and the early preaching of the Gospel. The American Professor throws great light on the passage, by a clear and comprehensive criticism on the Hebrew words. His remarks on the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, are ingenious. He does not understand the word “clouds” in its ordinary sense, but as denoting “a multitude of heavenly attendants.” He quotes 1st Thess. 4:19, from which he concludes that the meaning is not that we shall be caught up into the clouds, but in multitudes. The Son of man being brought to the Ancient of days is said to set forth the investiture of the Son of man with that vice-regal lordship, which He, in the divine economy, held over the nations of the earth and through the perpetuity of time. “The paramount question to be resolved, is that of the true epoch of this ordained assumption by the Messiah of the majesty of the kingdom.” He then determines the question exactly as Calvin does, by saying, “This we think is plainly to be placed at the Saviour’s ascension.” . . . “It is in this passage of Daniel that we find the germ of nearly all the announcements of the New Testament, relative to the founding of that spiritual monarchy.” . . . “Conceiving the clouds then, in the Prophet’s vision, as being really clouds of angels, we shall be better prepared to understand the drift of the New Testament narrative, Acts 1:9. It was by this cloud of celestial attendants that He was brought, in the language of Daniel, to the Ancient of days, for Him to receive the seals, as it were, of that high office which He was to fill as head of the universal spiritual empire now to be set up.” There is, therefore, we conceive, no greater mistake in regard to the whole rationale of this prophecy, than to understand the judgment and the coming of the Son of man here mentioned, as the final judgment and final coming of Christ synchronical with an anticipated physical catastrophe of the globe.
Professor ‘Bush’ quotes ‘Calvin’ on verse 12 with approbation, and adds the Rabbinical paraphrase of Jaachiades, in support of their joint conclusions. ‘Vitringa’, in his Dissertations on the Emblems of this Prophet, p. 504, elicits a different sense. He makes the “life” and the “dominion ” identical. Sir J. Newton maintains that the three (3) beasts were, in the eye of prophecy, still living in his day, and were to be sought for where their geographical seat existed at the time of their ascendency. —’Observ. on Daniel’, p. 31. Although Bishop Newton and others agree with him, there is no foundation for this ingenious conjecture. ‘Mede’s’ view is different still, and ‘Bush’ points out “a serious and probably an insuperable objection to it;” while he glides off himself to the “leading despotisms of the East, including perhaps those of Russia and Turkey,” contrary to the sentiments expressed in p. 26 of this vol. See pp. 162, 163.
An important question has arisen among Commentators, as to the import of the word “kings” in verse 17. Does it refer to ‘persons’ or to ‘dynasties’? Professor ‘Bush’ argues for a symbolical sense, and quotes Theodotion, who renders it “kingdoms.” It is next asserted, that the term kingdom is not to be applied to “a purely regal form of government,” but to “any form of national existence in which we can recognise an established ruling power.” ‘Havernick’ remarks, that “kings” here stands in the concrete for dynasties or kingdoms, the representation of kingdoms for the kingdoms themselves. The word “kingship” expresses this idea of Havernick’s better than kingdom. ‘Bush’ treats it as a ‘denominatio potiore’, which he aptly translates “a titling from the chief.”
7:18. —’The Saints of the Most High’. This phrase is said by ‘Bush’ to indicate the Jews, “as forming a part at least of the saints who are to be the possessors of the kingdom here spoken of” There are strong grounds for believing that the holy people which were to be destroyed and scattered, (chap. 8:24, & 12:7) were the Jews. Daniel’s grief was occasioned, in great measure, by a foresight of the cruel oppressions to which ‘his own people’ were to be subjected during the dominion of the Beast and Little Horn.” The plural form of the word, which ‘Calvin’ accurately preserves and notices, is said to mean, “that holy and devoted people who are born from above.” ‘Bush’ translates ‘sancti altissimorum’, the saints of the most High Ones.” }}

Dissertation V. Prophetic Meaning of Time. 7:25.
{{ “It is important to determine accurately the meaning of this and similar phrases. The word “time” is, as ‘Calvin’ remarks, naturally indefinite, while its use in this Prophet leads to the conclusion that it means “years.” The passage in chap. 4:16, “Seven (7) times,” is usually understood to mean seven (7) years, although nothing can fairly rest upon this interpretation. The phrase of this verse is usually taken to mean half (1/2) of seven (7) times, and is used again in chap. 12:7. The other passages which refer to periods of time are expressed more definitely, for instance, 2300 “evenings and mornings,” chap. 8:14-26; the seventy (70) weeks or seven (7), chap. 9:24; the 1290 “days,” chap. 12:11, and the 1335 days, chap. 12:12. “The terms in the first (1st) four (4) instances,” says Bickersteth, in his Practical Guide to the Prophecies, edit. sixth, 1839, p. 184, “are in themselves quite ambiguous and general. There is nothing to determine, respecting the number 2300, and the seventy (70) weeks, whether years or days be intended; but analogy would lead us to suppose that all were to be interpreted on a common principle.” He goes on to say, “It appears from Daniel 12:7, that the close of the three (3) times and a half (1/2) is closely connected with the gathering of the Jews; and from Zech. 1:18-21, that the power of the four (4) Gentile monarchies is then broken; and this confirms the extended meaning of both. God looks at the whole course of this world’s history as but a few days. Daniel, when he heard the period of the times and a half announced by the angel, understood not, and on inquiry received the answer, ‘The words are sealed to the time of the end’; and an intimation is given, that even when unsealed, only ‘the wise would understand’. We thus learn that the meaning couched under this expression was purposely concealed for a time, but was afterwards to be unfolded to the wise. The promise is not of a fresh revelation, but of an explanation of a period already given. And there seems to have been a wise end in this veiling of the time, as it would have been staggering to the faith, and deadening to the hopes of the Israelites, if the whole of the interval had been openly and explicitly declared,” p. 186. This excellent man was an advocate of the symbolizing sense of chronological expressions; thus on the “seven (7) times,” he says; “this seems plainly to denote the season during which the Gentile dominion of the four (4) monarchies should be corrupt and worldly, as afterwards exhibited in the four (4) beasts coming up from the sea.” Again, “the seven (7) times” would then answer to “the times of the Gentiles” mentioned by our Lord. He also makes the following statements —“The time, times, and half a time, the forty-two (42) months and 1260 days, are the same interval; the time, times, and half, of Daniel and the Revelation are the same period; a prophetic day is a natural year; the three and a half (3 1/2) times are the half (1/2) of seven (7) times, the whole season of Gentile power, and the same with the latter times of St. Paul. A time denotes 360 years, and ‘chronos’ is equivalent to ‘kairos’,” (p. 365.) As these assertions are not to be found anywhere in Holy Scripture, ‘Calvin’ has manifested his wisdom, by expounding the text as he finds it, and avoiding all conjectural statements. As a specimen, however, of a scheme on the opposite principles to those maintained in these Lectures, we will quote one final passage on this subject, headed Particular Times, (p. 366.) “The time, times, and half, and 1260 days of Revelation are the same period. The forty-two (42) months have a date rather later, like the two (2) dates of the seventy (70) years’ captivity;” (yet observe the previous extract.—ED.) “The 1290 and 1335 days of Daniel both commence with the 1260 days of Revelation, or time, times, and a half, of both prophecies; the seven (7) times of the Gentiles begin with the subjection of Israel under Shalmanezer; the three and a half times (3 1/2) begin with Justinian’s eternal code, A.D. 532-3; the forty-two (42) months close nearly with the 1335 days; the forty-two (42) months begin A.D. 604, or A.D. 607-8, with the re-union of the ten (10) kingdoms, or the public establishment of idolatry; the 1335 days end in A.D. 1867-8.” The arguments in favour of this theory, directed chiefly against the Futurists, are found in the “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” from chap. xii., p. 308, to the end of the volume. Similar discussions are contained in “The Morning Watch,” ‘passim’, especially one on “The Sacred Numbers,” vol. v. pp. 273-285, London, 1832. The reader who is curious in such numerical calculations will find much to his taste in the volumes of this periodical.
‘Brooks’, in his useful compendium, “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,” has devoted chap. 10 to “Time mystically expressed.” He examines at full length the argument of ‘Maitland’, who contends for the literal meaning of days, in “An Inquiry into the grounds on which the prophetic period of Daniel and St. John has been supposed to consist of 1260 years.” ‘Brooks’ brings forward the usual reasonings by which the literal meaning of the word “day” is supposed to be overthrown, and combats Maitland with much spirit. He settles it rather positively, that “the literal meaning of a time is a year, and then considers the expression of this verse 25, “may signify, mystically, if calculated by lunar time, a period of 1260 years.” Some, it is added, “have considered that a time means mystically a century of years.” Vitringa states this to be the view of the Waldenses, who hoped for a speedy termination to their persecutions, and were persuaded that the antichristian power which opposed them could only last 350 years. Bengelius at one time adopts, and at another rejects the year-day explanation, and modifies it according to his pleasure in his “Introduction to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” translated by Robertson, pp. 147, 212, 258. “Another important principle to be kept in view is, the high probability that there may be a mystical fulfilment of some of the dates and facts connected with the chronological prophecies, and a literal fulfilment likewise.” Speculations of this kind are by no means in the spirit of ‘Calvin’s’ comments; he carefully avoids all such expressions as “mystical days,” yet the reader will find in this little volume many extracts from writers of repute, illustrating the prominent features of Daniel’s prophecies.
Professor Bush, in the Hierophant, p. 180, comments with great critical ability upon the Hebrew word signifying “time” in this verse. He compares it with the word of, (zmn), ‘zemen’ correctly rendered “season” in the authorized version. The leading sense of this word, he states, “is that of a fixed, prescribed, determinate season,” and in this respect it differs from the more general word time, as the Greek ‘kairos’, “season,” differs from ‘chronos’, time. As to the other word (`dn), ‘gneden’, it is used for the most part in a wider sense, and answers more accurately to the Hebrew (`th), ‘gneth’, “time.” “We find mention made in the last chapter of Daniel of two (2) other periods, one (1) of 1290, the other of 1335 years.” The additional numbers expressing 30 and 45 similar periods, are called supplementary terms. At p. 241 there is an able letter to Professor ‘Stuart’ of Andover, U.S., on prophetic designations of time. This learned writer is like ‘Calvin’, a praeterist, and consequently his writings on this subject are an able elucidation of the principles of these lectures. He approves of Davidson’s statement in his “Sacred Hermeneutics,” that days are days, and years years. So the writer maintains with no small skill and power of argumentation. Professor Bush, on the other hand, replies, “the grand principle into which the usage of employing a day for a year is to be resolved, is that of ‘miniature symbolization’.” The argument between the two American divines is then carried on at some length; it is only necessary here to refer to it, on the general principle which we have adopted in illustrating these lectures, namely, to shew that ‘Calvin’s’ decision meets with many able supporters and expounders among British, Continental, and American writers, as well as numerous, earnest, and voluminous opponents.” }}

Chapter 8th:

Dissertation VI. Place of Vision. 8:2.
{{ “Differences have arisen as to the reality of Daniel’s transfer to Shushan and the banks of the Ulai or Choaspes. Dr. Blayney thinks Elam was a province of Babylon over which Daniel actually presided; but in its more extended sense it comprised the whole country on either side of the Eulaeus, one side being Elymais, and the other Susiana. See Pliny, Nat. Hist, Book vi. “Susiana,” says Birks, “close to the Tigris, was distinct from Persia Proper, and might still be under the power of Belshazzar.”
In this eighth (8th) chapter the Hebrew language is resumed, and used in all the following visions. This has been considered emblematical of the subject-matter which relates mainly to the future state of Israel, and of the kingdoms in political relation to it. The visions of this chapter clearly refer to the Persian and Grecian empires. These are intimately connected with those persecutions under which the Jews groaned so heavily, through the profanation of their Temple, and the removal of their daily sacrifice. These distresses continue for 2300 days till the sanctuary is cleansed. The reader will find these points clearly and historically illustrated in “the two later visions of Daniel” previously referred to, chap. 1 & 2 . The exposition of the Duke of Manchester is worthy of notice. He compares and connects the visions and prophecies of chap. 8 & 9, and differs from the usual schemes hitherto submitted to our notice. See pp. 392–397. “The vision embraces a period of time commencing from after the conquest of India by Darius, until the last end of the indignation, for the ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward, but not eastward.” ” }}

Dissertation VII. Ram & He-Goat. 8:3.
{{ “The clearest modern exposition with which the Editor is acquainted is that of ‘Birks’, and it will be sufficient for our purpose to make a few extracts from his work. “The ram is expounded by the angel to be the kings of Media and Persia.” It is clear, then, that the word ‘kings’ is not used in a personal sense. It is plain they are the two ruling dynasties or powers, confederate in conquest, and of which Media was superior at first (1st), and Persia after the sole reign of Cyrus. The ram itself, and not the two (2) horns, denotes the compound Median and Persian power. The ram was seen “pushing westward, and northward, and southward.” These words are a very clear prediction of the conquests of Cyrus, though, perhaps, they may include the later conquest of Egypt by his son Cambyses. “The vision was in the sixth (6th) or seventh (7th) year of Cyrus, when his career of victory had already begun,” (p. 10.) Two (2) objections to this explanation are then answered; one (1) is, that the chronology seems to require a later commencement, and the other (1), that the place of the ram before the river, has been thought to imply the previous establishment of the Persian empire. The most natural sense of the words “before the river,” is, “with its face to the river.” The accomplishment of this prophecy is then traced through Herodotus, and Xenophon. The narratives of Herod. Book i. 71-95, respecting the overthrow of Croesus, and 152-216, respecting his victories in Upper Asia, clearly support this view of the fulfilment.
The he-goat is so clearly fulfilled in Alexander, that no further remark seems required. Birks has translated at length the passages in Diodorus, and given a correct summary of the chronology of this period. See also Alexander in Phutarch, chap. xxiv., Diod. Sic, lib. xvii. sec. 46, and Quint. Curtius, lib. iv. sec. 4, 19.

Alexander & His Successors.
The classical passages from which correct information is obtained respecting the kingdom of Macedon, Syria, and Egypt, as far as they illustrate Daniel’s prophecies, are as follow :
‘Quintus Curtius’, fol. Col. Agripp., 1628, p. 670 and following. This is the edition of Raderus under the title of Q. Curtii Rufi de Alexandro M. historiam Mathæi Raderi S. J. Commentarii.
‘Diodori Siculi’, lib. xviii. p. 587. Wesseling, Amst., 1746, vol. ii. p. 258.
‘Polybius’, lxxvi. cap. 10, vol. iv. p. 353 and following. Schweigheuser’s edition.
‘Athenaeus’, Deipnosophist, lib. v. cap. 5, and lib. x. cap. 10.
‘Photius’, cod. 82, and cod. 92 in epit, lib. ix.
‘Justin’, lib. xiii.
‘Crosius’, Hist., lib. iii. chap. xxiii.
‘Decippus and Arrian’ in fragments preserved by Photius. Biblioth., cod. lxxxii., and cod. xcii.
‘Andrew Schott’, in his edition of the Bibliotheca of Photius, has given a tabular view of the various divisions of Alexander’s kingdom, classifying them according to the authority of each of the above-mentioned authors. See fol. Gen., 1612, p. 230.
‘Venema’, in his dissertations on the emblematical prophecies of Daniel, gives a full statement of every event, with a separate classical authority for each. His object was to shew that Alexander’s kingdom was divided into ten (10) after his death, and that the portion of this prophecy interpreted by ‘Calvin’ of the Roman empire was really fulfilled by the Greeks. Dr. Todd has quoted the original Latin, (p. 504 and following.) from Diss. v. sec. 3 to 12, pp. 347 to 364. 4to. Leovard, 1745.” }}

Dissertation VIII. Wonderful Numberer: One Holy One Speaking to Another. 8:13.
{{ “A very peculiar Hebrew word is used to designate the second Holy One. Lowth intimates its connection with the Logos. It may properly be, translated, “To the excellent one.” The original word (phlmwny) ‘palmoni’, is supposed to be formed of two (2) nouns (phlwny), ‘peloni’, and (‘almwny), ‘almoni’, which are found in Ruth 4:1, and 2nd Kings 6:8. ‘Glass. gram’, 4, 3, 864, as quoted in Poole’s Syn., calls them fictitious nouns, being used when the real name is purposely concealed, like the (‘`ho deiva’ of the Greeks. Hence it does not signify any angel, but some remarkable one. ‘Calvin’s’ opinion that it refers to Messiah is held by many other interpreters, as given by Poole ‘in loc’. ‘Wintle’ adopts another view, “the numberer of segrets,” or, “the wonderful numberer,” from the two words (phl’a), ‘phla’, “wonderful,” used by Isaiah of Messiah in the well-known passage in chap. 9, and (mnh), “to number,” which has already come before us. He refers to Glass. Phil., p. 644, 4to, and translates, “And another saint said unto that excellent one that was speaking.” Holy One is preferable to saint in this passage. ‘Gesenius’ adopts the statement of Glasse; the quadriliteral arising from the combination of two words in common use. See also “The Times of Daniel,” p. 399, and “The Morning Watch,” vol. v. p. 276, where ‘palmoni’ is translated “the
numberer of secrets.”
8:13. −The Vision of the Daily Sacrifice. The translation of this passage is of great importance. Professor ‘Lee’ translates as follows: —11. By him the daily sacrifice was to be taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was to be cast down. 12. And an army was to be given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, (‘i.e’., because the transgressors had now come to the full: see note, p. 165) and it cast the truth to the ground, and it practised and prospered. 13. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14. The answer is, unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
The wording of the Hebrew is peculiar here and highly deserving of remark. It stands literally thus, “Until (the) evening (and) morning, or it may be until the evening of the morning, two thousand and three hundred (2300), and the sanctuary (lit. holiness) shall be sanctified.” Evening and morning, I take here to be a mere periphrasis for a day; and so our translators have taken it, Gen. 1:5. The day here had in view, continues Professor Lee, “must mark the period of Daniel’s seventieth (70th) week —the numbers given above must be understood indefinitely, and as intended to designate a considerable length of time.” Referring again to verse 11, he states, this consummation could not be effected by Antiochus Epiphanes: he only suspended the service of the Temple for about three (3) years and-a half (1/2). By every consideration, therefore, it is evident that the Little Horn of Daniel’s seventh (7th) and eighth (8th) chapters, is identically the same, and that this symbolized that system of ‘Roman rule’ which ruined Jerusalem, and then made war upon the sainted servants and followers of the Son of man; and in this he prospered and practised, until he in his turn fell, as did his predecessors, to rise no more at all. (P. 168.) ‘Wintle’, with his usual judgment, translates, “until the evening (and) morning 2300.” “I insert the word ‘and’, because the ‘vau’ is repeated at verse 26. I am inclined to think this ‘vesperamane’ should induce us to understand these days in the first (1st) instance literally, rather than of months and years.” The great difficulty, he states, is to reconcile this period with the tyranny of Antiochus; while he does not forget the reference to Antichrist, of whom Antiochus was the type. See also Sir Isaac Newton, Obs., chap. ix. Rosenmüller has collected various explanations, especially C. B. Bertram; Kirms, in his historical and critical commentary, p. 39; Melancthon, p. 131; and Eichhorn in Apoc, t. ii. p. 60. “The Times of Daniel” also contains a translation of this passage which is worth notice, p. 400, although it is not so scholar-like as that quoted above.
The opinion that this period refers to the rise and duration of the Mahomedan power in the East, is ably advocated by ‘Fry’, “Second (2nd) Advent,” vol. ii. p. 43 and following; where various explanations of the dates are given at length.” }}

Chapter 9th:

Dissertation IX. Seventy (70) Weeks. 9:24.
{{ “A great variety of opinions have been published upon this interesting period; it would be impossible to enumerate them all, and it will be sufficient to allude to those which illustrate ‘Calvin’s’ assertions. The titled author of “The Times of Daniel” writes as follows, “I endeavoured to shew in the chronology that there were two (2) periods of seventy (70) years, one (1), the service of Babylon, the other (1) the desolation of Jerusalem, and that the desolations terminated with the first (1st) year of Darius Nothus. I hope to establish presently that the termination of each of these periods is a fresh epoch,” p. 400. “The decree dates from the time of Daniel’s prayer. The command came forth, therefore, in the first (1st) year of Darius son of Ahasuerus,” p. 402. He then strongly approves of the rendering of the passage by Hengstenberg: “Seventy (70) weeks are cut off over thy people and over thy holy city.” Exactly ‘Calvin’s’ use of the preposition ‘super’. And he adds, most Commentators observe that “cut off” is used figuratively for determined. ‘Mede’ is also quoted to the same effect, works, fol. p. 497. I am still able to follow Dr. Hengstenberg in the following clause, “to restrain transgression and to seal sin.” All senses of the verb, says he, unite in that of restraining. To seal sin, holds forth God’s judicial hardening of persons in sin. This passage, the Duke thinks, was fulfilled “before the passover, in the year A.D. 67.” The ‘terminus a quo’ is said to be the first (1st) year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, whose date is given in Ptolemy’s Canon An. Nabonassar 325, which, according to the method of verifying the date here used, is B.C. 424, “which, added to the year when apostasy was no longer restrained, A.D. 66, makes 70 weeks or 490 years.” Original views of the “sealing” and the sixty-two (62) weeks are also proposed, to which we can only refer: see pp. 410-422. The closing calculation, that “we may look for the cleansing of the sanctuary A.D. 1877,” is so adverse to the interpretation of these Lectures, that we must be content with this passing allusion to it.
The opinions of certain celebrated writers upon this point are here collected. ‘Clement’ of Alexandria, according to the late Bishop of Lincoln, p. 383, explains it thus: “The Temple was rebuilt in seven (7) weeks: then, after an interval of sixty-two (62) weeks, the Messiah came: then, after an interval of half (1/2) a week, Nero placed an abomination in the Temple of Jerusalem: and, after another half-week (1/2 wk), the Temple was destroyed by Vespasian.” ‘Theodoret’ closes the period three years and a half (3 1/2 yrs) after the suffering of Christ: “and so they begin the last week at the baptism of Christ,” says Willet. He quotes Zonaras, tom. i., ‘Annal’, who commences the period at the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and ends the 62 weeks at the death of Hyrcanus. From this point to Christ’s baptism they reckon seven (7) weeks more, and then in the midst of the last week, Messiah was slain; so there remained afterwards three (3) years and a half (1/2) for the preaching of the Gospel. ‘Eusebius’ begins the 69 weeks in the sixth (6th) year of Darius Hystaspes, and ends them in the first (1st) year of Herod, about the death of Hyrcanus. He begins the 70th week at Christ’s baptism, and ends the period three (3) years and a half (1/2) afterwards. ‘Tertullian’, by beginning in the first (1st) year of Darius, counts 490 years, to the destruction of Jerusalem.
‘OEcolampadius’ confesses this passage to be one of the most difficult in Scripture, and can scarcely satisfy himself with any solution. He rather unwisely introduces chronological tables of the events of Scripture, from Adam to the time of the Herods. “With Christ,” he says, “is the fulness of the times and the completion of the seventy (70) weeks.” He quotes the expressions of Jewish authorities, and refers to the cruelty of Herod, and the anointing of Jesus as Messiah. “They are not weeks of days, or of jubilees, or of ages,” he asserts, but of years. They most probably begin at either the first year of Cyrus, or the second of Darius. He calculates it both ways: the first period closing at the death of Antiochus the brother of Alexander, and the other at the reign of Herod. He afterwards adopts the division of this period into three (3) parts, and explains his method of reckoning the seven (7) weeks. The question is discussed with great judgment, and its perusal will amply repay the attentive student of this remarkable prophecy.
‘J. D. Michaelis’ has elucidated this subject, in a letter to Sir John Pringle, which the English reader will find noticed in the Monthly Review, O. S., vol. xlix. p. 263 and following. ‘Dr. Blayney’, in a Dissertation, Oxford, 1775, 4to, contradicts the Professor’s opinions: see Monthly Review, O. S., vol. lii. p. 487 and following. ‘John Uri’ also published at Oxford, 1788, an “Interpretation, paraphrase, and computation of this passage.” ‘Faber’s’ well known Dissertation, London, 1811, only needs to be mentioned to be valued; while that of ‘Dr. Stonard’, London, 1826, is exceedingly elaborate, being a masterly scholastic work. ‘Dr. Wells’ has prefixed to his “Help to the Understanding of Daniel,” some observations on the chronology of this prophecy. From him we learn the different methods of ‘Scaliger, Mede’, and ‘Bishop Lloyd’, while his own paraphrase and his solution of some of the difficulties in the schemes of preceding writers, are worthy of attentive perusal. ‘Willet’ presents us with “The several interpretations of Daniel’s seventy (70) weeks dispersedly handled before, summed together,” in his 55th question on this chapter, and continues the subject through the ten (10) succeeding questions. From his comments, we ascertain the views of ‘J. Lucidus’, lib. vii., ‘De emendatione temporis, Osiander, Junius, Montanus in apparat, lib. Dan’., and others. His remarks on ‘Calvin’ are worthy of notice here. “’M. Calvin’ beginneth these years in the first (1st) year of Cyrus, and endeth them in the sixth (6th) of Darius the son of Hystaspes, the third (3rd) king of Persia; but this cannot be; for they that give the most years unto Cyrus and Cambyses, allow but the one 30 and the other seven (7); excepting only ‘Luther’, who following ‘Eusebius De Demon. Evan’., giveth to each of them 20 years. Then add the six (6) years of Darius, they will make but 43. How, then, can the seven (7) weeks be here fulfilled? Beside, that Darius, in whose sixth (6th) (year) the Temple was re-edified, called Darius of Persia, was not Darius Hystaspes the third (3rd) king of Persia; but before this Darius, three (3) other kings are named Cyrus, Assuerus, Artashasht, Ezra 4:6,7”. This reference to ‘Calvin’s’ occurs in his 58th question, ‘When the terme of seven (7) weekes, that is 49 yeares beganne and when it ended,” p. 323, Edit., 1610. One remark of ‘Wintle’s’ is most important, as its correctness vindicates ‘Calvin’ from every charge of inconsistency in his interpretation of these prophecies. “The original word rendered weeks throughout the prophecy, strictly signifies sevens (7s), which word is adopted in Purver’s translation, and may be referred either to days or years.” Professor ‘Jahn’ also adopts the same correct and simple translation, and his satisfactory criticism is found in his Appendia to Enchir. Hermen, Fasc. i. p. 124 and following. Vienna, 1813. The subject is also discussed by the present Editor, in his Norrisian Prize Essay for 1834, p. 81. Dathe also, in his Prophetae Majores, Edit. 3d., Halae, 1831, translates as follows, “The seventy (70), yea the seventy (70), are drawing to a close.” The only difference in the original is in the pointing of the Masorets; and thus the chronology which they introduced, requires all the ingenious apparatus of the profound astronomy of Sir Isaac Newton to reconcile it with the historical facts. See his Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, part i. chap. x. Archbishop ‘Secker’ has dwelt much on this point, and every commentator on the Prophet has treated it with more or less wisdom and discretion. ‘Wintle’ is on the whole very judicious. Professor ‘Lee’s’ translation of the passage, and explanation of the Hebrew words, is exceedingly valuable. His exegetical comments admit of some variety of opinion as to their value. The seventy (70) weeks, says he, were not “to be considered chronological in any sense, but only to name an ‘indefinite’ period, the events of which, as in most similar cases, should make all sufficiently clear,” Bk. ii., chap. i. p. 160. This chronological period, and the dependent minor divisions, are ably treated by ‘Rosenmüller’, who has devoted more than usual space to their illustration. He quotes some of the best opinions of the most celebrated German writers, and throws great light upon the historical points connected with the inquiry. See his comments on this chap. ix. pp. 313-324.
‘Broughton’ has quoted largely from Jewish Rabbis; he treats Daniel’s prayer as a compendium of theology, and applies Gabriel’s answer to the baptism, miracles, and life of our Lord.
Professor ‘Stuart’, whom we have already quoted, has treated this subject with great precision by commenting critically on the Hebrew words. He adopts the rendering seventy (70) sevens (7s), or “’seventy (70) heptades’ are determined upon thy people. Heptades of what? of days or of years? Noone can doubt what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent search respecting the seventy (70) years; and in such a connection, nothing but seventy (70) heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel.” An argument is also drawn from the double gender of the plural of this word, which is noticed by Ewald, Gram. Heb., sec. 373. London, 1836. Many other arguments in favour of its general sense of “sevens (7s)” are added, implying that the connection only determines whether years or days be intended. ‘Professor Bush’ brings forward the opposite views to those of ‘Stuart’, and discusses the subject with the utmost exactness of Hebrew criticism. ‘Mede’ should also be consulted, works, Bk. iii. chap. ix. p. 599. ‘Hengstenberg’ treats the form of the word as participial and indicating a septenized (70s) period, like ‘hebdomas’ in Greek, ‘septimana’ in Latin, ‘settimana’ in Italian, and ‘semaine’ in French [& ‘setenta’ in Spanish, & ‘siebzig’ in German]. Views in accordance with these are found in “The Morning Watch,” vol. v. p. 327. London, 1832. This article is the more worthy of perusal, as it presents us, in an intelligible English form, the criticism of Professor ‘Jahn’, extracted from his Appendix ad Enchiridion Hermeneutica, Fasc. i. p. 124 and following. Edit., Vienna, 1813. The English translation of the passage, in accordance with Jahn’s critical exposition, is worthy of notice, particularly by those readers who wish to keep before their minds the most valuable explanations which have ever been published, by British, Continental, and American Divines.” }}

Dissertation X. Hippolytus, Nicolaus Lyranus, Burgensis, Africanus, Apollinares, &c. 9:25.
{{ “Hippolytus,” says Mosheim, “whose history is much involved in darkness, is also esteemed among the most celebrated authors and martyrs of this age.” (Vol. i. p. 270, edit. 1823.) Although the learned Benedictines have assisted in dispelling this darkness in their History of the Literature of France, vol. i. p. 361, yet the greatest light has been thrown upon the life and opinions of this writer by the Chevalier ‘Bunsen’, in his work, “Hippolytus and his Age,” 4 vols., 1852. Dr. ‘Christopher Wordsworth’ has also discussed the same subject, giving an English version of the newly discovered ‘philosophumena’, with an introductory inquiry into the authorship of the treatise, and on the life and works of the writer. It is out of our province to enter on the important questions raised by these well-known writers; we must confine ourselves strictly to whatever illustrates ‘Daniel’. He wrote commentaries on various parts of the Old and New Testaments, and among these Bunsen enumerates one “On the Prophets, in particular on Ezekiel and Daniel,” vol. i. p. 282. A fragment of his comment on Daniel is preserved in the edition of ‘Fabricius’, in which the Greek text is printed from a Vatican MS., tom. i. p. 271, “named by Theodoret and by Photius, c. 203. Jerome says ‘Hippolytus historical explanation of the seventy (70) weeks did not tally with history and chronology’. Fabricius, i. p. 272. We have a genuine fragment of this explanation in Fabricius, i. p. 278, on “Daniel’s life and times.” The Syrian MSS. discovered in the Lybian Desert, and explored by Cureton, contain, says Bunsen, quotations from the Commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus. Calvin, most probably, knew no more of his view of the seventy (70) weeks than he found in Jerome. The existence of his treatise on Antichrist was known to the Reformers chiefly from ancient writers who had given a list of his works, but especially from Jerome. From ‘Fabricius, Appendix’ ad. I. i. p. 2, we learn that a forgery was published in 1556, and that the genuine work was first edited in 1661 from two French MSS. A. Latin translation was added in 1672. “His calculations,” says Bunsen, “based upon Daniel and the Apocalypse, are quite as absurd as those which we have been doomed to see printed, and praised, and believed in our days. He makes out that Antichrist will come 500 years after Christ, from the tribe of Dan, and rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.” This remark has caused the censure of a writer in “’The Record’,” who accuses Bunsen of making this bishop and martyr “the mouthpiece of his own unbelief in the prophecies of Daniel.” “Some writers have conceived,” says Bunsen, “that Hippolytus alludes, in his interpretation of the ten (10) horns of the fourth (4th) beast in Daniel, to some great convulsions of the empire in his time; but this opinion seems to me entirely unfounded. All I can find in these passages indicative of the time in which they were written, (sec. 28,29,) is the existence of a very strong, iron, military government; and this seems to point to the time when the power of Septimius Severus was firmly established, after fierce contests and sanguinary battles. The rest relates to things to come, to the last age of the world, which he thought about three (3) centuries distant.” (Vol. i. p. 274.) On page 290 we have three (3) lists of the works of this “father,” as noticed by Eusebius, Jerome, and Lycellus. Eusebius does not mention his work on Daniel; both Jerome and Lycellus do; and Nicephorus adds it among others to the Eusebian list; and on page 242 many of his works are recorded as existing among the Escurial manuscripts. See the Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliothèque de l’Escurial, par E. Miller, 8vo, Paris, 1848. Cardinal Main, in his “Scriptorum Veterum nova Collectio,” vol. i., part 2, gives such fragments of Hippolytus’ Daniel as were formerly inedited, (pp. 161-222.) On page 205, ver, 13, he illustrates Daniel’s phrase, “the old of the days,” referring it to God the Father, the Master of all, even of Christ Himself.
The interest excited by the recent publications of ‘Bunsen’ and ‘Wordsworth’, makes it desirable to state that fresh light has been thrown upon his life and times. ‘Cave’, in his elaborate work, is unsuccessful respecting Hippolytus. He takes up the opinion of Le Moyne, a French ecclesiastical writer of the seventeenth (17th) century, who conjectured that he was bishop of ‘Portus Romanus’, Aden in Arabia. The additional supposition that he was an Arabian by birth is also a mistake. He was bishop of the “portus,” a harbour of the city of Rome, during the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus, at the beginning of the third (3rd) century. He suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Maximus the Thracian, about A.D. 236. The Chevalier’s narrative of the manner in which a lost book of his has been recovered is worthy of notice. “A French scholar and statesman of high merit, M. Willemain, sent a Greek to Mount Athos to look out for new treasures in the domain of Greek literature. The fruits of this mission were deposited, in 1842, in the great national library, already possessed of so many treasures. Among them was a MS. of no great antiquity, written in the fourteenth (14th) century, not on parchment, but on cotton paper, and it was registered as a book “on all heresies,” without any indication of its author or age…. It fell to the lot of a distinguished Greek scholar and writer on literature, a functionary of that great institution, M. Emmanuel Miller, to bring forward the hidden treasure…. In 1850 he offered it to the University Press at Oxford, as a work of undoubted authenticity, and as a lost treatise of Origen, “Against all Heresies.” It was published in 1851, and Bunsen, on reading it, pronounced it not to be the work of Origen, but of Hippolytus; and in letters to Archdeacon Hare, he has thrown great light upon the subject, and enabled us to peruse some fragments of his comments on Daniel and the Antichrist, which Calvin could only have known through Eusebius and Jerome.
It is worthy of notice that ‘Sir Isaac Newton’, in his “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel,” &c., quotes Hippolytus thus, “If divers of the ancients, as Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus the martyr, and Apollinaris bishop of Laodicea, applied the half (1/2) week to the times of Antichrist, why may not we, by the same liberty of interpretation, apply the seven (7) weeks to the time when Antichrist shall be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming?”
‘Nicolaus de Lyra’ received his name from the place of his birth, Lire, a small town in Normandy. He flourished at the beginning of the fourteenth (14th) century: he was one of the Society of the Friars Minors at Verneuil, although he is supposed to have been born a Jew. His ‘postills’ were repeatedly printed at the close of the fifteenth (15th) and the early part of the sixteenth (16th) centuries, and were familiar to the biblical students of Calvin’s day. He was a good Hebrew scholar, and has enriched his comments with the best specimens of Rabbinical learning. He is a good interpreter of the literal sense; but his views were attacked by Paulus Burgensis, Paul bishop of Burgos, who was a converted Jew, and defended by Matthias Doring. His works, with those of his opponent and champion, were published at ‘Duaci’, A.D. 1617; also at Antwerp, A.D. 1634, in 6 vols. folio. See also Hart. Horne, vol. ii. part ii. ch. v. In the Morning Watch, vol. i. p. 147, he is considered as a forerunner of the Reformation. Luther is there said to have written of him thus: “Ego Lyram ideo amo, et inter optimos pono, quod ubique diligenter retinet et persequitur historiam.”
“’Burgensis’.” A notice of Paul of Burgos is found in ‘Allport’s’ edition of Bishop Davenant on Justification, vol. ii. p. 86, ‘note’.
The ‘Africanus’ here mentioned was Julius Africanus of Nicopolis, (Emmaus,) a friend of Origen’s, and rather his senior in years. He is a very early writer on chronology, about A.D. 232; and his epistle concerning the history of Susannah, together with Origen’s reply, is in ‘Wetstein’s’ edition, annexed to the dialogue against the Marcionites. Mosheim calls him “a man of the most profound erudition, but the greatest part of whose learned labours are unhappily lost.” Cent. iii. part. ii.; see also Gieseler’s Eccl. Hist, vol. i. p. 145, American translation. The treatise to which ‘Calvin’ probably refers is the fragment on the genealogy of Christ preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. i. chap. vii., especially as Eusebius himself had just quoted this chapter of Daniel (v. 24) at the close of his sixth (6th) chapter. Other writings of his are quoted by Eusebius, lib. vi. chap. xxxi., entitled “Concerning Africanus.”
‘Apollinaris’, bishop of Hierapolis, flourished in the second (2nd) century. He is included by Gieseler among the writers against the Montanists, and is united with Melito of Sardis by Eusebius, as writers of great repute. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. iv. chap. xxvi., xxvii. In the latter chapter he gives a list of his works. See also lib. v. chap. xvi., xix. Another of the fourth (4th) century is mentioned by Mosheim as Bishop of Laodicea. An account of this writer is found in the English edition of Bailey’s Dictionary.” }}

Dissertation XI. Abomination of Desolation. 9:27.
{{ “Various questions have arisen respecting the correct interpretation of this phrase. The prophecy has been supposed to be accomplished first (1st) under Antiochus Epiphanes, and again by the Roman armies under Titus. ‘Hengstenberg’s’ remarks were chiefly in reply to ‘Bertholdt, Com’. ii. p. 584, and in explanation of our Saviour’s comments, as recorded by St. Matthew. He thinks “it was then regarded by the Jews as relating to a still future occurrence —the yet impending conquest and destruction of Jerusalem.” . . . .“A sufficient proof of this is afforded by the passage, Josephus Arch (Antiq.). x. 11, 7, ‘Daniel predicted also the Roman supremacy, and that our country should be desolated by them.’” The passage ‘De Bell. Jud’. 4:6, 3, is also quoted with this conclusion, “How general the reference of the prophecy then was to a future destruction of the city, appears from the express observation of Josephus, that even the zealots had no doubt of the correctness of this interpretation. The same interpretation is found also in the Babylonian and Jerusalem ‘Gemarah’.” (P. 215.) This reference to “the zealots” is explained in a note to ‘Bishop Kidder’s’ Demonstration of the Messias, pt. ii. p. 11. They were slain standing on the battlements of the temple, and their carcases and blood were scattered and sprinkled about the sanctuary before its final destruction. This is supposed to be a fulfilment of the prediction. Professor ‘Lee’ states, “It is to be understood rather of the Roman armies, with their heathen ensigns, stationed over against the Temple, than of anything else.” (Book ii. chap. ii. p. 202.) He translates thus, “For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it (i.e., Jerusalem) desolate; even until the consummation (i.e., the complete end) and (until) that determined shall be poured upon the desolate, rather desolator;” meaning, “the people of the prince who should come as a desolator and destroy the city and the sanctuary.” (Book ii. chap. i. p. 142.) “Let it be remembered,” says he, “all is here indefinite. No mathematical measure of time or portion of time is therefore to be thought of. The occurrence of their several events will supply the only measures of time now to be had recourse to.”
The early Reformers, OEcolampadius, Bullinger, and Osiander, treated the word “overspreading” in its literal sense of “wing,” and applied it to the wings or pinnacles of the Temple; the first of these three (3) takes it for “the very altar and holy place where the winged cherubim were.” Augustine in his ‘Epis’. 80, ‘ad Hesychium’, interprets it of the legions and wings of the Roman armies which compassed and defiled the Temple. ‘Irenaeus’, lib. v. ad. haer, explains it of Antichrist, whom he imagined should sit in the Temple at Jerusalem, and be worshipped as Messiah. ‘Rosenmüller’ illustrates the use of the word wing from Isaiah 8:8, and 18:1, and also from Cicero, Offic. lib. ii. chap. 13. C. B. ‘Michaelis’ objects to the usual sense of the “abomination of desolations,” while ‘Gesenius’ and ‘Winer’ refer the wing to the pinnacle of the Temple. ‘Rosenmüller’ prefers the active sense of “the desolator,” according to the marginal reading of our authorized version, and applies the passage to Antiochus Epiphanes, quoting 1st Macc. 1:11, 63, as fulfilling the prediction. ‘Dr. Wells’ approves of this translation, but he interprets the desolator to mean “the Gentile people inhabiting the (once) countries of the Roman Empire.” (Paraphrase, p. 101.)” }}

Chapter 10th:

Dissertation XII. Vision on Bank of Hiddekel. 10:1, 13.
{{ “This vision is referred to by ‘Bertholdt’ and ‘Griesinger’ in an attempt to shew its contradiction to chap. 1:21, but their cavils have been ably answered by ‘Hengstenberg’, pp. 54, 55. The error in the Alexandrine translation of this verse is discussed on p. 239. With regard to the fasting of ver. 2, ‘Staudlin’ assumes that Daniel abstracted himself as far as possible from sensible objects, in order to obtain very high revelations, and that the reason why only Daniel saw the appearance lies in the fact, that only he had been fasting a long season and doing penance, and had thereby sharpened and sanctified his vision; see ‘N. Beitr’., p. 279, ap. ‘Heng’., p. 120. The celestial appearance of ver, 5 and 6 is said to be “identical with the angel of the Lord, and thus also with Michael. Daniel finds himself on the banks of the Tigris, and sees hovering over its waters a human form clothed in linen, with a golden girdle about his loins.” ‘Hengstenberg’ objects to the opinion that this is a representation of Gabriel. He is so terrified by the voice of the apparition that he falls into a deep swoon, and for a long time cannot recover, whereas with Gabriel, on his former single appearance, chap. 11, he converses quite freely and without restraint. The angel of the Lord is present in calm silent majesty, and works with an unseen power. The man clothed in linen cannot be, as ‘Staudlin’ assumes, absolutely identified with the Most High God, but is as distinct from him as the angel of the Lord from the Lord Himself. For he swears not by himself, but, with his right hand lifted up to heaven, by the eternal God. The supposition of a distinction between the man clothed in linen and Gabriel has the analogy of chap. 8:16 in its favour. The names Gabriel and Michael are peculiar to Daniel, and occur only in such visions as from their dramatic character demand the most exact description possible of the persons concerned and the bringing of them out into stronger relief. This opinion is discussed more at length on pp. 136-138.
‘Rosenmüller’ objects to consider this vision as either an ecstasy or dream. He quotes Theodoret and Jerome on the phrase, “desirable food,” and explains the period of the Prophet’s fasting according to the view of C. B. Michaelis. The attire of ver. 5 is that of the high priest, although it is by no means certain that this representation pourtrayed “the prince of the army of Jehovah.” The likeness to chrysolite is said to be not with respect to colour, but clearness and brilliancy. Bochart and Calmet suppose Uphaz and Ophir to be the same place; see Wintle’s note, which is full of information. In illustration of the “voice,” ver, 6, Rosenmüller quotes Iliad xi. l. 148 and following, and enters fully into the Jewish theory of various orders of angels, in the first of which were Michael and Raphael. On this very interesting subject he has selected with great judgment the opinions of various ancient interpreters, especially Theodoret and Jerome, as well as those of Luther, Geier, Gesenius, and Winer. “The hand that touched him,” observes Wintle, “was probably one of the attendant angels. The form of the superior spirit was scarcely visible by Daniel, and therefore it seems likely to have been one of an inferior order, whose hand he could discover as reached out unto him. (Wer. 18.) The Son of God is seldom introduced to human notice without a retinue of angels.”
10:13. The prince of the kingdom of Persia is supposed by some writers to be either Cyrus or Cambyses opposing the building of the Temple; and by others to refer to those guardian angels which the Orientals believed to protect different countries. ‘Wintle’ adopts Theodotion’s translation of the last clause of this verse, as the sense then becomes very clear; but Rosenmüller prefers the Syriac version, “I was delayed there,” in preference to “I left him there.”” }}

Dissertation XIII. Michael the Prince. 10:13.
{{ “The appearance of angels, as recorded in these prophecies, has always given rise to much inquiry and conjecture. ‘Hengstenberg’ contends for the identity of Michael and the angel of the Lord, as recognised by the elder Jews, perhaps on the testimony of tradition. He contends against the assertion of ‘Bertholdt’, that the Jews derived their distinction between superior and inferior angels from the Persians, after the end of the Babylonish captivity, (ii. 528.) ‘Gesenius’ recognises angel-princes, “as the earthly monarch is surrounded by his nobles, so here is Jehovah by princes of heaven.” Traces of a gradation of rank among the angels are also found in Job 33:23, according to the explanation suggested by ‘Winer’. “We go further,” adds ‘Hengstenberg’, “we can shew that those angels of higher rank who play a particular part in our book, are the very same that meet us in just the same character in the oldest books. We have already pointed out in the ‘Christologie’, that the doctrine of the angel or revealer of God, runs through the whole of the Old Testament, who in a twofold (2-fold) respect, first (1st) as the highest of all angels, then as connected with the hidden God by a oneness of essence, appears as his revealer.” He then argues for the identity of Michael with the angel of Jehovah, the leader of the Israelites, the prince of the army of Jehovah, according to Exod. 32:34, and Joshua 5:13, and Zech. 1:5. In some passages in the Talmud, Michael as the angel of Jehovah is associated with the Shekinah. See on this interesting point ‘Baumgarten-Crusius Bibl. Theol’., pp. 282, 287. ‘Jerome’ on Zech. i.; and ‘Danz in Meuschen’, Illustrations of the New Testament from the Talmud, pp. 718, 733.” }}

Chapter 11th:

Dissertation XIV. Historical Proofs: Three Kings of Persia. 11:2.
{{ “The speaker in this last vision is the Son of God Himself. There are two (2) things which in my judgment may be clearly proved; that the princes of Persia and Javan, as also Michael and Gabriel, are created angels; and that the speaker in this last vision is the angel of the covenant, the Son of God. . . . The phrase, “to strengthen him,” is also very significant. The word is ‘mahoz’, the same which occurs in the plural ‘mahuzzim’, at the close of the prophecy. Here it plainly denotes a tutelary or guardian power, exercised on behalf of Darius by the Son of God. At the close of the vision it must bear a similar meaning. The Mahuzzim are those tutelary powers, whether saints, angels, or demons, who are objects of great horror to the wilful king.” —’Birks’, p. 33. Herodotus is still a safe guide in the interpretation of this prediction. His narrative of Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes, amply illustrates and confirms it. The canon of Ptolemy agrees in the same account, only Smerdisis omitted, as usual, because his reign was less than a year. In the reign of Darius, the third (3rd) successor of Cyrus, the rebuilding of the temple was renewed, under the exhortations of Haggai and Zechariah. “The fourth (4th) king,” who is far richer than all, and stirs up all against the realm of Greece, plainly answers to Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius. Those three (3) reigns reach forward through fifty (50) years of the world’s history, A.C. 534-485.
11:2. The fourth (4th) king was Xerxes. The four (4) last books of Herodotus, and the eleventh (11th) of Diodorus, are entirely occupied with his invasion of Greece. The Greek play of AEschylus, called the Persae, written within eight (8) years to celebrate the triumph of the Greeks, is useful in conveying a vivid impression of this predicted invasion. ‘Willet’ may be consulted, as he enters very fully into all the historical details, and gives his authorities in abundance; but his arrangement is very cumbrous; and his want of critical skill often renders his judgment valueless. He has raw materials in abundance, but seldom produces it “ready made to hand.” See Quest. vi., for various opinions on the identity of this fourth (4th) king, p. 398, Edit. 1610.
11:3-5. “The mighty king who shall stand up,” clearly refers to Alexander. The exposition of ‘Calvin’ is substantially correct throughout this chapter; it will be sufficient to add a few dates and references.
‘Diodorus’, lib. xviii. ch. 43, narrates the career of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, who received Egypt as his share, and successfully repelled the attacks of Perdiccas. Lib. xix. ch. 79, continues the exploits of Ptolemy. ‘Justin’, lib. xiii. ch. 6, and xvi. ch. 2, confirms the statement of Diodorus.
11:5. “One of his princes shall be great.” This refers to Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the kingdom of Syria. His strength is related by Appian, de Bel. Syr. sect. 164, who says he could stop a bull in his career by laying hold of him by the horn. The Arabs called the era of the Seleucidae ‘Dilcarnain’, two-horned. —See Prideaux, Connex., part i. b. 8 ; Justin xix. ch. 12, and 55, 56, 58, 62, 90, 91, 100; Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, ch. viii.; Grey on Hist. of the Seleucidae, viii. 35.
11:6-9. We have here the marriage of Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, with Antiochus Theus, the grandson of the great Seleucus. ‘Birks’ has drawn up an elaborate list of each king of Syria and Egypt, from B.C. 323 to 164; and states the following monarchs as referred to in the corresponding verses of this chapter; viz.,
5. Ptolemy Soter, and Seleucus Nicator.
7, 8. Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Antiochus Theus.
9. Ptolemy Euergetes, and Seleucus Callinicus.
10. Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus.
11, 12. Ptolemy Philopator.
14, 17. Ptolemy Epiphanes.
20. Seleucus Philopator.
21. Antiochus Epiphanes.
25. Ptolemy Philometor.
He has also treated the details of the history so plainly, that we may satisfy ourselves by simply referring to chapters 6 to 11 pp. 73-171. ‘Wintle’s’ notes are also very explanatory; both these authors supply all the ‘Historical Proofs’ which the reader of ‘Calvin’s’ Daniel can require.
The annexed authorities will explain some of the historical allusions of the text. Villius, p. 298, was Publius Villius, the Roman ambassador to the court of Antiochus, who there held a conference with Hannibal.
P. Popilius Laenas, p. 317. The narrative is founded on Valerius Maximus, vi. ch. 5; Livy, xlv. ch. 12; Paterculus, i. ch. 10. ‘Calvin’ probably adopted this anecdote from Jerome. See Fry, vol. ii. p. 55.
Valerius Soranus, p. 349 —a Latin poet of the period of Julius Caesar.
Alexander, king of Syria, p. 358. The events of his career are detailed by Josephus, Ant., xiii. ch. 9. Physcon, p. 359. See Josephus as before, and Athenaeus, ii. ch. 23.
Carrae, p. 364. For the death of Crassus there, see Lucan i. ver, 105, and Pliny, lib. v. c. 14.” }}

Dissertation XV. Wilful King. 11:36-38.
{{ “The subject here commenced is of the deepest interest, and needs peculiar caution in its treatment. The words in which it is conveyed are obscure in themselves, and, consequently, all the early translations of them are imperfect. ‘Calvin’ has thrown great light upon the original phraseology, but still reference may be profitably made to some modern translators. The sixteenth (16th) chapter of the “Two Later Visions of Daniel,” is occupied with this discussion; various views are clearly and fairly stated; some conjectures are refuted, and some conclusions enforced which differ very materially from ‘Calvin’s’. The translation of obscure passages adopted in this work are excellent, as well as those given by ‘Elliott’ in his notes to pages 1327 and following, of vol. iii. of his Horae Apocalypticae. Professor ‘Lee’s’ translations are exceedingly full and explanatory, while his hermeneutical views agree more with ‘Calvin’s’ than either Elliott’s or Birks’. See his Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and end of Prophecy, Bk. ii., chap. ii. p. 189 and following. ‘Wintle’s’ notes are much to the point. And Bishop Newton traces the analogy between this king and Antichrist in his Dissert, vol. iii, chap. xxvi. The annexed comments from ‘Birks’, p. 271 and following, will explain some grammatical difficulties.
11:37. —“ He shall not regard the ‘elohim’ of his fathers.” The clause is ambiguous, as the word “elohim” may receive two opposite constructions. Bishop Newton and others think it to mean, the one true God; but Mede, with many able writers, render it correctly, the ‘gods’ of his fathers, implying the false deities of the heathens. Arguments are then given in support of this view, and objections forcibly answered. “Neither shall he regard the desire of women.” The meaning of this phrase is shortly discussed. The received view, that it refers to the Messiah, is set aside, and it is taken in the enlarged sense of despising and trampling upon these humanizing affections of which women are the object. Elliott, after a good Hebrew criticism, applies it to the Messiah, fortifying his opinion by ‘Faber’ on the Prophecies, pp. 380-385, vol. i., edit. v.; so ‘Lee’ in his preface, p. cxxvi, to Euseb. Theophania —“This occurring as it does in a context speaking of deities, was probably intended to designate the Messiah.”
11:38. —“But in his estate with ‘Eloah’ he will honour ‘Mahuzzim’.” We now enter upon the second (2nd) part of this description, which exhibits the new worship set up by the Wilful King. Here several questions of some difficulty will arise. I will first (1st) offer what appears to me the most natural translation, and consider afterwards the chief points in dispute one by one. “But in his estate with ‘Eloah’, he will honour ‘Mahuzzim’; even with an ‘eloah’ whom his fathers knew not, he will honour them with gold, and with silver, and with precious stones, and with pleasant things. And he will offer to the strongholds of ‘Mahuzzim’, with a foreign ‘eloah’ whom he will acknowledge; he will increase their glory, and will cause them to rule over many, and will divide the land for gain.” The meaning of the word ‘Mahuzzim’, fortresses or strongholds, is next described, and in conclusion, it is decided, that ‘Mahuzzim’ “must here denote guardian deities or tutelary persons, who receive worship as protectors and guardians, defences and fortresses, from their votaries.” Professor ‘Lee’s’ translation is as follows: “But in his estate he shall honour the ‘god’ of forces; and a ‘god’ whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and with pleasant things.” “Nero was the first of this series.” “Domitian was the first (1st) emperor who generally persecuted, and who, during his lifetime, assumed the title of the ‘Lord God’, and insisted upon being worshipped as a deity.” This is the Professor’s interpretation, p. 192. The translations of ‘Mede’, Bishop ‘Newton’, and Dr. ‘Gill’, vary slightly from each other, but none of them are so correct as that given above. The original word, translated “offer,” has very wide and various meanings. In Exodus 10:25, it is rendered “sacrifice” to the Lord our God, and is very frequently used in this sense. The words, “a foreign ‘god’ whom he will acknowledge,” are probably an explanation of the previous phrase, “a ‘god’ whom his fathers knew not ;” implying that the worship of this divinity was borrowed by the Wilful King from some other nation, and was unknown to his fathers.
“Such, in conclusion,” says Birks, “are the results which flow from a careful inquiry into the natural meaning of this passage. The Wilful King here described is one which might be expected to rise after the renewed persecution of the faithful, when imperial help had been given them, and to continue perhaps for ages, until the restoration of Israel. His title as the king, and the time appointed him in the words of the angel, prove him to be the same with the Little Horn, speaking great words against the most High. He will reject every form of heathen worship, commended to him by the long practice of his fathers, utter proud speeches of surprising arrogance, and of real blasphemy against the God of heaven, trample under his feet the strongest instincts of domestic love, and thus magnify himself against God and man. He will, however, adopt a foreign ‘eloah’ derived from the Jews for his own; but will turn the very worship he pays to the Son of God into the key-stone to a wide and spreading system of idolatry, in which he will pay reverence to a multitude of guardian powers, and cause them to receive homage and worship from his people.” The comments of this able writer on verses 36–39 are so contrary to the views of ‘Calvin’, that it is only necessary here to state their variance with those of our Reformer. Some explanations are worthy of notice, as, for instance, the following: —“These words apply accurately to the local persecutions of believers under the Arian emperors, and the fierce and savage cruelties of the Vandals against the confessors of the faith. When, however, the time of the end, or the predicted three (3) times and a half (1/2) should begin, these persecutions would gradually become more systematic and severe. So that the prophecy at once proceeds to describe the king, who would prosper in the time of the end, and by whom the fires would be kindled afresh with more than Pagan cruelty, against the followers of God.”
‘Elliott’ in his Horae Apocalypticae, vol. iii. p. 1294, has devoted a section to the elucidation of this chapter. His comments upon the Hebrew words of the original text are valuable, displaying great judgment, and throwing much light upon the Prophet’s meaning. His chronological list of the kings of Syria and Egypt is correct, and very clearly explains the history of this prophetic period. This prophecy, he states, naturally divides itself into two (2) parts: first (1st), that from ver, 1-31, sketching the times of the Persians and Greeks; secondly (2nd), that from chap. 11:32 to the end of chap. 12, sketching the sequel. His comments upon the whole of chap. 11 to ver, 35, are illustrative of ‘Calvin’s’ views in these Lectures; but this writer interprets ver. 36 and following, in accordance with the expositions of Mede and the two Newtons. These are so fundamentally at variance with ‘Calvin’s’ writings, that it would be out of place to dwell upon them here. ‘Elliott’s’ notes on the Hebrew words throughout the latter portion of this chapter are most excellent, and may be trusted as scholarlike, sound, and judicious.
Chapter 6 of the “First (1st) Elements of Sacred Prophecy” is occupied by a refutation of Dr. Todd’s theory. The details of the fulfilment of each verse are plainly and accurately stated, and the objections of the Fourth (4th) Donnellan Lecture are shewn to be futile. This work is chiefly devoted to the refutation of the Futurist theories, which are directly opposite to that of ‘Calvin’. See particularly pp. 135-149.
‘Fry’ in his ‘Second (2nd) Adven’, chap. v. sect. 21, has collected the views of various English Commentators, but they all vary exceedingly from those of ‘Calvin’.” }}

Dissertation XVI. Pollution of Sanctuary. 11:36, &c.
{{ “The various occasions on which the sanctuary was polluted by heathen foes are as follows:–
1. By Antiochus Epiphanes, when he set up the image of Jupiter Olympius on the divine altar. The daily sacrifice was then taken away, and Acra fortified so as to overlook the Temple.
2. The Romans polluted it under Pompey the Great, as recorded by ‘Josephus, Antiq’., xiv. § 4, 2, 6. It was transitory and quickly repaired, although this was the first step towards the complete loss of liberty.
3. The next profanation occurred under Crassus, who carried off the gold and the treasures which Pompey had left. Eleazer the priest, who had the custody of the vail of the Temple, gave him a beam of solid gold as a ransom for the whole, and yet he afterwards carried away all the wealth of the sacred edifice. (‘Antiq’., xiv. 7, 1.)
4. When Herod obtained the kingdom, A.C. 38, the Romans under Sosius took the city by storm; the Jews took refuge within the Temple, but were unmercifully massacred by their cruel foes. (‘Antiq’., xiv. 16, 3.) So again a slaughter took place in the Temple by Archelaus on the first (1st) passover after Herod’s death, while the cruelties of Sabinus form a similar instance. (‘Wars’, ii. 3, 2.)
5. When Titus pitched his camp on the Mount of Olives, and the Romans brought their ensigns within the Temple, and offered sacrifices to them. (‘Wars’, vi. 6, 1.)
6. During the reign of Hadrian, after the revolt of Bar chochebas, a temple was built and consecrated to Jupiter Capitolinus on the very site of the sanctuary. ” }}

Dissertation XVII. Conquest of Glorious Land. 11:41.
{{ “The sober views of our Reformer form a striking contrast to the speculations of some modern writers. ‘Birks’, for instance, considers the spread of the Turkish power as accomplishing this verse. He quotes ‘Rycault’s’ History of the Ottoman Kings, and considers the conquest of Thessalonica and the subjugation of Greece by Amurath II, A.D. 1432, as the intended fulfilment. In 1514, Selim the third Turkish Emperor overthrew the Sultan of Egypt, and obtained possession of Aleppo. After other victories, he turned aside to visit Jerusalem. The next verse is also supposed to predict his conquests; and the facts detailed by ‘Rycault’, vol. i. pp. 246-248, respecting the conquest of Judea, Arabia, and Egypt, at the commencement of the sixteenth (16th) century of the Christian era, are asserted to fulfil verses 41 to 43. The last verse of this chapter is also supposed to be accomplished by the historical events recorded by Rycault, vol. i. pp. 249-251. A similar opinion is given by the author of “The Revelation of St. John Considered,” Append. i. p. 467. ‘Elliott’s’ sentiments are similar to these, but less precise, and not very clearly expressed. ‘Mede’ and Bishop ‘Newton’ think the closing verses of this chapter remain yet unfulfilled. Professor ‘Lee’ treats this as accomplished by Constantine and Licinius; see pp. 195-197, and gives as his authority ‘Hist. Univers’, vol. xv. pp. 582-584. Before the reader has arrived at this “point of observation,” he will probably have decided whether the Praeterist or the Futurist interpretations of these verses is the more acceptable to his own mind, and will value these references according to the conclusions to which he has already arrived.” }}

Chapter 12th:

Dissertation XVIII. Sealing of the Book. 12:4.
{{ “It will not be necessary here to add more than a quotation from ‘Hengstenberg’, who answers objections with his usual success, “The command to the Prophets to shut up and seal the prophecies relates only to a symbolical action, to be understood of something internal; and after the removal of the mere drapery, the imperatives are to be resolved into futures, thus —these prophecies will be closed and sealed till the time of the end, in nearly the same manner as Zechariah (chap. 11:15) is commanded in a vision to take the instruments of a foolish shepherd, to intimate that some day ungodly rulers will ruin the people. . . . But the external acceptation of the words is still more strongly opposed by chap. 12:9. There the angel answers Daniel’s request for more precise disclosures respecting the prophecy, by saying that he cannot furnish him with them because it is closed and sealed up till the last time.” The objections here answered are those of ‘Bertholdt’, Comm., p. 795; ‘De Wette’; ‘Bleek’, pp. 186, 207; and ‘Sack’, Apol., p. 285. ‘Alexander’, W. L., (Edinburgh,) in his Congregational Lectures, seventh series, 1841, has a short but explanatory criticism on the meaning of “to seal” and “to shut up;” see Lect. vii. p. 372. ” }}

Dissertation XIX. Expressions Relative to Time. 12:11.
{{ “The variety of opinion as to the expressions of Time in this chapter renders it difficult to illustrate our author with sufficient brevity. The wisdom of the early reformers is conspicuous. ‘OEcolampadius’ agrees with ‘Calvin’ in treating these periods of days, as implying long and indefinite times —“multiplicatione dierum longum tempus antichristianae impietatis agnoseas” —by the multiplication of the days you will perceive the lengthened period of the antichristian impiety. ‘Junius’ and ‘Polanus’, as quoted by ‘Willet’, consider the days to be literal ones, and the accomplishment to have taken place during Maccabean times. He also gives the views of ‘Hippolytus’ and ‘Nicolaus de Lyra’, to whom ‘Calvin’ has previously referred. ‘Melancthon’ adds together the 1290 and the 1335 days, making seven (7) years and three (3) months, beginning B.C. 145, and ending B.C. 151, when Nicanor was overcome. ‘Bullinger’ understands them of the times of Antiochus, and ‘Osiander’ of the duration of Antichrist, but thinks this prophecy does not properly, “but by way of analogie, concern the latter times.” The opinions of those modern interpreters who adopt the principles of ‘Mede’ will be found in the works already quoted. He reckons the years from the time of Antiochus, B.C. 167, which brings us down to the 12th century, when the Waldenses and Albigenses protested against the tyranny of the Papacy; and between the forty-five (45) years, 1123 and 1 168 A.D., a great secession occurred from the dominion of the Pope, by which he thinks the prophecy to have been fulfilled. Bishop ‘Newton’, Dissert. xxvi. p. 387, writes as follows, “It is, I conceive, to these great events, the fall of Antichrist, the re-establishment of the Jews, and the beginning of the glorious millennium, that the three (3) different dates in Daniel of the 1260 years, 1290 years, and 1335 years, are to be referred.” Here the word “years” is used as if it occurred in the scriptural text.
Professor ‘Lee’ considers that the events which occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus fulfilled the prediction of ver, 1. “The children of thy people,” found written in the book, are said not to be the Jews at large, but the holy remnant who embraced Jesus as Messiah, and escaped to carry the tidings of salvation to the ends of the earth. The many who slept in the dust of the earth were to awake “in a first (1st) resurrection with Christ,” Rom. 6:3-6, and “some to shame and everlasting contempt, i.e., awakened to hear through the preaching of the gospel, the judgments denounced against unbelief, and to feel this in a general overthrow.” The resurrection is here interpreted of our regeneration and union with the Saviour through the Spirit, and the precise period of its accomplishment is confined to the early spread of the gospel among mankind.
The “time, times, and a half” of ver. 7, “must, of necessity, signify the time that should elapse from the fall of Jerusalem, to the end of Daniel’s seventieth (70th) week; for, according to the prediction enouncing this, the Temple and the City were to fall in the midst of this week,” p. 199. In direct contrast to this extract, ‘Elliott’s’ reference of this chapter to times yet future occurs in vol. ii. p. 1343. Assuming the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days to be years, the former (1st) period is said to close at the French Revolution in 1790 A.D., the second (2nd) at the Greek Revolution in 1820 A.D.; and as they are “unhesitatingly” pronounced to be all three (3) “measured from one and the same commencing epoch,” the last (3rd) date must terminate A.D. 1865. ‘Frere’ terminates the 1290 days in A.D. 1822, and the 1335 in A.D. 1847. See his Letter dated September 9, 1848, to the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, October 1848. ‘Wintle’ refers this verse to the struggle with antichristian powers, when Michael should stand up “to defend the cause of the Jews, and to destroy the enemies of true religion.” Note in loc.
‘The Duke of Manchester’ has devoted an Appendix to the discussion of these expressions. He justly observes; if they “are to be taken literally, then the important events of the latter part of this prophecy will be within the compass of a man’s life, and will relate to the actions of an individual. If, on the other hand, the 1290 and 1335 are years, they will extend far beyond the life of any individual, and must therefore be applied, not to a person, but to a system. Thus the whole character of the prophecy will be different.” “The prophecy of chapters 10-12 is not symbolical, nor even figurative, but is literal. The expression translated days in chap. 8, is different from the term rendered days in chap. 12. The character of the prophecy, chapters 10-12, is rather what we may call biographical, for it details the actions of individuals. I see no more warrant for saying the wilful king denotes a system, than for saying the vile person, or the raiser of taxes, or a dozen other kings, mentioned in the prophecy, denote systems. The genius of the prophecy, therefore, seems to require that the measure of time connected with the actions of the wilful king, should be suitable to the reign of an individual king, and not elongated into times suitable to the continuance of a system from generation to generation. ‘Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days,’ seems to imply that some individuals would endure for the whole 1335 days.” Thus far the noble author’s remarks are completely in the spirit of ‘Calvin’, but a few sentences afterwards, he supposes the “abomination of desolation” to belong to the last days of the world, thus giving countenance to the Futurist expositions. The curious reader may consult a Review in “The Morning Watch,” vol. v. p. 161, of ‘Faber’s’ Second Calendar of Prophecy, in which many ingenious speculations are brought forward illustrative of Daniel’s expressions relative to Time. The various numbers of this work contain a multiplicity of laborious investigations of this subject, chiefly based upon the year-day theory.” }}

Dissertation XX. Modern Discoveries Throwing its Light on Daniel’s Prophecies. 12:13.
{{ “We now conclude these our Dissertations by a further allusion to the subject which occupied our attention in the Preface —the marble commentary on the inspired text presented by the Nineveh monuments. Three thousand (3000) years have passed over the Assyrian mounds, and at length, while we are closing our volume, the grave is giving up its dead at the call of the intellect of modern Europe. The crusted earth, beneath which Nineveh has been so long inhumed, has now revealed the monumental history of its grandeur, the imperishable witness of its incomparable renown. We must leave the interesting narrative of the discovery of these unrivalled treasures, and the description of these singular sculptures; our attention must be directed solely to the inscriptions, by the reading of which alone these monuments become available for our purpose. Had we been unable to read them, “all the excavations must have been to no purpose, and the sculptured monuments would have been worthless as the dust from which they have been torn.” Well may we ask, in the language of an able review of Layard’s ‘second (2nd) series of monuments of Nineveh’, May 16, 1853, “By what splendid accidents, then, has it happened that illumination has been thrown into the heaps, and that art, interred for 3000 years, becomes, when brought to light, in an instant as familiar to us all as though it were but the dainty work of yesterday? How comes it that these arrow-headed, or, as they are more generally styled, cuneiform characters, which bear no analogy whatever to modern writing of any kind, and which have been lost to the world since the Macedonian conquest, are read by our countrymen with a facility that commands astonishment, and a correctness that admits of no dispute? The history is very plain, but certainly as remarkable as it is simple. Fifty (50) years ago the key that has finally opened the treasure-house was picked up, unawares, by Professor Grotefend of Göttingen. In the year 1802 this scholar took it into his head to decipher some inscriptions which were, and still are to be found on the walls of Persepolis, in Persia. These inscriptions, written in three different languages, are all in the cuneiform (or wedge-like) character, and were addressed, as it now appears, to the three (3) distinct races acknowledging, in the time of Darius, the Persian sway—viz., to the Persians proper, to the Scythians, and to the Assyrians. It is worthy of remark, that although the cuneiform character is extinct, the practice of addressing these races in the language peculiar to each still prevails on the spot. The modern governor of Bagdad, when he issues his edicts, must, like the great Persian king, note down his behests in three distinct forms of language, or the Persian, the Turk, and the Arab who submit to his rule will find it difficult to possess themselves of his wishes. When Grotefend first saw the three kinds of inscription, he concluded the first to be Persian, and proceeded to his task with this conviction. He had not studied the writing long before he discerned that all the words of all the inscriptions were separated from each other by a wedge, placed diagonally at the beginning or end of each word. With this slight knowledge for his guide, he went on a little further. He next observed that in the Persian inscription one word occurred three or four times over, with a slight terminal difference. This word he concluded to be a title. Further investigation and comparison of words induced him to guess that the inscription recorded a genealogy. The assumption was a happy one. But to whom did the titles belong? With no clue whatever to help him, how should he decide? By an examination of all the authorities, ancient and modern, he satisfied himself at least of the dynasty that had founded Persepolis, and then he tried all the names of the dynasty in succession, in the hope that some would fit. He was not disappointed. The names were Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes. Although the actual pronunciation of these names had to be discovered, yet by the aid of the Zend (the language of the ancient Persians) and of the Greek, the true method of spelling was so nearly arrived at that no doubt of the accuracy of the guess could reasonably be entertained. The achievement had been worth the pains, for twelve (12) characters of the Persian cuneiform inscription were now well secured. Twenty-eight (28) characters remained to be deciphered before the inscriptions could be mastered. Grotefend here rested.
“The next step was taken by M. Bournouf, a scholar intimately acquainted with the Zend language. In 1836 he added considerably to the Persian cuneiform alphabet by reading twenty-four (24) names on one (1) of the inscriptions at Persepolis; but a more rapid stride was made subsequently by Professor Lassen of Bonn, who, between the years 1836 and 1844, to use the words of Mr. Fergusson, the learned and ingenious restorer of the palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, “all but completed the task of alphabetical discovery.”
“While progress was thus making in Europe, Colonel Rawlinson, stationed at Kermanshah, in Persia, and ignorant of what had already been done in the west, was arriving at similar results by a process of his own. He, too, had begun to read the Persian cuneiform character on two inscriptions at Hamadan, the ancient Ecbatana. This was in 1835. In 1837 he had been able to decipher the most extensive Persian cuneiform inscription in the world. On the high road from Babylonia to the east stands the celebrated rock of Behistun. It is almost perpendicular, and rises abruptly to the height of 1700 feet. A portion of the rock, about 300 feet from the plain, and still very perfect, is sculptured, and contains inscriptions in the three (3) languages already spoken of The sculpture represents King Darius and the vanquished chiefs before him —the inscriptions detail the victories obtained over the latter by the Persian monarch. This monument, at least 2350 years old, deciphered for the first time by Colonel Rawlinson, gave to that distinguished Orientalist more than eighty proper names to deal with. It enabled him to form an alphabet. Between the Colonel and Professor Lassen no communication whatever had taken place, yet when their alphabets were compared they were found to differ only in one single character. The proof of the value of their discoveries was perfect.
“Thus far the ‘Persian’ cuneiform character! To decipher it was to take the first essential step towards reading the cuneiform inscriptions on the walls at Nineveh. But for the Persepolis walls, the Behistun rock, and Colonel Rawlinson, it would have been a physical impossibility to decipher one line of the Assyrian remains. In the Persian text only forty distinct characters had to be arrived at; and when once they were ascertained, the light afforded by the Zend, the Greek, and other aids, rendered translation not only possible, but certain to the patient and laborious student. The Assyrian alphabet, on the other hand, has no fewer than 150 letters; many of the characters are ideographs or hieroglyphics, representing a thing by a non-phonetic sign, and no collateral aids whatever exist to help the student to their interpretation. The reader will at once apprehend, however, that the moment the Persian cuneiform character on the Behistun rock was overcome, it must have been a comparatively easy task for the conqueror to break the mystery of the Assyrian cuneiform inscription, which, following the Persian writing on the rock, only repeated the same short history. Darius, who carved the monument in order to impress his victories upon his Assyrian subjects, was compelled to place before their eye the cuneiform character which they alone could comprehend. The Assyrian characters on the rock are the same as those on the bas-reliefs in the Assyrian palaces. Rawlinson, who first read the Persian inscriptions at Behistun, and then by their aid made out the adjacent Assyrian inscriptions, has handed over to Layard the firstfruits of his fortunate and splendid discovery, and enabled him for himself to ascertain and fix the value of the treasures he has so unexpectedly rescued from annihilation. As yet, as may readily be imagined, the knowledge of the Assyrian writing is not perfect; but the discovery has already survived its infancy. Another year or two of scholastic investigation, another practical visit to the ancient mounds, and the decipherment will be complete! Fortunate Englishmen Enviable day-labourers in the noblest vocation that can engage the immortal faculties of man! What glory shall surpass that of the enterprising, painstaking, and heroic men who shall have restored to us, after the lapse of thousands of years, the history and actual stony presence of the world-renowned Nineveh, and enabled us to read with our own eyes, as if it were our mother tongue, the language suspended on the lips of men for ages, though written to record events in which the prophets of Almighty God took a living interest!”
The following narrative of discoveries which have been made since our Preface was written, will most appropriately close our attempt to illustrate in every possible way these valuable Lectures: —“When Mr. Layard returned to the scene of operations in 1848, he lost no time in proceeding with his excavations. During his absence a small number of men had been employed at Kouyunjik by Mr. Rassam, the English vice-consul, who, as the agent of the British Museum, had carried on the works suspended by Mr. Layard, though rather with the view of preventing interference on the part of others than of prosecuting excavations to any great extent. Mr. Rassam’s labours, limited as they were, had not been fruitless. He had dug his way to new chambers, and had exposed additional sculptures. The latter were of great interest, and portrayed more completely than any yet discovered the history of an Assyrian conquest, from the going out of the monarch to battle to his triumphal return after a complete victory. The opinion formerly entertained by Mr. Layard with respect to this palace was now confirmed. He was convinced that the ruins at Kouyunjik constituted one great building, built by one and the same king. He was still further satisfied that Kouyunjik and Khorsabad were contemporary structures, and that the north-west palace at Nimroud had a much higher antiquity than either.”
That portion of the subject which applies most to our purpose is the result obtained from the inscriptions with which the sculptures are accompanied. In the language of the review already quoted —“The king of Assyria himself is represented superintending the building of the mounds upon which the palace with its bulls is to be built. This king, as the cuneiform inscription shews, is Sennacherib; and the sculptures, as Rawlinson and the initiated are permitted to read, celebrate the building at Nineveh of the great palace and its adjacent temples —the work of this great king. The inscriptions on the bulls at Kouyunjik record most minutely the manner in which the edifice was built, its general plan, and the various materials employed in decorating the halls, chambers, and roofs. Some of the inscriptions have a thrilling interest. They indicate that the Jews, taken in captivity by the Assyrian king, were compelled to assist in the erection of the palaces of their conquerors, and that wood for the building was brought from Mount Lebanon, precisely as Solomon had conveyed its cedars for the choice woodwork of the temple of the Lord. There is an awful strangeness in thus being brought face to face, as it were, with the solemn mysteries of the Bible and with our own earliest sacred recollections.
“During the month of December (1848) the treasure seekers were rewarded with a rare harvest. A façade of the south-east side of the palace at Kouyunjik, forming apparently the chief entrance to the building, was discovered. It was 180 feet long, and presented no fewer than ten (10) colossal bulls, with six (6) human figures of gigantic proportions. The bulls were more or less injured; some of them were even shattered to pieces, but fortunately the lower parts of all remained untouched, and consequently the inscriptions were preserved. Two (2) of these inscriptions contained the annals of six (6) years of the reign of Sennacherib, ‘besides numerous particulars connected with the religion of the Assyrians, their ‘gods’, their temples, and the erection of their palaces.’ There can be no reasonable doubt of the accuracy of the translation made of these writings, and now given in Mr. Layard’s volume. (*’Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon’. Being the result of a Second (2nd) Expedition, undertaken for the Trustees of the British Museum, by Austin H. Layard, M.P. London: Murray, 1853. ‘Layard’s Monuments of Nineveh’. Second (2nd) Series. London: Murray, 1853). The very differences and variations that occur when the cuneiform character is submitted to more than one translator attest to the correctness of the general interpretation. Colonel Rawlinson has translated into English the particular inscriptions of which we speak; and Dr. Hincks, an equally competent scholar, has done the same —both independently of each other; and there is no material discrepancy in their views. The inscription informs us that in the first (1st) year of his reign Sennacherib defeated Berodach-Baladan, king of Car Duniyas, a city and country frequently mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. It is not for the first (1st) time that the reader hears of this king, for he will remember how, when Hezekiah was sick, “at that time Berodach-Baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah,” who boastfully shewed to the messengers all the treasures of his house. The Assyrian monument and holy writ thus begin to reflect light upon each other. But this is only a gleam of the illumination that follows. In the third (3rd) year of his reign, according to the inscriptions, Sennacherib overran with his armies the whole of Syria. ‘Hezekiah,’so runs the cuneiform writing, ‘king of Judah, who had not submitted to my authority, forty-six (46) of his principal cities, and fortresses and villages depending upon them of which I took no account, I captured, and carried away their spoil. I shut up himself within Jerusalem, his capital city.’ The next passage, says Mr. Layard, is somewhat defaced, but enough remains to shew that he took from Hezekiah the treasure he had collected in Jerusalem —thirty (30) talents of gold and eight hundred (800) talents of silver, besides his sons, his daughters, and his slaves. The reader has not waited for us to remind him that in the 2nd Book of Kings it is written how “in the fourteenth (14th) year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred (300) talents of silver and ‘Thirty (30) Talents of Gold’. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house.” It is something to have won from the earth such testimony on behalf of inspired Scripture. It is also something to have obtained from holy writ such evidence in favour of the monumental records of long-buried Nineveh.
“At a later period a chamber was discovered in which the sculptures were in better preservation than any before found at Kouyunjik. The slabs were almost entire, and the inscription was complete. The bas reliefs represented the siege and capture, by the Assyrians, of a city of great extent and importance. “In no other sculptures were so many armed warriors seen drawn up in array before a besieged city.” The sculptures occupied thirteen (13) slabs, and told the whole narrative of the attack, the conquest, and the destruction of the enemy. The captives, as they appear in the bas-reliefs, have been stripped of their ornaments and fine raiment, are barefooted and half-clothed. But it is impossible to mistake the race to which they belong. They are Jews; for the stamp is on the countenance as it is impressed upon the features of their descendants at this very hour. The Assyrian sculptor has noted the characteristic lines and drawn them with surprising truth. To what city they belong we likewise know, for, above the figure of the king, who commands in person, it is declared, that “Sennacherib, the mighty king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lachish, gives permission for its slaughter.” That it was slaughtered we have good reason to believe, for is it not written in the Bible that Sennacherib had quitted Lachish, having vanquished it, before his generals returned with the tribute extorted from Hezekiah?
“If evidence were still wanting to prove the identity of the king who built Kouyunjik with the Sennacherib of the Old Testament, it would be sufficient to call attention to one (1) other most remarkable discovery that has been made in these mysterious mounds. In a passage in the south-west corner of the Kouyunjik palace, Mr. Layard stumbled upon a large number of pieces of fine clay, bearing the impressions of seals, which there can be no doubt had been affixed, like modern official seals of wax, to documents written on leather or parchment. The writings themselves have, of course, decayed, but, curiously enough, the holes for the string by which the seal was fastened are still visible; and in some instances the ashes of the string itself may be seen, together with the unmistakable marks of the finger and thumb. Four (4) of these seals are purely Egyptian. Two (2) of them are impressions of a royal signet. “It is,’ says Mr. Layard, ‘one well known to Egyptian scholars, as that of the second (2nd) Sabaco, the AEthiopian of the twenty-fifth (25th) dynasty. On the same piece of clay is impressed an Assyrian seal, with a device representing a priest ministering before the king, probably a royal signet.” We entreat the reader’s attention to what follows. Sabaco reigned in Egypt at the end of the seventh (7th) century before Christ, the very time at which Sennacherib ascended the throne. ‘He is probably the So mentioned in the 2nd Book of Kings (17:4) as having received ambassadors from Hoshea, king of Israel, who, by entering into a league with the Egyptians, called down the vengeance of Shalmaneser, whose tributary he was, which led to the first (1st) great captivity of the people of Samaria. Shalmaneser we know to have been an immediate predecessor of Sennacherib, and Tirhakah, the Egyptian king, who was defeated by the Assyrians near Lachish, was the immediate successor of Sabaco II. It would seem, that a peace having been concluded between the Egyptians and one of the Assyrian monarchs, probably Sennacherib, the royal signets of the two (2) kings, thus found together, were attached to the treaty, which was deposited among the archives of the kingdom.’ The document itself has perished, but the proof of the alliance between the two (2) kings remains, and is actually reproduced from the archive-chamber of the old Assyrian king. The illustration of Scripture-history is complete, and the testimony in favour of the correct interpretation of the cuneiform character perfect.”
Long as this extract is, it gives but a slight specimen of the surprising amount of scriptural illustration derived from this new and unexpected source. We add a last and final one: —“Ten (10) years have scarcely elapsed since the first discovery of ruins on the site of Nineveh was made, and already there lies before us an amount of information, having regard to the history of the old Assyrian people, of which we had previously not the most distant conception. When Mr. Layard published, in 1849, the account of his first Assyrian researches, the monuments recovered were comparatively scanty, and the inscriptions impressed upon them could not be deciphered. Now, a connected history can be traced in the sculptured remains, and the inscriptions may be followed with the same facility as the Greek or any other character. That they may be read with immense profit and instruction is evident from the startling facts which they have hitherto revealed. Some of these facts we venture briefly to place before the reader. We have previously hinted that the earliest king of whose reign we have any detailed account is the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud, the most ancient edifice yet beheld in Assyria. His records, however, furnish the names of five (5), if not seven (7), of his predecessors, some of whom it is believed founded palaces, afterwards erected by their successors. The son of this king, it is certain, built the centre palace of Nimroud, and raised the obelisk, now in the British Museum, upon which the principal events of his reign are inscribed. Upon that obelisk are names corresponding to names that are found in the Old Testament. The fortunate coincidence furnishes at once the means of fixing specific dates, and enables Mr. Layard to place the accession of the Assyrian monarch who built the oldest Nimroud palace at the latter part of the tenth (10th) century before Christ. The builder of the palace of Khorsabad is proved to have been the Sargon mentioned by Isaiah. The ruins of his palace supply the most complete details of his reign; and from the reign of Sargon a complete list has been obtained of all the kings down to the fall of the empire. The son of Sargon was Sennacherib, who ascended the throne in the year 703 B.C. We know from the Bible that Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon, and we now ascertain from the monuments that one of the palaces at Nimroud was the work of his reign. The son of Esarhaddon built the south-east palace on the mound of Nimroud; and, although no part of his history has been as yet recovered, there is good reason for concluding him to have been the Sardanapalus who, conquered (B.C. 606) by the Medes and Babylonians under Cyaxares, made one funeral pile of his palace, his wealth, and his wives.
“While it is certain that there is no mention of Nineveh before the 12th century B.C., Mr. Layard is still of opinion that the city and empire existed long before that period. Egyptian remains found at Karnak refer to a country called Assyria, and the enterprising explorer is not without hope that further investigation will supply him with still more ancient records than any he now possesses. The monuments of Nineveh, as far as they go, corroborate all extant history in describing the monarch as a thorough Eastern despot, ‘unchecked by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property of his subjects; rather adored as a god than feared as a man, and yet himself claiming that authority and general obedience in virtue of his reverence for the national deities and the national religion.” The dominion of the king, according to the inscriptions, extended to the central provinces of Asia Minor and Armenia northward; to the western provinces of Persia eastward; to the west as far as Lydia and Syria; and to the south to Babylonia and the northern part of Arabia. ‘The empire appears to have been at all times a kind of confederation formed by many tributary States, whose kings were so far independent that they were only bound to furnish troops to the supreme lord in time of war, and to pay him yearly a certain tribute.’
The Jewish tribes, it is now proved, held their dependent position upon the Assyrian king from a very early period; and it is curious to observe that, wherever an expedition against the kings of Israel is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, it is invariably stated to have been undertaken on the ground that they had not paid their customary tribute.
“At every step sacred history is illustrated, illuminated, and explained by the speaking stones of Nineveh; and in this regard alone the Assyrian discoveries have a significance beyond any revelation that has been made in modern times. Even the architecture of the sacred people may be rendered visible to the eye by comparing it with that of the Assyrian structures; and certainly not the least instructive result of all Mr. Layard’s labours is the ingenious analogy drawn by Mr. Fergusson in his ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ between the temple of Solomon and the palace of the Assyrian king.”” }}

About mjmselim

Male, 68 in Oct., born in Jamaica, USA since 1961, citizen in 2002; cobbler for 40 plus years, retired, Christian since 1969; married to same wife since 1979; 6 daughters and 2 sons, with 8 grandkids. Slowly adapting to the digital world of computers and internet; hobby in digital editing.
This entry was posted in Bible & Scripture, Bible Reflections, Christian Doctrine, Christian Reflections, Prophecy, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s