Christian Biblical Reflections.36

CBR Book of Daniel. Selections: 11-16

Its been one year occupied with the Book of Daniel in CBR, I had no idea that it would take such a turn. As I posts these submissions of Selections 5-25, having already shared 1-4, I am writing the Reflections & completing the Chronology to the Persian period overtaken by Alexander the Great. I cite my notice in Christian Biblical Reflections.33 Posted on February 29, 2020 to apply here & now, but I have updated within it to apply to the current state or status. The Links likewise I make no changes for now, but will after posting CBR on Daniel when completed. There are only 3 or 4 cases of the Selections or sub-selections where I needed copyright permission, which I was given freely & kindly. I will hereby now & hereafter express to those who have asked, and to all others, all that I write & publish in any media & at anytime is shared free & grateful to be of any help to those who seek God’s Christ, God’s Book, & God’s truth in the journey of life. I apologize & regret that I have not regularly interacted with others in my posts. Anyone is always welcome to email for my personal response & reply. I have tried very hard to limit the pages of this chapter, part, & section of volume two of CBR, but ‘que sera’ it has swelled to 1,000 pages for the Book of Daniel, thus requiring volume 2 to become volumes 2 & 3, the Poetic Books & Major Prophets as vol.2, Daniel & the 12 Minor Prophets vol. 3. mjmselim, 2020.
((Not wishing to delay any further, and still several months (now several weeks as of July 2020) 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 & many others of the 25 Selections, are from very old editions which typefaces that has caused considerable labor to edit. These 4 Selections, along with Selections 5-25 now shared in this & the other numbers, are of great importance to the later & modern interpreters & commentators of the Book. The Analysis & Digest was done months ago (now a year has passed; during which the doctors say I need a heart transplant, which I refuse; thus my times are marked; but God is good to me in this as in all things in Christ); the Chronology is incomplete (but I have added many names, dates, & details up to the end of the Persian Empire period, leaving the Greek & Roman period to be completed in the section of the 12 Minor Prophets), 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. (Here is the list of the 25 Selections relevant to the Book of Daniel in CBR: 1-25: 1. Jerome. 2. Calvin. 3. Newton. 4. Lowth. 5. Stuart. 6. Barnes. 7. Auberlen. 8. Tregelles. 9. Japheth Ben Ali. 10. Rashi. 11. Darby. 12. Montagu. 13. Miller. 14. Folsom. 15. Smith. 16. Rule. 17. Pusey. 18. Keil. 19. Zōckler. 20. Driver. 21. Wilson. 22. Seder Olam Rabba. 23. Larkin. 24. 1st Maccabees. 25. Josephus.) 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. Christian Biblical Reflections.33 Posted on February 29, 2020.))

The PDF is attached. The link to my One Drive files are:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)

CBR files in PDF & Word:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD

Here is the link to my Internet Archive.org library page for those interested:
https://archive.org/details/@mikemjm

  1. Darby.

Studies on the Book of Daniel: a Course of Lectures by J. N. Darby. Translated from the French, and revised by the Author, 1848. 3rd Edition, London, 1864.   (9 Lectures)

                {{ 1st Lecture: Chap. I, II.

                The book of Daniel has reference to the time during which Israel, the people of God, are under subjection to the Gentiles. At its opening we discover an accomplishment of the threat made to Hezekiah. (Is. 39:6,7) The throne of God has been taken from Jerusalem; the power and the kingdom have been transferred to the Gentiles; and Israel, as to its actual state, being, by the judgment of God, no longer His people, is kept in captivity. But God does not abandon them: only He administers His blessings according to their actual necessity. The things most needful for them to know, under their existing trials, were the history of this dominion of the Gentiles, to which they were subjected, and, also, the effect of these changes upon the promises which belonged to them. And as the glory of God was to be considered in this great transference of power, it was important to know how the Gentiles would use it, or what their conduct would be, whether towards God, or themselves (the Jews), under this responsibility conferred on them.

                The book, then, embraces two principal subjects: First, the character and conduct of the four monarchies, which occupy the period called “the times of the Gentiles,” (Luke 21:24,) namely, from the time that God had retired from Jerusalem (His throne being no longer there), and had transferred imperial power over the world to the Gentiles, until the time of the re-establishment of His throne. And, secondly, the relationship of these nations with Israel His people, during the period in which the supremacy that had been confided to them was in exercise…..

                This book, accordingly, is divided into two parts, sufficiently distinct, according to the two great subjects which it contains: six chapters occupy the first, a six others the second part. The first six contain, not the communications made to Daniel, except to interpret them, but the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar, or the things which befell the heads of the empire. We have the great general principles of the Gentile monarchies given to us, or their public history in the world announced to their rulers, or manifested in their conduct. The last six chapters are communications made to the prophet himself, and reveal, not only the history of these empires, but what they are in the eyes of God: they also furnish details of their (the Gentiles’) relationship with the Jews, and of the worship still maintained by the Jewish people. This last was important to Daniel, who, as a prophet, had the people and glory of God at heart, as well as the general history of these empires…..

                As to the interpretation of the dream, a few words will suffice, as the light upon this is almost universal. All acknowledge the dream to speak of the four great monarchies, viz., the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman. In the 37th and 38th verses, dominion is given to Nebuchadnezzar by the God of heaven —a universal dominion,— absolute in its character over the earth, though not over the seas. There is no information given how far this dominion has been realized, but the gift was bestowed; and it is the first monarchy which, it appears, possessed this power in the most pure and absolute way. It was set up directly by God. It was in the person of its chief, “the head of gold.” The fourth was to break everything in pieces by its power; but at the end it was to be divided, and in this condition it was to be both strong and weak; a result of the union of the empire and of the original principle of its existence with heterogeneous elements, that is, in my judgment, of barbarians with that which was, properly speaking, Roman.

                At the end, the God of heaven will establish the kingdom of Christ who will put aside all these monarchies by an act of judgment. We must bear in mind that the kingdom of Christ, in this place, is His kingdom established in power in the world, and not the blessed influence of the gospel of His grace. The first act of the little stone, before it grows and becomes a great mountain which fills the whole earth, is to fall upon the statue, so that it becomes as the chaff of the summer threshing floor. The stone does  not become a mountain until after that; in other words when Christ shall have executed a judgment which shall break in pieces and destroy the power of the Gentiles, ‘then‘ His kingdom, an earthly kingdom, and one still of judgment, shall fill the earth. In this second chapter, the moral history of these monarchies is not touched upon, nor their conduct signalized. These will have their place in the four following chapters. I shall only here point out the marks which are given to us as characterizing them, as we shall return to them in another lecture…..

                2nd Lecture: Chap. III-VI.

                ….I would press again upon your attention, that after having destroyed the image, and not until then, the little stone became a great mountain, which filled the whole earth.

                We stated that the four following chapters, that is, down to the end of the sixth, gave the character and conduct of these empires ; and that instead of existing in dependence upon God, they are found in rebellion against Him, persecute His people, and exalt themselves against Him. The consequence is judgment…..

                The principles are given us in the first six chapters, and the details in the remaining six…..

                 …..Daniel, who had faith, spoke as faith always does; for it sees as God sees. It is true that God had said, “It is no longer my people“;  but Daniel speaks always of Israel as of the people of God, because faith confesses all the rights of God. If a Jew had faith in the heart, God recognized him, ‘in spite of his circumstances‘; and this is very precious.

                It is impossible, in spite of all Satan can do in the Church of God, that he could put us into a position where God cannot recognize faith; otherwise God would lose His rights.

                In the ensuing lecture, it will be needful to enter into details. An acquaintance with the leading features of Gentile power, from Nebuchadnezzar to the end, is of the utmost importance for understanding the things of God. For, although we, as Christians, have another hope, even a heavenly; yet we are in the times of the Gentiles; and the nearer we approach the end, the more Israel will come into prominence; and it is easy to see, by their present condition, that events are leading rapidly to a termination; and the more Israel becomes important, the more it behooves us to understand the thoughts of God concerning that people…..

                3rd Lecture: Chap. VII.

                In this second part of the book, we have no longer the interpretation of dreams made to Nebuchadnezzar, &c, but the communications made to Daniel himself. You remember also that the subject of which the book of Daniel treats, is the Jews. God’s ancient people were in captivity; and had been replaced, as to the throne of the world, at least as to the rights of this throne, by the Gentiles. God had had, until lately, His throne at Jerusalem. He was no longer there, as He had once literally been there. Before the captivity, God had placed His glory in the temple. He exercised the functions of government, punishing the wicked, at times, by instant judgments. He was in immediate relationship with the people. It was a pure theocracy, though connected with the monarchy of the house of David at the close. But all that was entirely gone. The Jews, instead of conducting themselves as those under the government of God ought to do, had become thoroughly unfaithful; they had made their children pass through the fire to Moloch, and had worshipped idols. The consequence of such conduct was, that God could no longer identify Himself with the nation: He rejected them, took away His throne from Jerusalem, and confided the dominion and empire of the world to the Gentiles. (See chap. 2:38.) Upon this Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, and the times of the Gentiles begin.

                There are two aspects to this part of the subject: on one side the responsibility of the Gentiles; and on the other the circumstances of the Jews in those times, and in particular of the faithful remnant —the special object of God’s care.

                We have already seen the general characters of the Gentile kings.

                But now we come to more intimate details of these ‘beasts‘, in their relationship with the Jewish people and with the remnant who had their expectation from God. These beasts, as we have seen, had lost their knowledge of God, and had persecuted His people; and thus, in order to bring out more perfectly the circumstances of the Jews, we are given a more minute history of some of these ‘beasts‘, together with some account of the remnant under their power; and also many circumstances, as we shall presently see, which will have their accomplishment in the Holy people.

                We must note a feature in this book, as also in the prophetic part of the Apocalypse—that there is nothing addressed to the people of God. In the other prophets, for instance Isaiah and Jeremiah, there are many particulars concerning these same things; but the prophet always addressed the people of God, because they were still acknowledged. But when this is no longer the case, God may give to a prophet, to Daniel, to a remnant, revelations having reference to the people; but the prophet no longer addresses himself to the people. Thus Daniel is full of joy at these communications; but he does not say a word of them to the Jews directly. God was with the remnant, even Daniel. He had nothing more to do with His people in the government of the world; but He had a remnant, and He communicated to the faithful whom He had chosen His intention concerning this remnant, and the events which were to take place. It is thus in the Apocalypse in its prophetic part. Certain things are told to John: it is not John speaking to Christians…….

                At the same time bear in mind, that although the little horn was principally before the eyes of the prophet, the others had not ceased to exist. There yet remained seven horns after three had been swallowed up, so that we do not see in the little horn all the empire of the fourth beast, considered geographically. The little horn is morally, but not geographically, the beast. Seven of the horns which existed previously will still subsist. The features of the beast, then, are, that we have one particular horn which is very different from the others, small in appearance when it rose, but whose looks and words were stouter than the others, three of whom fell before it. It is the horn that persecutes and changes the times, and represents completely the beast before God as to the judgment; but at the same time, as to physical and material power, there are seven other horns in other places, but within the limits of the Roman empire; and who are thus the instruments of the moral evil of the little horn. One horn is the great worker of evil, whilst the mass of the empire, divided into seven parts, gives the power to that one.

                Napoleon may serve to give us an idea of this state of things. Spain, Belgium, Westphalia, &c, followed him; they were his auxiliaries; but he personally stamped his character on the whole course of events. And so with these seven: their authority may exist within their own limits, but their power will be given to him who will exalt himself against God and His saints.

                4th Lecture: Chap. VIII.

                I reserve some further remarks on chapter 7, till we come to the end of chapter 9, and I proceed to chapter 8. In it the Spirit of God takes two empires, namely, the second and third of the four beasts previously seen, to give a more detailed history of them.

                Verse 1 , “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me,” ver. 2, “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam.”      

                This land of Elam, or Persia, was the body of the second beast. The bear of chapter 7, is now the ram. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.” Ver. 20. These two kingdoms were united into one. In chapter 7, this kingdom is told to “Arise and devour much flesh,” whilst here the ram is said “to push westward, and northward, and southward.” The he-goat of ver. 5, who attacks the ram, is the empire of the Greeks, which commenced under Alexander. This “notable horn,” having united the Greeks, led them into Asia against the empire of the Persians. In three years he overthrew it; it crumbled into nothing before his energy, which earned for him, among men, the name  of Great. We know from history, that he died, whilst yet young, of a fever, the consequence of his excesses.

                Verse 8, “When he [the he-goat] was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.” Alexander traversed the greater part of Asia, and penetrated as far as India, proving his capacity, not only as a general, but as the founder of a solid empire. But God laid His hand upon him; and “for it came up four notable ones.” The same truth is presented, chap, 7:6, under the figure of a leopard with four wings and four heads. After Alexander’s death, his kingdom was divided into four distinct monarchies, with two of which, we have, principally, to do, because two of them came into connection with the Jews; just as, lately, the Turks and Egyptians were at war about this same Holy Land.

                We must remember, if we would understand this prophecy, that even the geography of Scripture is always considered according to the position of the Holy Land. If we have a king of the south, it is a king to the south of Palestine; for Palestine is the centre of all God’s thoughts, as to the government of this world. Jerusalem is His chosen city. “For the Lord hath chosen Zion,” it is said, “He hath desired it for His habitation. This is my rest forever.” Psalm 132:13,14. From one of the kingdoms designed under the four horns (it is not said from which, but distinctively from one), comes a little horn, whose acts form the important part of this chapter.

                Verse 9, “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land,” viz., the Holy Land…..

                It began, comparatively lightly, with the attacks of the Syrians, and the loss of provinces; to these succeeded the conquests of the Babylonians; after that, the captivity; but the Jews would not repent at these judgments. Afterwards, God sent them His Son; you know how they treated Him. When they shall be again in their land, they will give themselves over to idolatry, and will receive Antichrist instead of Christ. At last, the abomination of desolation will be set up, until Christ Himself shall destroy the enemies of the people, and then the indignation will be accomplished. This time of indignation consists in the people being abandoned by God to the power of their enemies, more or less; but that which is specially called the indignation, is the attacks to which the Jews, on account of their sins, are subjected in the last days —the days of Antichrist. I do not say that Antichrist is the indignation; but the Jews are delivered to the instruments of the indignation of God, on account of their relationship with Him. God has determined its duration beforehand. (Compare Isaiah 10:5-25)……

                A single remark will suffice concerning the calculations of dates that have been made : I have made them myself, and I have taken all possible pains to resolve that of the ‘two thousand three hundred (2300) days‘ (ver. 14); so that I do not mean it as condemning others, when I avow that I do not think they can be counted as years, and I am inclined to believe that these days were accomplished of old. But, in any case, if dates are to be assigned, we must remember that the subject is the Jews and Jerusalem, and these dates must therefore be applied to the Jews and Jerusalem, and not to the affairs of Christendom.

                There may be analogous circumstances in Christendom, because the mystery of iniquity has already set in; for although the wicked one has not yet been revealed, his principles and his pride are found in its developments, &c.; but if we are to speak with exactness, and ‘to ask if these things have been precisely accomplished‘, then we must apply these passages to Jerusalem and the Jews, namely, to what is to occur at the end of the indignation. Now, certainly, the end of the indignation has not yet happened.

                In conclusion, the subject of this lecture is one with which we may appear to have but little concern. The other little horn has more connection with us, because it belongs to the last beast; and we have to do with it, as living in those countries which will come under its dominion, —as France, England, &c. (which formed a part of the Roman Empire); and also, as being where Christianity has been developed, during the existence of this last beast; whereas we are not in the territory of the little horn spoken of in this lecture. But if it is important, on the one hand, to avoid the evil which is about to appear in the west, —in the very midst of the circumstances in which we are placed; on the other hand, the necessity of doing so, tends to pervert our judgment; for we are liable to attach a great importance to ourselves, and to suppose we possess the whole scope of Scripture, whereas God, as far as regards the possession and promises of this world, has given the Jew a much larger place than ourselves. Nevertheless, we perceive at the close that our history again enters into what so much interests us, namely, the counsels of God as to His Christ; for the last thing which we see in the great events which are to take place, is this little horn lifting up himself against the Lord of lords; and before this world can be blessed, it is necessary that the Lord should break this little horn, in order that, under His own rule, the blessings of peace may come upon all.

                5th Lecture: Chap. IX.

                In chap, 7, we trace the history of the four beasts in general, specially of the little horn who spoke great things, who blasphemed against God, who was the enemy of the saints, —who represented the beast,— that is, who acted as he chose, according to the power of this beast; and in chapter 8, we have the history of the horn who will be raised up from one of the four Greek monarchies, and who at the end will lift himself up against the Lord of lords, and will be destroyed without hand. The prophet now directs his thoughts and heart towards a subject, different from that in the midst of which he stood; namely, to the desolations of Jerusalem. Such is the theme of this chapter. And how was he led into this train of thought? Simply because those words were on his heart, “How long, O Lord!” It is a mark of faith thus to cry, when judgments are weighing heavily upon the people of God: for faith views the people according to the promises which God has made to them. A people who has laid hold of the mind of God, whose faith is in exercise, and whose heart responds, however imperfectly, to the heart of God, must desire that they should enjoy their proper blessings; —the blessed consequences of their relationship with God: as it is said, “Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation.” Isa. 33:20…..

                Daniel has the prophecy of Jeremiah present before his mind. When I speak of the spirit of prophecy, I do not speak of a revelation made to the prophet, —it is not a question of the answer which God makes to a prophet, when he presents the wants of His people. Daniel was a prophet; but there is, in this instance, no special revelation made to him. Hence we are told that he had understood by books. He was simply one of the faithful studying prophecy. God, afterwards, gives him a direct revelation: but, in the present instance, faith alone was acting, and he was only made to understand what God had already spoken about His people. All is revealed in the Bible; and, in searching it, we can, like Daniel, know and understand what God has already written about His people.

                There are many questions which we cannot resolve because we are not spiritual enough. The teaching of God is as necessary for the understanding, as for the revelation of His thoughts. It is interesting to remark this. Daniel had understood by books that the captivity was to last seventy years. As a faithful man he interests himself in the people of God, and searches by the spiritual intelligence which is given to those who walk with God, what are His thoughts and ways…..

                Let it be again observed, that whilst Daniel is personally concerned with the return of Israel from Babylon, under the circumstances predicted by Moses, the Spirit of God uses this thought to continue the history of the people, or rather of the city (introducing the chief events of the first coming of Christ), as far, but only as far, as the point where final blessing commences; for the matter of Zechariah and the Psalms, but now touched upon, is not entered into. The essential point, however, is the spirit in which Daniel identifies himself with the people of God, confessing all their sin as his own, before God.

                6th Lecture: Chap. IX:20-27.

                These verses relate the answer to the confession and prayer of Daniel. The faithfulness of God is in full action, exactly as promised in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and in the answer to the prayer of Solomon. He had promised, that if they were led into captivity, and should, in the midst of their enemies, turn to Him with all their heart (He never said, if they kept the law to the letter, for this would not have been possible to them), He would bring them back.

                Verse 21. “Whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation“. He repeats twice, “whiles I was speaking;” he had not finished before Gabriel appeared and arrested it by the delivery of the prophecy following.

                It is not, we may say in passing, always so. On another occasion, Daniel spent three weeks in fasting and prayer, for God was trying his faith. The angel was to accomplish the purpose of God before communicating it; the Lord permitted that the prince of Persia should hinder its accomplishment for three weeks. It was a question of deciding something at the court of Persia; and those there, who were opposed to an edict for favouring the Jews, could put obstacles to its promulgation. When the angel of God had prevailed in these counsels, he came and said so. This is very instructive to us; for God always governs the world. Whilst the throne of God was at Jerusalem, He governed the world immediately; not only Israel, but the world, and this according to the good or bad conduct of Israel; whilst after that, although He did not cease to govern everywhere, already, even in this book (Israel being in captivity), He is seen acting by the secret springs of His providence, and not by the immediate action of the revealed rule of His law, as in the midst of His people*, (*The book of Esther is a striving instance of the secret government of God, at a time when He could not recognize His people publicly; and I judge this to be the reason why God does not permit His name to appear throughout the book [,except in several encrypted instances]. If He had been named, He would not, so to speak, have permitted Esther to remain the wife of Ahasuerus.)

                Although the child of God is able to confide entirely in Him, for “the very hairs of our head are numbered,” it is happy to see the government of God manifested openly in the world. It will be the case in the Millennium; the government will be immediate and direct, so that the justice of God will be seen by men, whilst now all goes on secretly. His ways are often a labyrinth to us now; for our normal position, as being saints, is quite different. God is perfecting us for heaven, and has no object in manifesting in us His righteousness upon earth. The heavenly thing is much better and more precious. He makes us pass through all kinds of earthly trial, with this object in view. A Christian is often astonished at what he suffers individually for righteousness’ sake, —it is a general case. But for the Jews, God will appear, according to His promise, the moment they turn with humility and confession to Him. Thus does He answer Daniel.

                We have already observed that faith never forgets that Jerusalem is the city of God’s holiness, and that His eyes are there continually. When even the Israelites have failed, and that God is obliged to abandon them for the time, it ceases not, to faith, to be the holy city of God.

                Verse 21. “About the time of the evening oblation.” This expression makes us feel the Jewish atmosphere we are in; for of course there was no evening sacrifice at Babylon. Jerusalem was burnt, but faith remained. It was the time of the evening sacrifice, —the Jewish scene fills his thoughts.

                Verse 22. “And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding . . . .” ver. 23,24, “for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter and consider the vision. Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.” Observe how the angel accredits the faith of Daniel, making him the representative both of Jerusalem and the people: —”to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity*, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies.”  (*The author translates “to make reconciliation for iniquity,” by “to cover iniquity,” to which expression he annexes this note. —’Psalm 32:1′. I prefer employing the word “to cover,” than to explain it; it is employed for expiation or for pardon, that is, either for an expiation, or its application, viz., pardon. —Translator.)

                Many Christians find great difficulty in this entire passage, from their not seeing that, whilst it has already had an accomplishment, as far as is needed for the establishment of its truth, on the other hand, it has not been fulfilled at all. If we do not see this, it is impossible to understand the events that are still future. All that was necessary on the part of God, in order that the events, announced in the verse we have been reading, should take place, has been accomplished, and even proposed to the Jewish people; but still nothing has taken place as to the actual accomplishment ‘to them‘; the train of circumstances having been interrupted, and the Church (the heavenly people) having been introduced in the interval, until the time decreed of God, when these events shall be taken up again with the Jewish people, when the due time comes, whether by the apostacy which exists in Christendom, or by the ripe state of the Jewish people, in a bad sense and in a good one.

                Let us consider, for example, the new covenant; it will be established with Israel and Judah. Jer. 31. This is not yet accomplished. The Jews are dispersed towards the four winds of heaven. Now a covenant must be established by the blood of a victim; and so the blood of the new covenant has been shed; and, therefore, all that is necessary for the bringing in of this covenant with the Jews, has been done on the part of God. But actually nothing, as to this nation receiving it, has taken place; for they rejected the Messiah, both personally and under the preaching of the Apostles. Meanwhile, the counsels of God as to the Church have occupied and do occupy the interval; this heavenly people having nothing in common, as to their position, with that which God did, and will do for the Jews.

                This point being ascertained, beloved friends, the verse becomes comparatively easy; indeed, we may say, that the special difficulty disappears, for we perceive that, as to the foundation on His part, God has completed everything. He has sent the Messiah, He has presented Him to the people, the blood of the covenant has been shed, and propitiation made. But if it be asked whether these blessings have been efficacious with regard to the Jews as a nation, it must be answered, that nothing has been done; and this is our present question. We must not here, then, consider a satisfaction apart from its application; but rather, its efficacy as regards the Jewish nation; and thus we shall be led to consider whether the nation is in those circumstances which should precede the time when the application of this blood shall be made to them. “He (Christ) died not for that nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God that are scattered abroad.” John 11:51,52. Now in Daniel we have to consider the application of this blood to the Jewish people; and in the explanation of all the prophecies, we must take this fact into consideration. It is clear that the death of the Messiah is, in a certain sense, a fulfilment of this prophecy; for His death is a propitiation made for sin. But what is here said of it, taking into account the object of the passage, is in no wise accomplished. Having prefaced with these remarks, let us examine what is the result of all this for the people. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people.” There is no reference here to us Christians; the verse refers to the people of Daniel, and to the holy city of Daniel. The seventy weeks are only applicable to them. There may be, in this portion, many events which will also affect us; the Antichrist for example; for both Jews and Gentiles, though not the church, have to do with that wicked one, and still more, have they had to do with the cutting off of the Messiah; but the aim of the prophecy is “thy people and thy holy city;” that is, the Jews and Jerusalem. Once put aside this people and city as objects of the thoughts of God here below, and there is no longer applicability in the prophecy; so that we must set aside Christianity for the moment, as not being the object here. And why? because Christianity has, in its position before God, nothing to do with either Jew or Gentile, London has as much to do with Christianity as Jerusalem. Jerusalem is to a Christian, no more holy than any other city. There may be deeply interesting associations connected with it, but it is, in no sense whatever, our “holy city.” “Seventy weeks,” then, “are determined upon thy (Daniel’s) people.”

                Now for the details. Verse 25. “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks (69 wks).” In the first period, the space of seven weeks, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, and that, in troublous times. This has been accomplished, as we find from Ezra and Nehemiah.

                Verse 26. “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, and shall have nothing*. (*”And shall have nothing,” i.e., shall have nothing of His dominion as Messiah. This is the undoubted force of the passage, not: “but not for Himself.”) We know that this has likewise been accomplished.

                As the head of the Jewish people, He has been on earth, and been rejected. As to His inheritance, —as to the Holy City, particularly as Messiah, He has had nothing at all. He was cut off; He has had nothing as the Messiah, except spittings and death. And as the Son of David, He has had absolutely nothing. He is now at the right hand of the Father; but in His title, of King of the Jews, He has not yet been owned. He entered Jerusalem as king, riding upon an ass, and was rejected.

                Verse 26. “And the people of the prince that shall come.” This is some new person;—not the Messiah, otherwise how could it be said of this person, “he shall come?” According to this prophecy, Messiah had already come, and had been cut off; besides, it is not the people of Christ, who is cut off, that “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This happened according to the saying of the Chief Priests and Pharisees, John 11:48, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”

                Neither is it the prince himself who thus acts. It is ‘the people‘ of the future prince who do this —of the prince that shall come— the little horn, the chief of the empire (Roman) of the last beast. The fourth monarchy, viz., the Roman, destroyed the city and the sanctuary, as it is the body of which the little horn, as prince, will be the head.

                Verse 26. “And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.” Verse 27. “And he shall confirm the (a, margin) covenant.” If it had been said ‘the‘ covenant, one might suppose it of some covenant already existing, whereas there is no such thought in the expression; “he shall confirm covenant” —that is, establish it, not with ‘many‘, but with ‘the many‘, or ‘the mass‘. As Christ had but a very small remnant, whilst the mass of the Jews rejected Him, the prince, who shall come, shall establish a covenant with the mass. A remnant will undoubtedly escape, but the covenant which this prince shall confirm, will be with the mass of the people.

                “And he shall confirm a covenant with (the) many for one week.” This is the week which still remains; for Christ was cut off, it is said, after the sixty-nine (69) weeks. After this period, we are told of “the people of the prince ” (the Romans under Titus), who destroy the city; and then we have the prince himself confirming a covenant for one week, which is the last, or seventieth (70th) week.

                We are to leave off counting from the time the Messiah was cut off, viz., at the end of the sixty-nine (69) weeks. After this period, time, so to speak, does not go on,—God does not take count of it; it is indefinite. But the seventieth (70th) week still remains to be fulfilled.

                “And (ver. 27) in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” It is evident, that, at this time, the Jews are re-established, with their sacrifices and oblations. The “prince that  shall come” will establish an alliance with the Jews during one week: but at the expiration of the half, he will completely change his conduct, and will cause their sacrifices to cease: he thinks, as before explained, to change the times (Jewish festal days) and the law; they are delivered into his hands and he effaces them. This is the history as far as facts go.*  (* Properly speaking, Matthew 24 and Mark 13, only take account of the last half of this week; for the first half belongs to the period of the beginning of sorrows, and of testimony in general, and of the labours mentioned previously to Matthew 24:14.)

                We, as believers, comprehend that the Lord Jesus made the sacrifice (Jewish) cease to those who believed on Him; just as to them, that is, to faith, John the Baptist was Elias, according to those words, “If you can receive it, this is Elias which was to come.” In like manner, to faith, Christ ‘was‘ the Messiah, —the Son of Man to His disciples, looked at as believing Jews. Nevertheless He adds, “ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, before the Son of Man shall come.”* But as to the Jewish people itself, the Spirit omits entirely all that we Christians enjoy, because in fact they rejected Jesus. (*He supposes the continuation of their testimony, omitting the whole period and the testimony, properly called Christian.)

                If interpreters insist that Jesus Himself laboured during the first half of the seventieth (70th) week, and that account is taken of it (the half week) for those who believed, but that, as to the nation, this half week has been lost, on account of their unbelief, and that they will receive the Antichrist, who will present himself in a like manner, I am far from objecting. He certainly did establish divine relationships with the  little remnant of His disciples, whether one hundred and twenty (120) or five hundred (500), and in consequence, as to their labours, He speaks but of the last half of the seventieth (70th), or last week. (*For an able exposition of the seventy (70, LXX) weeks of this prophecy, the reader would do well to consult two prophetic charts by Sir Edward Denny, published by Nisbet and Co-, Berners Street, Oxford Street. –Translator.*) At the beginning of this last half their labours are interrupted; the other half is lost in the general history of their previous labours. For the Jews, the whole week is yet to come, because they have not received Christ at all. All that can be said as concerning them is, that the Messiah has been cut off, and has had nothing. For (whatever computation we may incline to, as to the disciples) it is said, there shall be sixty and two (62) weeks (besides the previous seven) unto the Messiah the prince, and after sixty-two (62) weeks Messiah shall be cut off. The Holy Spirit leaves the matter in the shade, because He counts with reference to the nation, for whom the last week has been null and void, and it is the false prince in whom the thread of the narrative is resumed, as if it were at the end of the sixty-ninth (69th) week; although, as we know, the Church, the heavenly people, have meanwhile been introduced and already occupied a period, considered as to earth, of more than eighteen hundred (1800) years. Thus a place is left for faith, whilst as to the history, it is one of unbelief. (Compare Isa. 61:1-3; Luke  4:19.) Christ the Prince has never yet been Prince, nevertheless He was so to faith in His disciples. A question for the consideration of those who examine this most interesting detail of prophecy, is, whether the Lord presented Himself officially to the Jews as prince or king, before His entry into Jerusalem, according to Zechariah 9:9? Upon that, we know, He was cut off.

                The seventieth (70th) week is still to have its accomplishment under Antichrist; the Jews at first, with fair appearances before them, acknowledge him as their chief; as Jesus Christ said, John 5:43, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” Thus Antichrist offers himself, and the Jews receive him. For the first half of the week all goes on well, but then the prince turns in anger against them, destroys their system, and exalts himself against God.  (*You will find this same date of 1260 days repeated several times: as with regard to the little horn, chap. 13:7, also to the beast of the Apocalypse, Rev. 13, and in Daniel 12, with thirty days added, as to the abomination of desolation.*)

                That which Jesus did on the part of God, Antichrist counterfeits, according to the word just quoted, “I am come in my father’s name, and ye receive me not, if another shall come,” &c.; therefore I allow, in a certain sense, that to faith, this cessation of sacrifice (alluded to previously, “he shall cause the sacrifice to cease“) has taken place. For the little remnant did own Christ to be there; but for the entire nation there has been as yet no accomplishment of any part of the week.

                Scripture is not silent concerning this covenant of the Jews with Antichrist, and their consequent judgment. In Isaiah 28:14, we read, “Wherefore hear ye the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem“, Ver. 18. “Your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.” These are the threats, as to the moral position in which they shall be found in that day.

                It is the last half of the week, which occupies the mind of the Spirit of God, as to these terrible events at the end. Thus the little horn is to continue “a time, times, and half a time;” viz., three years and a half, or the half of a week. Power is given to him for this time. So in the Apocalypse, 13:5, “There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies, and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”

                I have said that the sacrifice and oblation would be restored. This is noticed in prophecy, although at the same time their re-establishment will be utterly rejected by God. It is written in the last chapter of Isaiah, “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all these things hath mine hand made;” —an intimation of the restoration of the temple, but then, —”to this man will I look, even to him that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word:” viz., the remnant.

                The sacrifices are offered but rejected: read Isaiah 66:3-6. Again, Dan. 11:31, “And (they) shall take away the daily sacrifice,” &c. Again in Dan. 12, “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety  (1290) days.” This is thirty days over. It will take thirty days more for purification, and yet forty-five more for complete peace; ver. 12, “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty (1335) days.” This latter half week is still referred to, in which the daily sacrifice being taken away, Antichrist will be there, and the abomination of desolation set up in the holy place. Compare 8:11.

                In Matthew 24, we find this same circumstance exactly. The Lord, having alluded to wars and rumours of wars, becomes more precise. He had spoken until verse 14, in quite a general way, and, like Daniel, declared that the city and temple should be destroyed, and also the people. But as He goes on to speak of the labours of His disciples, He enters more fully into the general history. “Many shall be offended,” &c.; and He counsels His disciples as to their conduct, as witnesses of the truth, and tells them that before the end came, “this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in all the world for a witness.”

                All this was to happen, not at a given time during the seventy (70) weeks, but, generally speaking, before the end, but of course after the discourse and departure (death) of Jesus. Afterwards He says, (ver. 15) “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” here is the abomination of desolation placed at Jerusalem; the previous testimony is over, and the disciples have only to fly; “then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” Jerusalem is then delivered over to the judgment which awaits it.

                There is yet another important and interesting circumstance, as to this last half week. We find it in Rev. 12. We shall see that this date of the abomination fits in exactly with the time of Satan being driven out of heaven. The woman flees into the wilderness, (ver. 6) where she is fed one thousand two hundred and sixty (1260) days. Ver. 7. “There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;” read to the end of verse 12, “knowing that he (Satan) hath but a short time.” Now it is exactly during this half week that the abomination of desolation is set up in the holy place. This is given more in detail in chapter 11.

                Further, Dan. 9:27, “He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”* (* Rendered in the French, “He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, then by means of the abominable, that is, by means, or on wings which shall cause desolation, even until a consumption determined, the desolation shall fall upon the desolate one (Jerusalem).” —Translator.) That is, by means, or on account of the abominable wings, or literally, “on account of the wing of abominations.” The word ‘abomination‘ is always in the Old Testament simply ‘an idol‘. For example: the abomination of the Moabites was the idol of the Moabites. Solomon put the abomination of the Ammonites upon the mount of Olives, that is, the idol. The word ‘wing‘ always gives the idea of ‘protection‘. “Under his wings shalt thou trust.” Ps. 91:4.

                “On account of the wing of abominations,” that is, as it appears to me, on account of the protection of idols. They take refuge in idolatry for a protection; and this is the finishing stroke of their wickedness, and the consequence is, the desolation which descends upon the desolated one, until the end of these seventy (70, LXX) weeks, —a desolation of fearful judgment not now merely the destruction of the city, as by the people of the prince to come: Antichrist had deceived the people, the little horn has made a covenant with them, and, as it were, holds them in his gripe. God is set aside — denied; — Antichrist even makes himself God; —the sanctuary, if not destroyed, is at least profaned, and degraded in every way. The abomination is put into the holy place, and idolatry is introduced. At last Antichrist sits there as God, he allows or confesses nothing at all but himself, until God is no longer able to endure him, or those who are subject to him, and destruction and desolation fall on the people.

                There is no account of this in our present chapter, but there is in Dan. 7; and in the New Testament the Lord thus speaks of the Jewish generation; “when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places,” &c., &c. Matt, 12:43. Consult the whole passage. They enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the  first. “Even so shall it be also with this wicked generation.” This is the history of the Jews. I do not say there may not be other applications of the passage. What was this wicked spirit? It was idolatry. After the Babylonish captivity there had been no more idol worship; the unclean spirit had gone out, and the house was empty though there was every kind of profession. Then the spirit of idolatry, which found no rest, returns to the house at the end. It will be the case with the Jews, and then there will be an open rebellion against God; they will be joined with Antichrist, and join in the war made upon their Messiah. And it will be then on account of the protection of these abominations, that, “the desolation shall be poured out upon the desolate one.”

                Compare Dan. 10; 11; 12. In the last chapter, we have the complete deliverance, and he adds in this last, thirty days, and forty-five days to the half week. Then all will be happy and blessed. There will be a certain time necessary after the destruction of Antichrist, to re-establish everything in order. The whole of this chapter is in affinity with the end of Dan. 7, and with the 13th and 17th of Revelation. We shall have to consider it again in connection with chap. 11.

                7th Lecture: Chap. X.

                The date of the third year of Cyrus, ver. 1-3, is important, because the Jews (the remnant at least) had returned to their land, from the first year of the reign of this prince; so that it could not be the captivity of Babylon, which occupied Daniel’s heart at the moment. He had remained at Babylon after the departure of a great number of these Jews for the land of Canaan; but the people were not at all in the state which the prophetical spirit of Daniel could recognize as the fulfilment of blessings; and the consequence of this is, that the prophetical Spirit of Christ in Daniel is still occupied with the state of this people, and can in no wise content itself, even although there was a certain degree of blessing with them. Cyrus had done much, as we may learn from 2nd Chron. 36:22, and Ezra 1. The decree to rebuild had already been given in the first year of his reign. But the Spirit of God had caused Daniel to range over the whole period of the Gentiles, and he well understood, though there had been a kind of deliverance, —some relief through the goodness of God,— a little refreshment from above, —that nothing was really accomplished of the divine promises. It was impossible that the prophetic Spirit of Christ in Daniel’s person, should remain tranquil, while awaiting the accomplishment of the intentions of God’s love to His people; so that Daniel was then, as if the captivity were not over, bowing down His soul before Him. There had been, on the occasion of rebuilding the temple, features of sorrow in another quarter, Ezra 3. The elders of the people, who had seen the old temple, wept, and at the same time, the younger, who had not known it, uttered cries of joy. And this sorrow is often felt in like circumstance by those who have apprehended the divine counsels, either as to what God had set up at the beginning, or what He will yet set up. Like Daniel, they weep in the midst of the blessings in which consists the joy of those who only think of the present moment. The cries of joy prevailed without, for it is said, these cries were heard afar off; but amongst the people present, they knew not which to distinguish. But at Jerusalem, as well as at Babylon, he who had a sense, however imperfect, of what the state of the people of God ought to be, would not fail to recognize their wretched condition in the midst of these joyful exclamations. Neh. 9:36, “Behold, we are servants this day and for the land . . . behold we are servants in it.” Ver. 37, “And it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom thou hast set over us,” &c. And yet these Persian kings to whom Nehemiah alludes were altogether favourable. It is true there was cause of anguish; at one time the counsels of God prevailed, and at another, those of Satan, in hindering the rebuilding; but generally speaking, the kings of Persia were favourable to the Jews. But so long as the Gentiles were holding dominion over the people of God, it was impossible that the Spirit of God in the prophet could allow that the designs of God, regarding His people, had been accomplished. He could bless Him for all the good that existed, but even when the decree had gone forth, the elders wept; Nehemiah said, “we are servants,” &c.; and Daniel continued to afflict his soul before God.

                ……The introduction of Michael, the great prince, who standeth for the people of God, necessarily leads us onto the occurrences at the end, according to the counsels of which he assures the accomplishment. The actual circumstances they were in, give the leading idea; he begins from that time, and goes on until the time when the counsels of God should be brought to pass. We only need touch upon the historical part. The Persian and Grecian empires form the framework of the historical narrative, but the object of the prophecy, as may be seen, ver. 14, is, what was to take place in the latter days.

                Verse 20. “Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.” These two empires are viewed in relation to the people of God. They were, as we know, the second and third monarchies. The first part of the history of the third or Grecian is given us in chap, 11:1-4; these verses giving the connecting link of this monarchy with that of Persia.

                After its (the Grecian) establishment under the first powerful king, it was divided into four parts. We have already had some notices of it. The two principal kings were those of the north and south; principal, not alone in regard to their power, but because either the one or the other had always possession of the land of Canaan. This is why they are introduced here ; the history of the Holy Land, and of the people of God, after the establishment of the Greek or third monarchy, occupies the mind of the Spirit. Everyone is agreed that as to these kings, it is a history of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and ‘the history‘ is so exact, that unbelievers have sometimes said that Daniel was written after the events.

                At verse 20, we come to the history of the last of these kings. I do not say that what is here related of him will be accomplished at the end; but at all events he is the type of that which will take place at the end. It is not my object to enter into all the details of the historical part; he makes an expedition against the king of the south, then a second, (11:29). I pass by the details also of these two kings. “At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former (expedition) nor as the latter.” “For (ver. 30) the ships of Chittim shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved and shall return.”

                Here the power of the west (Chittim) is introduced into this history of the two monarchies. The people of God were situated between the kings of the north and south, exactly as lately the Holy Land became an object of contest between Mahomet Ali and the Sultan.

                Now, on the occasion of the last expedition here noticed, (chap. 11,) these ships of Chittim arrive on the scene. A power from the west mixes itself up with these two eastern powers, viz., the king of the north and the king of the south, —some power from the other coast of the Mediterranean, whether Italy or Greece. But further, we also find apostates from the holy covenant. Thus there are, first, Jews allowed to be the objects of the covenant of God, and those who are apostates to it; secondly, those from the west, north of the Mediterranean, who enter into the previous quarrel; and by these new elements, the scene is completely changed: then in ver. 31, we have the last of these kings, viz., of the kings of the north, brought before us. “And arms shall stand on his, part,” or more literally “forces (arms) shall rise from (out of ) him.” The expression “shall rise from him,” or “shall come from him,” may be used in two senses. A king’s lieutenant, —one who takes his place as commandant, or one who succeeds him in the government. “Arms shall rise from him, and they (the arms) shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, (or, which is the fortress,) and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and shall place the abomination which maketh desolate.”

                This verse is of the highest importance, as giving us an anticipative figure of the last indignation. The Lord Jesus has drawn our particular attention to this in Matt, 24, and at ver. 21 of chap. 12, of this prophecy, the calculation, which serves to mark the time of blessing, sets out from the event here prefigured. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety (1290) days,” &c., &c.

                But to return to verse 31 of chapter 11, as to the  forces which shall rise; “it will be someone who will come on the part of the king of the north, (I do not say who will be the king of the north) —someone will come on the part of him who will be the king of the north in these times, —who will introduce his forces —his arms into the holy place, who will defile the sanctuary, and who will place “the abomination which causeth desolation.”

                As to history, this is evidently what did take place. It was the generals of Antiochus Epiphanes who defiled the sanctuary. That was by no means the accomplishment, otherwise the Lord would not have spoken of the event as future. ‘A long time after the reign of this king‘, the Lord Jesus came into the world and spoke of this prophecy as yet to be. But we have another proof of the time when these things will take place; a proof which is connected with the Lord’s word in Matt. 24. In Dan. 12:1, we read, “And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation,” &c.; and the Lord Himself speaks exactly thus concerning the same time; and then the people of God are to be delivered, an event which had not taken place in the time of Jesus, nor has it yet.

                It is clear that we must put aside any Christian circumstances because it is plainly stated that the trouble shall happen to the people of Daniel in the last days. Now we are not the people of Daniel, and these last days have not yet occurred to them. The verse speaks of arms —forces which come from this king, and which defile the sanctuary, take away the daily sacrifice, and place the abomination which causeth desolation.

                All this, while a most important pre-figuring of the results of the last days, in more than one particular, was literally accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of the north. Here for the moment we drop these kings, and the prophet proceeds with the general history. Verses 32,33, “And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries.”

                The king of the north “will corrupt those who do wickedly against (or as to) the covenant,” viz., those Jews who are not true to Jewish hopes; he will incite them to apostacy; for this is the force of the word rendered by “he will corrupt,” “but the people that do know their God, shall be strong and do exploits.” Here we have a division of Jews into true and false, and the development of good and evil. But we must note, that ver. 33, “they that understand among the people shall instruct many,” are the same class as those spoken of, chap, 12:3, 10, and also 11:35; they are the ‘maskilims’, or persons instructed in the mind of God, and are a class of persons apart. Thus, at the end, also, there will be a remnant of Jews, not only those who are spared in general, but persons instructed in the mind of God; and we find the same specially distinguished in Isaiah 65, 66, besides those who will escape the judgment executed against the wicked ones. These understanding ones among the people (ver. 33) shall teach the multitude, (the many, the mass,) or will give instruction to them. I translate the Hebrew word into “the multitude” (the mass) because the word many of the text, has the article in Hebrew, as if one said the many; and the article, in my judgment, throughout these chapters, is special,

                “Yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil, many days.” Such is the condition of the people. The ‘maskilim’ are noticed in ver. 35, “Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” The trial of faith will be through them, for as faithful Jews, one should have supposed, that such as these might surely count on the help of God; for they have been encouraging others “to trust in the Lord.” Nevertheless, some of these are to fall, and then, unless faith is very strong, the others will say, “Where is their God ?” as in Psalms 42; 43, which express, in the language of the Spirit of Christ, the anguish of the remnant, of whom their enemies say, “Where is their God?”   And when these understanding ones fall, who had hope in Him, the unbelievers will say, there is no intervention of God in their behalf; but these judgments being appointed, the people are left, speaking generally, throughout the period, to go through them, and to undergo the consequence of their position.

                Now Christ, in Matt, 24, speaks of these times as accomplished, according to Dan. 12, in the last days. First in general of the things (taking, as an occasion, His announcement of the destruction of the Temple) which were to take place after His death; He speaks first of these times in general, and then gives, as the starting point of the last sorrows, the similar event, viz., the moment when the times and the law are delivered into the hand of the little horn, —of the king who, during 1260 days, does “his own will;”— the moment, namely, when the abomination of desolation is set up in the holy place: an event under and after Antiochus with the Roman dominion which marks the introduction of the final desolation of Jerusalem.

                After this general history of the state of the Jews, the idolatrous and wicked king is introduced, in ver. 36. “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every ‘God’,” &c. Ver. 37, “Neither shall he regard the ‘God’ of his fathers, nor the desire of women,” that is, the Messiah who had been promised, “nor regard any God: for he shall magnify himself above all.” This is the wicked one. Ver. 38, “But in his estate* shall he honour the ‘God’ of forces (*Rendered by the author “in his place,” or “instead.” —Translator.);” viz., “in the place of the true God he shall honour ‘Mahuzzim’ for God —some, idolatry; for ‘Mahuzzim’ signifies fortresses, or high places fortified. There is probably some connection between this and the forces of war upon which the king reckons. “And a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold,” &c. It is to some invention of a ‘god’ that he does this. Ver. 38, 39, “Thus shall he do in the most strongholds (Mahuzzim) with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many (the many), and shall divide the land for gain.”

                A difficulty here presents itself; “he shall cause them to rule over the ‘many.” Who are they whom he shall cause to rule? It appears that he will establish certain powers in connection with these false ‘gods’, and he will be there with these Mahuzzim in these fortresses, and then it will be the instruments of his power, who will join themselves to him; he will make them (the instruments) rule over the mass of Jews, and he will divide their land into lots, as a recompense. This seems to be, so far, the history of this king.

                It is remarkable how he is introduced quite suddenly. We must ever remember that when the prophet is occupied with the purposes of God towards His people at “the end of the indignation,” it is in connection with the kings of the north and south, and with the land of Palestine, His own land, which lies between them; and that in the latter day, when the people will be under the divine judgments in that very land, there will be a small faithful remnant, who hold fast by the Holy Covenant, when the great mass are ready to apostatize. This is the subject which the Spirit brings forward; and inasmuch as the wicked one, this king, will be found in these countries, he is introduced as mixed up with these kings of the north and south.

                In the New Testament, the sources of wickedness are quite different; for the Spirit of God there considers the moral condition of Christendom, when the apostacy arises, and in consequence, the wicked one is pourtrayed as a public apostate; but evidently it is the same person. In chap. 7 (*The question relative to the two beasts of Rev. 13 would recur here.) we saw the western power, viz., head of the last monarchy, —the little horn of the fourth beast, whilst here the king is seen who has to do geographically with the Eastern countries, and is among the Jewish people. I shall quote two other passages where this idea of the king is found. Observe, he is not called the king of the north, though geographically within his territory; he is called the king, because in the eyes of the prophet he holds that position. He it is, who exalts himself and pretends to be the king and the pastor of the people of God: a pretender, and a bad one, to these two offices: but as such he will present himself, and he is so called in Isa. 30:33: “Yea, for the king it is prepared.” Consult also Isa. 57:9; “Thou wentest to the king with ointment.” This passage speaks of the condition of the Jews, and of the accusations of God against them. Both these portions touch upon the history of the Antichrist after he has become king.

                There is one more observation needed, that we may be able to link this remarkable parenthesis (in which the king is introduced on account of his connection with the kings of the north and south) with the rest of the chapter; it is that from ver. 21 to the end of ver. 35, the prophet is always speaking of the same person, whilst from ver. 36 to the end of ver. 39, we have the history of this extraordinary king himself. These last verses designate the Antichrist properly; and my opinion is, that from ver. 21 to the end of ver. 35, it is the king of the north, but who is also the type of Antichrist. I mention this, because many persons who have studied the chapter find great difficulty in deciding whether the history of the Antichrist begins at ver. 21 or at ver. 36. It is the same person from ver. 21 to ver. 35; and he was a type of Antichrist, even Antiochus Epiphanes.

                The Spirit of God makes no mention of those who followed him; it was he who furnished the typical circumstances, and which necessarily, therefore, partially answered to the prophecy. But in verse 36, the Spirit speaks of the Antichrist himself, “the king shall do according to his will;” before this, I judge, they are typical circumstances which apply to Antichrist.

                I hope we understand, that, although we are a part of the fourth monarchy (materially not spiritually), these prophecies relate immediately and simply to the Jewish people, —the people of Daniel in the latter days. The Antichrist is the link between this history and ours; for it is the spirit of the apostacy described in 2nd Thessalonians, which is the effective source of the conduct of this last king, here presented to us in his connection with the Jews in the East; but who, morally speaking, is allied with those who have abandoned Christianity, or the light now existing. He is found allied to the Jews at the beginning of his connection with them; afterwards, he will deny them, and set up himself as God.

                May God preserve us from all trace and appearance of that spirit which will shew itself in these days in opposition, whether against the Almighty and Most High God, or against the Lord Jesus, the Prince of princes. May He keep us in humility of heart, giving our affections to the Lord Jesus; so shall we be safe. If we are content to be nothing and Jesus everything, we shall be guarded by Him, for Him, and for ever.

                8th Lecture: Chap.XI:36; XII:1,2.

                We have already said something in general upon this ‘king‘; we have spoken of him in connection with what went before; but, independent of circumstances, as a personage, he is of sufficient importance for us to notice him more fully. It is generally admitted that he is the same as is called Antichrist, the ‘wicked one‘, but under a special character, as I mentioned towards the close of the last lecture; that is, in connection with the Jews, and in the land which is an object of dispute between the king of the north and the king of the south. And, in fact, this ‘wicked one‘ will unite in his own person, every feature of iniquity. He will be a blasphemer against the true God —a persecutor of the saints —the head of the apostacy—and he will encourage idolatry; in fine, it is “the king who shall do according to his will.”

                It is impossible to mistake the character of the person mentioned in 2nd Thess. 2, “shewing himself that he is God;” and it would be well if we referred to a few passages, which mention the different characters attributed to him, beginning with this chapter of Daniel.

                The first trait is, that he is in Palestine, in the land of the heirs of the holy covenant, and exalts himself and magnifies himself above every ‘god’, whether false or true. In spite of this, he is to prosper “till the indignation be accomplished:” God permits it, because it is the time of His indignation against the Jews, chap, 8:19. This indignation is the period spoken of in Isaiah 10:5, 24,25, “For yet a very little while and the indignation shall cease:” there is an indignation with a certain limit. It is not said that the time of this king is the period of the indignation, but it is a time during which God does not interfere to deliver Israel. He allows the trial to go on, and Israel to suffer the effects of it; and so Antichrist prospers until the indignation is accomplished. It is not said, that when the indignation is over, Israel will be at once re-established in the enjoyment of all her promises; but Christ can then act for Israel, instead of leaving her under the indignation. He will yet have, to subject the nations to the exercise of His royal power, in the midst of His earthly people.

                Verse 37. “Neither shall he regard ‘the god‘ of his fathers …. for he shall magnify himself above all.” This is a strong feature of the pride of man ; “he magnifies himself above all.” He would efface every idea of the true God; he is indifferent whether about the real religion of the heart, or the religion of his fathers; he dislikes even the name of Christ (called here “the desire of women“); he is even against religious customs, and religious nationality; he has no respect for any God. But arrived at this point, it is necessary to keep the people in restraint, and he needs instruments for this, as well as his gods, ‘mahuzzim‘ (fortresses), some species of idolatry which he introduces when he has denied every ‘god’. This idolatry will be connected with the interests of those who govern; he will cause them to rule over many (the many, the mass), viz., the people of Israel, and the country will be divided among his chiefs. So far the royal and Judaic history of this king.

                We proceed with passages which represent him under other points of view. If, as I suppose, he is the second beast of Rev. 13, he will be found in intimate connection with the little horn of Dan. 8, where the little horn of the fourth beast is described, and, in the same chapter, the period determined for the end of the persecution of the saints, “until the Ancient of Days came,” ver. 22, as distinct from the time when He sat upon the throne, ver. 9. Thus Christ comes, and “the judgment is given to the saints of the most High,” or “of the high places,” and “the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” These passages determine the general end of the war which the little horn wages against the saints. In the last, it is not said, “the saints of the high places.” In fact, three things are marked, viz., the coming of the Ancient of Days; the judgment given to the saints of the high places; and the time when the saints shall take the kingdom. We turn now to certain portions in the New Testament, which again speak of this period and of the antichristian power of evil under other aspects, just as we may behold Christ under different aspects. In the Epistle to the Thessalonians the “man of sin” is described as a person, the result of the apostacy which shall invade Christendom; “Now we beseech you, brethren, that ye be not soon shaken …. except there come a falling away first.” 2nd Thess. 2:3.

                The first thing is the apostacy, not of the Jews (this we have seen in Daniel), but of Christendom, and it will necessarily happen before the execution of the judgment, —before the day of Christ; as must also the appearance of the “man of sin,” who is clearly not the apostacy itself, but, I judge, follows and winds it up, The Apostle marks the two events before the judgment; viz., the coming in of the apostacy, and the revelation of the man of sin —the son of perdition: an expression which signifies that he possesses this  name, by his nature, his character, and his acts, “who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, or is worshipped.” Read to verse 10.

                This is his character in connection with Christendom, and Christendom  in  connection with him. First of all, there was a mystery of iniquity, which was  commencing in  the times of the apostles, which was to continue for a certain time,  afterwards  an apostacy would follow, and  then  the  revelation  of  the  wicked  one.* (* There  is  much  as   mention made   of this ‘wicked one‘ in the Psalms.) The  Lord  will  destroy  him  “with  the  brightness  of His   coming”  (the manifestation of His presence). But there is something else. The New Testament gives us the moral features of the appearance of this wicked one, viz., that it is according to the power of ‘Satan‘, and what makes these verses remarkable is, that the same words which are used to describe the manifestations of this power of Satan, are employed speaking of the proof of the mission of Jesus Christ as Messiah. Acts 2:22.

                There are two remarkable circumstances; viz., that the coming of Antichrist is spoken of just as the coming of Christ, and a mystery of ‘iniquity‘, as well as a mystery of ‘godliness‘. As the Son of Man is to come, so also will the Antichrist come; and his coming will be after the power of Satan: he will perform lying miracles, —it will not be merely a set of principles at work; the effect will be mighty in seducing those who perish. A positive power of error comes in because men “received not the love of the truth.” “God shall send them ‘strong delusion‘ …. for they had pleasure in unrighteousness.” It is a judicial blinding.

                It is said also in Isaiah, “Make the heart of this people fat.” After a period of long-suffering on the part of God, blindness happened to the Jews, when they rejected the Messiah: and when patience has had its perfect work, they will yet be delivered over to a spirit of idolatry —that spirit which shall, meanwhile, have sought out seven spirits more wicked than himself, and the last state of that people shall be worse than the first. And so when those who call themselves Christians, have obstinately refused to receive the truth, although it has been proposed to them, a positive and special blindness shall come upon them from God, “that they all might be damned who believed not the truth.”

                We continue our history of this king from Rev. 12. There the dragon is seen (who is the devil or Satan, and seduces the whole world) cast out of heaven, ver. 10, 12. This malicious power no longer occupies the heavenly places; but when this occurs, it will be a time of fearful woe to the earth. It is the beginning of his “great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”

                After this we have a vision of the woman, who “is nourished for a time, times, and half a time.” In other words, as soon as Satan is cast out of heaven, a period of three and a half years will elapse before he is judged on earth; accordingly, in chap, 13, we find that the dragon gives the beast his power, throne, and great authority, —this beast, of whom we read in the same chapter, that “power was given him to continue forty and two months.” He is found with the same characteristics as those before mentioned, only under more detailed historical circumstances.. “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” (ver. 5). “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.” Satan could no longer himself meddle with heaven, and therefore he sets on the beast against those who dwell there: also “it was given unto him to make war with the saints (on the earth), and to overcome them ; and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues and nations” (ver. 6, 7). There is a fact here worth observing —it is a kind of imitation of the ways of God. As the Father hath given all power to the risen Son, and the Holy Spirit exercises all the power of Christ before Him, so Satan imitates the same thing in evil. The dragon will give his throne to the beast; and remark what is said of the character under which he will be worshipped, “And I saw one of his heads, as it were, wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed.” It is when this wound is healed, —when there shall be a kind of resurrection (not personal, but the power of the beast raised up again), that all the world will wonder after the beast, and the second beast will exercise all the power of the first beast before him.

                Verse 11. “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth” . . . . which “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” We have here a power which pretends to be that of Christ, not His heavenly power, but which pretends to be like Christ on the earth; but, in fact, an ear which could hear would discover it to be that of the Dragon himself. As Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Only in the throne will I be greater than thou,” so this second beast will exercise all the power of the first beast before him, ….this second beast which speaks like a dragon, whilst it has horns like a lamb. Ver. 13, 14. “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven …. and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth.” These verses speak of what is done before (in the presence of) and in sustaining this power of the first beast; the second beast causes him to be worshipped, and an image to be made to him, and he seduces them that dwell on the earth.

                This second beast is again mentioned in Rev. 19, under the designation of the false prophet. Here again, as the Spirit of the Father speaking in the disciples, acted for the glory of Christ; so this beast, here called “the false prophet,” speaks the language of the Dragon, and supports the glory of the last beast. It will be a spirit, ‘zealous for idolatry, and who will even execute judgment on the earth‘, as the prophets ere now, have done.

                In the Revelation we find the connection of the first beast with Babylon, which is yet another thing. In chap. 17:1, 3, it is said, “I will shew thee the judgment of the great whore …. and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast …. having seven heads and ten horns.” Verse 8. “The beast which thou sawest was, and is not …. yet is” —this is a kind of death and resurrection. When it appears for the last time, it has a devilish character, it comes out of the pit, and then is destroyed. “And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, when they behold the beast that was and is not, and yet is:” or rather “and it is there.” It is a coming* of this beast. (*All the best editions of the Greek Testament employ here, the word elsewhere used for the ‘coming‘ of Christ.) When the world beholds this appearance of the beast, it is astonished. There is another circumstance: “And the beast (ver. 1 1) that was and is not, even he is the eighth (king) and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” An event which has not yet occurred.

                We perceive that these kings will exist at the same time with the beast. Three of them will fall (see Dan. 7), but the seven others will continue. The beast rules and unites in a single body the power of these kings; but the kings exist; it will be a kind of confederation, in which each horn acts royally in his own sphere, but gives his power to the beast, who blasphemes against God, “For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” (Rev.  17:17). Another feature in his character is, “that the ten horns (ver. 16) … . shall hate the whore,” who for a long while ruled the beast. We remember in Dan. 7, that among the ten horns another arose, who got all the power of the beast, who, in fact, morally becomes the beast, and causes three of the horns to fall before him. This one in the eyes of Daniel, and in fact, in his conduct, will be the beast. This horn that will have the dominion, will control, and give its tone to everything. Having touched upon the passages which refer to this period, we must still remember that it is in Palestine, and viewed personally, that we have to do with Antichrist, the king, here.

                But to continue with Daniel 11 Verse 40. “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him:” ver. 41, “he shall enter also into the glorious land.” This is the moment when God begins to act. Both the kings of the north and south, in their same geographical position, are at war with ‘this king‘, “And the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind.” This king of the north seems to be a very prominent power, and he possesses the territory of the ancient kings of Syria; my judgment is, that the rest of the chapter applies to him; although, formerly, I thought it applied to the king; but now I judge it applies to the king of the north. Daniel now continues the thread of the history; (which had been interrupted by the notices concerning ‘the king‘) that is, he resumes that of the Jews, in connection with the kings of the north and south; and there is a fact which confirms me in the opinion of this invasion (ver. 41) being that of the king of the north; viz., “he shall enter into the glorious land:” now if it is a question of ” the king,” he is already there.

                Verse 41. “And many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.” This is a circumstance not to be omitted, because it demonstrates the exactitude of the written word: for in Isaiah 11:13, you will find that these three powers which escape the king of the north, are in existence still later: “Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim; but they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines towards the west …. they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab, and the children of Ammon shall obey them.”        

                Ver. 42. “He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape;” an announcement that the king of the south loses his kingdom. See Isaiah 11:15.

                Verses 43,44. “But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him, therefore he shall go forth with great fury, …. yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him.” This is the end of the king of the north. I add a general idea of chap. 12, to shew the connection.         

                Ver. 1. “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Here is special reference to the Jews, in whom Daniel was so much interested, and on whose account he had fasted and mourned for three full weeks.              After having described the events pertaining to the kings of the north and south, the angel says, notwithstanding all these desolating scenes, Michael shall stand up for the children of thy people. Nevertheless, “there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.” This is exactly what is announced in Matt, 24, as to take place in Judea. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” &c., ver. 15-21. It is clear that this cannot happen twice; it is the time of Israel’s deliverance, “and at that time thy people shall be delivered,” only it is confined to “every one that is found written in the book.”

                One could not fail to remark, while reading the chapters of which I have given the abridgement in the two preceding lectures, the character of this terrible personage of the last days. The king of the north is fearful enough, as a conqueror, and pillaging invader; but this ‘king‘ is spoken of as making war against God; it is not merely a desire of conquest, but of open opposition to God and the Lamb. It is the effectual power of Satan and of a lie; it is blasphemy, —it is persecution. One feels it to be everything the most terrible in human hatred, animated by the power of Satan fallen from heaven, and who establishes his throne upon earth, against the God of heaven and the Lamb. The appearing of this wicked one is the most important point in these chapters, whether as the expression of the iniquity of the Jews and Christendom, or as that of the pride of man.

                9th Lecture: Chap. XII:2-13.

                …..(*It is worthy of remark, that in the prophets of the first captivity, God by the Spirit, never calls Israel “my people:” He declares they shall be, and the Spirit remains among them as when they came up out of Egypt; but “lo ammi” remains unrecalled.)

                Verse 2. “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt“. The angel, as it appears to me, speaks in this place of the deliverance of the people brought back from among the Gentiles. “Many of them,” &c.; it is only a question of the people of Daniel,* (* It seems to me that these words are added to complete the picture: for the principal part of the prophecy is occupied with the details of that part of the people who are found in the land when the wicked one shall be in the exercise of his terrible and malicious power. But in this verse the lot of those who had been lost and were to be gathered from among the nations, is given to us. These only enter as accessory into the scheme of the prophecy: this portion of the people having been without the limits of the prophecy, not having entered into the land to figure as the Jewish people. It is for this reason that they are represented as “sleeping in the dust of the earth.”)  No doubt judgments will fall upon the Gentiles, but in speaking of those with whom God is more immediately occupied, as the object of His thoughts, the people of Daniel are only intended. I recall to your minds Dan. 10:14, “For I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” The fulfilment of this declaration is taken up in chap, 10, 11, 12. “Many of them which sleep,” namely, a multitude of Jews in general, but not all, will appear on the scene; as for some, it will be “to everlasting life,” and as to others, “to shame and everlasting contempt.” The expression, “dust of the earth,” is common in the writings of the prophets, when a person is in captivity and overwhelmed, as in Isaiah 26:11. In pronouncing judgment upon the nations, the prophet says, “They are dead (those who despised the Jews, “other lords besides thee have had dominion over us,”) they are deceased …. therefore thou hast visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.” But in ver. 19, speaking of the Jews, “thy dead men shall live, (together with) my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead.” Here is the resurrection of the Jew.  “Come, my people, enter into thy chambers …. hide thyself, as it were, for a little moment, until the indignation be over past,” —this same indignation of which we have been speaking, ver. 21, “For behold, the Lord cometh out of his place, to punish the inhabitants of the earth.”

                God had been, so to speak, concealed; He had allowed the evil to go on: but, dear friends, what a thought! Think of God coming out of His place! When we consider our inability to make head against wickedness, —how Christians tremble at the sight of the increase of evil, hardly knowing what to do; while they see, on the one hand, the proud self-will of man, and on the other this unexpected and inexplicable tendency to superstition—the powers of darkness under this form having invaded even countries which were delivered from it, and who are trembling at it; I say, then, it is precious, in face of all this, to know that ‘God will come out of His place‘. True, it will be in anger for the moment, —in anger against the wickedness, and to put it away; but also, that good may be before His face, and before our eyes who are fatigued with what we behold. On this account we can bear the idea of judgment, and even cry, “How long!” And oh, how happy to think of an indignation which will change active evil into rest, blessing, peace, liberty, and freedom from the yoke of sin as soon as the Lord Jesus shall have executed His judgment! We are not now speaking of the Church, (although this is the most precious part,) but of this poor world labouring under the yoke of Satan. For even when good has been effected, evil gains ground on all sides.

                The apostle could well say, “The whole creation groaneth,” &c. We understand —we who know the secret of the goodness of God —that it groans; “ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit,” must “groan within ourselves,” unless we should withdraw ourselves from the love of God, and from the groanings of the Spirit within us. And the more we observe the progress of evil, the more we shall feel the need of this indignation of God, —that His power maybe felt in executing judgment in this world: and if faith is strong in our hearts, it will engage us in helping out, by the activity of love, all those we can from this necessary judgment, whether this fearful act is likely to fall on them, owing to the natural energy of sin in their hearts, or from the superstitions and errors to which they are attached by education; for it will fall upon whatever seduces the heart, as it is said, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partaker of her sins,” &c., Rev. 18. We see then that it is the judgment which will take away the power of evil, and for this it is, that the appeal is made to the saints, &c., in the Apocalypse, to rejoice in the destruction of Babylon. It will be a terrible judgment; but, until it happens, a poison, a venom, corrupts everything, when even one’s own self is withdrawn from it.

                I have been led into this digression on the subject of the judgment of God, on account of the ending of Isaiah 26, which I quoted, and to explain the application of the resurrection to the Jewish people. I will mention another passage in Ezekiel 37, that of the dry bones, which will help you to understand this point. It is often quoted as having reference to souls; and, morally, no doubt, the same effect happens to those who are quickened of God; but the only subject of the chapter, is the nation of Israel, and not ‘at all souls‘. “Son of man, (ver. 11) these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold they say (in captivity) our bones are dried.” This is not what dead souls say, “therefore (ver. 12) prophesy thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.” The Israelites, when they return, are treated as if they had been buried among the nations. “Then shall ye know that I am the Lord.” It would be sad to remain there in the land, if it was a literal resurrection; for the hope of those who are literally raised is far higher.

                The prophet continues with the history of the two sticks, Judah, and Israel, which are to become one, when “one king shall be king to them all.” Ezek.  37:22. Nothing can be clearer than that the subject of the chapter is the deliverance and blessing of Israel by Jesus Christ. Daniel 12 also treats of Israel coming out of the graves —buried among the Gentiles; but it omits the final result under Christ. ‘Many‘, it says, shall awake, not all, and of these some shall be for everlasting contempt, as some will be for eternal life. This part is added, as I said before, because the main concern of the prophecy was with the Holy Land and the Jews residing there. But other Jews will be manifested in the times which precede the final deliverance of Israel; and the Spirit of God, consequently, speaks of these latter in this passage.

                The contents of these first verses apply in their results to the Jewish remnant, whose deliverance terminates that time of distress during which Michael stood fast, and delineates all that takes place during that period. It is the deliverance of the remnant and that of the people, —all those written in the book.

                But besides, among those who are delivered, will be some who will be in the front of the battle, as being occupied with the things of God, and who will discern the times: thus “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.” If you have paid attention to the preceding chapter, you will recognise these wise ones: they are a remnant who have been often mentioned; as in chap. 11:35, “and some of them of understanding,” &c.: ver. 33 also, “they that understand,” ‘Maschilim’. It will be an enlightened remnant: persons who will discern the times, and who will occupy themselves with the welfare of the mass of the people, and that, faithfully, according to the light they will possess. “And they that turn (the) many to righteousness;” (or rather, “instructed the many in righteousness,” this was the object of their labours.) ‘There is no thought about evangelizing, nor of those who are blessed through evangelizing‘. The prophet is speaking solely of those Jews who shall be engaged in the instruction of the mass of the people, with a view of withdrawing them from the deceitful ways of Antichrist, and from all the evil which he will carry on. Those who have thus laboured among ‘the many‘, will “shine as the stars forever and ever:” this special remnant is mentioned, as before said, in Isaiah 65; 66. These are the closing circumstances of the remnant; viz., this time of distress; the people delivered, that is, the remnant; many who were buried, as it were, among the nations, who shall awake, whether for good or evil; and the special lot of the understanding ones.

                There is still, at the end of the chapter, the reply to the question of Daniel, as to the duration of these things, of which the solution, for the Jews, was concealed until the time of the end.

                We are in the time of the end, for it is to be hoped that all will soon finish; but, in another sense, the Church is always in the time of the end; because the Church does not belong to the present age; as it is said, 1st John  2:18, “As ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” Now, seeing this, “they that be wise,” will apply morally to the Church, so far as she preserves the place which the Word of God gives her, although she is not the direct object of the prophecy. The Church is supposed to know that the last days are arrived, and that the prophetic warnings are important, in order that that day overtake us not as a thief; for to be overtaken is not the proper portion of the Church. Compare 1st Thess. 5:4, &c., and Rev.  3:3. And hence also in the Apocalypse (feeble as we are in the comprehension of it) it is written, “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand”. What is said to Daniel is exactly the reverse of the position of the Church, which, having an unction from the Holy One, knows all things; but in Daniel it is said, “shut up the book, and seal the words, till the time of the end.”

                Verses 7, 9, 10. “And when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard but I understood not, And he said …. the words are closed and sealed up until the time of the end . . .but the wise shall understand.” Now, so to speak, the Church is the faithful remnant, for the Church commenced with the understanding remnant of the Jews —such was its beginning. Thus in the Apocalypse one is encouraged to hear and to keep the words of the book, and intelligence is supposed among Christians. 

                Verse 11. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days; blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 days.” There is something striking in this answer, as concerns the Jews. The Lord Jesus uses the same date, omitting these days added at the end; otherwise He gives the same point of departure. The date does not begin until the last half-week; because, until then, there is no event to furnish an epoch from which one can commence counting; the position being then also definite and decided. There is a previous half week, during which the prince that shall come will be in covenant with the people at Jerusalem; but that which notably fixes the time of distress to the Jews, (and this is the subject before us,) is the abomination of desolation set up in the holy place at Jerusalem; and this is at the beginning of the last half week.

                This being the principal thing, I doubt whether there is any date whatever in the Word as to the general course of the prophecy, or for the time which elapses between the rejection of Jesus and His return. That there may have been events adapted to the prophetic facts, analogous in principle, during the interval, I do not doubt; and events most important to recognise in their moral features. Many eminent Christians have sought to calculate these dates; but my conviction is, that all these will be found wrong in the fact. Some have indicated 1844, and some 1847; I have made them myself in my time; it is not, then, to blame others, that I say I do not think there is any basis for a true calculation: and I doubt whether the Lord has fixed any other date, than that of the half week of Daniel, when the abomination, &c., is set up, The prophecy speaks of seventy weeks; but almost all Christians allow, that these have passed, except the seventieth (70th) one, and that at the end of the sixty-ninth (69th) the Lord was upon earth. Moreover, the date of a time, times, and half a time, has reference entirely to Jerusalem; and it is not a period of years at all, but simply of days; for this date is given us at the end of the chapter, after the sacrifice has been taken away, and after the setting up of the abomination. Now the words of the Lord Himself afford a complete proof that it has no reference to centuries any more than to Christendom: for He speaks of a special time; of certain persons in peculiar circumstances, interested in and occupied with what occurs at Jerusalem, —of women with child, —of the time which it takes to flee to the mountains, —of the season of the year suiting that flight, —and of the sabbath day. Neither could we suppose that there would be signs in the sun during centuries, &c., &c. It is of these things that Matt, 24 speaks, as being identified with “the 1260 days,” and “a time, times, and half a time.”

                I will just recall to your memories my previous division of Matt. 24. We must keep in mind the occasion of the reply of our Lord to His disciples. He had passed judgment on the Jewish people, at the end of chap. 23, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, &c. … for I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Here is a positive judgment passed, and upon the nation as such; there is no question of individuals; for He does not say to individuals “ye shall not see me.” And so it must be the nation, or a remnant of it at least, and at a time yet to come, who will say to Jesus, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” The high priests themselves have never said it; on the contrary, their language was, “Away with him, crucify him.” The Lord had previously pronounced their judgment; but it is of the nation that He says, “Ye shall not see me henceforth, ‘until” &c. It is a quotation from  Ps. 98, remarkable for its prophetic announcement of the rejection of Him who was to be acknowledged at a later time.

                To pass then to Matt. 24:1, &c., “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple; and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple;” for they were yet imbued with a Jewish feeling. Verse 3. “And the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world” (age)? They supposed that what the Lord had said about the temple, would take place when the Messiah should return; and they asked when these things should happen.

                Observe the expression, “end of the age.” When the Lord uses it, He does not speak of Christianity: it was not then established. When His disciples said, “the age,” they had no thought about Christianity; they spoke about the Jewish age, in which the Messiah was expected; the age of the Law until the Messiah should come for the Jews. Their question was, when shall the end of that age be?

                Now from ver. 4-14, Jesus tells them the circumstances which should take place: these are warnings; and He adds some circumstances which should happen before “the end of the age;” that is to say, He closes the account of the Jewish remnant which should endure to the end. At ver. 14, Jesus details another event: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world ; . . . and then shall the end come;” that is, not only certain things should happen to His disciples; but also, there should be the preaching ‘of the gospel of the kingdom‘, throughout the habitable world, and then should the end come.

                Then He commences His particular instructions to His disciples who should be at Jerusalem at “the end of the age.” As He had spoken of the Jewish nation, so here He speaks to His disciples; addressing in their persons the remnant which should be found at the end: “When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination …. stand in the holy place, then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” Nothing can be more evident than that the Lord speaks of a precise time, and not of something which happens morally, and which may be distributed, so to speak, over centuries; thus, “neither let him which is in the field” “woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck,” &c. “Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day.” It is impossible not to perceive that the last allusion is to Jews who would not venture to go further than a certain distance on the sabbath day.

                Verse 21. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” We are here absolutely in the time of distress (predicted in Dan. 12, and Jeremiah 30:7) at Jerusalem, to be followed by the deliverance of the people of Daniel, at least of the remnant, and by the establishment of the Jews in Palestine, with David (Christ) as their king. But before this unequalled period of tribulation, there will be the “the beginning of sorrows.” Matt. 24:8. And whenever the abomination is placed, there will be 1290 days, with 45 added, before there is a complete deliverance at Jerusalem. The 45 days added will introduce all that the faithful remnant could desire in order to their happiness. St. Mark agrees with all this; they both pursue the history until the manifestation of Jesus; “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, believe it not,* for there shall arise false Christs.” (*This, to me, is a convincing proof that this passage does not apply, properly speaking, to the Church; because our expectation is to be caught up into the air to meet Jesus. To tell us He is in the desert, would, of itself, prove an impostor, for we are to be in the air with Him before He can be there.) . . . “For as the lightning (ver. 27) cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be for wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” There; where the dead body of the Jewish people is, the visitation of God will come.

                “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” The nation will have no sign for its instruction, although fearful signs will be there. This is the answer to the nation; —Christ shall come as the lightning. In heaven only, there will be a sign at the moment of His appearing suddenly; I do not say what the sign is, but there will be one there when He comes : “They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Matt, 24:30.

                I will add a few remarks as to Luke 21. There is a difference; for Luke does not occupy himself in the same manner with Jewish details. It is not the gospel of the Jewish kingdom. The only question of the disciples is, “When shall these things be?” It is not about “the end of the age.” It applies only to that which should happen ‘at the destruction of Jerusalem‘. When Titus took it, more or less of those fearful events took place, similar to what will happen at the end; but it is not the same thing as the time “such as never was.” There will be great earthquakes, &c. Head down to ver. 10.

                In Luke’s gospel, there is more reference to evangelizing in a direct manner, although the result, as to testimony, is the same : “ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” “In your patience possess ye your souls.” But there is not a word about the abomination of desolation. “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” And this was accomplished in the siege of Jerusalem which has already taken place, as history testifies. Possibly, there may be similar features when the nations shall surround Jerusalem; but no mention is made in Luke of a time of distress, such as never was, and the interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the fulfilling the times of the Gentiles is distinctly predicted. What is said is, “There shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people,” and they “shall be led away captives into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.” This is altogether another matter. There is no account of any deliverance of the Jews. It is not said, “Blessed is he … . that cometh to the 1335 days ;” but, on the contrary, Jerusalem is trodden down until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled; things are left in this state by the recital; the events following it being applicable down to the end, but accomplished in the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus. Then ver. 25, “There shall be signs in the sun and in the moon.” Generally speaking, Luke does not answer to the exact accomplishment of the prophecies of Daniel, but principally to those whose fulfilment is now passed, and which Jesus set forth to His disciples, to influence their conduct, according to their particular question, ver. 7; and the signs which He gives (ver. 24, 25) are applicable rather to the Gentiles, than to Jerusalem and the Jews.

                But to conclude. Dan. 12:7. “It shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” This is another proof that this date relates to the end; for it is evident that he has not accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people. They are still scattered. “And I heard, but I understood not.” We are not to conceive of the “end of the indignation,” as if it was the complete and entire re-establishment of the Jews in all their privileges. When the indignation is over, then the Christ, —God, and the Christ in the name of God, —takes Israel as His people, to begin to establish them fully. The Jews having again become the people of God, He begins to put them into the enjoyment of all their privileges; and Christ begins to appropriate to Himself His rights as Messiah.

                “None of the wicked shall understand.” (ver. 10.) It will be the same in the Christian apostacy. “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie;” “but the wise shall understand.” “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away …. there shall be 1290 days.” I have no knowledge why there should be the addition of these 30 days to 1260, unless it be an indication that after the end of the half week, during which the Antichrist prospers, there will yet be needed 30 days, before the final blessing to the Jews comes in. “Blessed is He that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 days,”—for then the people will evidently be in a state of blessing. But, as I before said, Daniel gives no explanation or detail of this happiness, because the aim of the book is to shew the care which God takes of the remnant, during the time of its sojourn (and this was Daniel’s case) among the Gentiles. Other prophecies speak of their happy position after their re-settlement; but Daniel limits himself to the expression that they shall be blessed.

                “But go thou thy way …. and thou shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” Thou shalt enjoy all this blessedness, be not troubled; God will take care of this, thou shalt have thy part in it all. We know that it is at the first resurrection —the resurrection of the saints —that Daniel will partake of this, in company with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all those who have been faithful in every epoch.

                We have now arrived at the conclusion of this remarkable book. I have not pretended to anything more than to give you its great features, such as God has, as yet, shewn them to me. By their help you may be enabled to proceed further for yourselves. May God bless His Word.  }}

  1. Montagu.

George Montagu, 6th Duke of Manchester DL, known as Viscount Mandeville from 1799 to 1843, was a British peer and Tory Member of Parliament.

The Times of Daniel, Chronological & Prophetical, Examined with Relation to the Point of Contact between Sacred & Profane Chronology. Author: George Montagu, 6th Duke of Manchester. London. Pub. by James Darling. 1845.  (Scholarly. See his ‘Horae Hebraicae’, ‘Finished Mystery’, & ‘Things Hoped For’.)

                {{ Analytical Index: Preface.

                Chapter I: Introductory Remarks. Ancient chronology uncertain. Technical chronology limited. Profane history with technical chronology doubtful. Sacred history the proper basis. Scripture by itself first examined. Scripture authentic. Persian kings in Scripture identified. Herodotus. Astronomical Canon. Three grades of evidence.

                Chapter II: Time from Solomon to the Captivity given in the aggregate. 420 years, 2nd Chron. 36:21. 390 years, Ezek. 4. From the dedication to the desolation of the temple, in detail. System by which the chronology of the kings of Judah is regulated. The redundant months of one reign absorbed in the reign of the successor. Reigns reckoned in entire years. Commence at Abib preceding the actual accession. Month sometimes specified, as with Zedekiah. Years in Israel irregular. Years in Judah. From Rehoboam to Ahaziah, inclusive, ninety-four (94) years. From Athaliah to the sixth of Hezekiah in Judah, 154 years. No interregnum between Amaziah and Uzziah.  No interregnum in Israel. Chronology of the kings of Israel for the corresponding period. From Jeroboam to the end of Joram, ninety-eight years. From Jehu to the end of Hoshea, 152 years. Years of Judah from the seventh of Hezekiah to the desolation. Corrected by the years in the aggregate. 390 years of Ezekiel, chap. 4:3-5, date from the defalcation of Rehoboam. Forty years in Ezekiel terminate upon the destruction by Titus. 420 years from the year after the dedication to the year of the destruction. These numbers applied. 143 years and 6 months, from the seventh of Hezekiah to the end of Zedekiah. Appendix to Chapter II. Average of fifty authorities for the space from the dedication to the destruction of the temple.

                Chapter III: The relation of the reigns in Judah to the years of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim. Zedekiah.

                Chapter IV: On the Jubilean and Sabbatic years. Ezek. 1:1. “The thirtieth year” from the previous Jubilee. Why mentioned by Ezekiel. Ezek. 40:1 . The year of Jubilee. On the Sabbatic years. Jer. 28:1. “The fourth year.” The tenth of Zedekiah. The Sabbatic and Jubilean years in accordance. Jeconiah’s captivity reckoned from the commencement in Babylon. Jubilee every fiftieth (50th) year.  The fourteenth of Hezekiah a Sabbatic year.

                Chapter V: On the seventy years’ desolation. Nations to serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and son’s son. Jerusalem to serve the King of Babylon seventy (70) years. Seventy (70) years’ captivity not mentioned in Scripture.  Seventy (70) years’ desolations of Jerusalem. Appendix I to Chapter V. Whether it was announced beforehand that the desolations should be limited to seventy years. Appendix II to Chapter V. Prophecy against Tyre, Isa. 23.

                Chapter VI: Scriptural account of the Kings of the Medes and Persians. Prop, i. Phenomena must be accounted for. Prop. ii. Names not to be changed. Prop. iii. Coincidences to be preserved. Darius the Median. Not Darius son of Ahasuerus, Dan. 9. Darius, son of Ahasuerus, same as Darius of Haggai and Zechariah.  Ahasuerus. Esther not after the Captivity. Mordecai carried captive. Esther during the Captivity. Ahasuerus during the Captivity. Coresch. Artaxerxes. Darius, son of Ahasuerus. Many of those who returned from the Captivity sealed the covenant in the twentieth of Artaxerxes the Second. Hence the reign of Darius, who intervened, was not above twenty years. Temple forty-six years building.  A king not named. Darius the Persian. This order tested by the facts. Recapitulation. The names are the same and in the same order as in profane history. Darius the Median was Darius Hystaspes. Reasons. Testimony: Maximus the Martyr, Pseudo-Megasthenes, Porphyry, etc. Objection: one a Mede, the other a Persian, answered. Ahasuerus was Xerxes. Reasons. General opinion. Darius, son of Ahasuerus, Darius Nothus. Not Darius Hystaspes. Reasons. Evidence: Tertullian, Severus Sulpitius. Opinions: Strauchius, &c. Darius the Persian was Darius Codomanus. Jaddua met Alexander the Great. Ensemble of the evidence. Proposed identification compared with the received view.  Appendix to Chapter VI. The fourth king, Dan. 11:2.

                Chapter VII: Nebuchadnezzar. Commenced to reign the latter part of the fourth of Jehoiakim. He was the Nabopolassar of the Canon. Reasons : 1. The date of the fall of Assyria. 2. The direction whence he came. 3. Not possible to refer all the events of Scripture to one Nebuchadnezzar. 4. Schroer’s argument. 5. Profane authority: Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus,  Berossus. The second year of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 2:1. What it was not. When it was. Not earlier than the eleventh, not later than the fifteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Probably the end of the eleventh of Nebuchadnezzar I and fourth of Zedekiah. Chrysostom. What it was. The second year of the vice-royalty of Nebuchadnezzar II. The golden image. The insanity of Nebuchadnezzar II. Was Nebuchadnezzar a Babylonian? The power which destroyed the temple came from the north. The Chaldeans were north of Judaea. Genesis, Rosenrn’Mer, Ainsworth, Pareau, Gesenius, Freret, Chesney, Hecren. Isaiah, 23:13, noticed. Diecaearchus quoted by Louth, Cicero, Gesenius, Winer. Result. Objection: the Aramite language. Chaldeans were Persians. 1. Language: Rosenmller, Winer, Siggs, Schlצzer. Instances: Nebuchadnezzar, Sheshack, Rabmag (chief Magus). 2. Religion: Nergal, Bell, Shadrach, Abednego, Meshach, Sacaea. No allusion to the Babylonian idol Succoth-Benoth. The golden image. Jemsheed (page 115), Zoroaster (page 116), the chief Magus. Madness of Nebuchadnezzar, Pythagoras. 3. Manners and customs. 4. Cuneiform Inscriptions. Grotefend, Price. Signet-rings. 5. Historical Testimony. Josephus, Hecatteus of Abdera, Cedrenus, Maccabees, Justin, Abydenus, Polyhistor. The second Nebuchadnezzar and Cambyses identified. 1. Testimony. Alexandrian Chronicle, Oriental Chronicle, Eusebius, Africanus in Suidas, Syncellus, Bede, Hermannus. The Book of Judith. Holofernes a Persian. Apostolical Constitutions. Confirmed by Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar I. being identified. Berossus (page 129), Diodorus Siculus, Amynthas in Athenteus, Tobit. Polyhistor and Abydenus with Herodotus and Strabo, Persian writers. 2. Geographical position. Herodotus (page 131), Laurent, Rennell, Strabo (page 132), Heeren, Volney, Husk, Universal History, March of Craesus. 3. Similarity of events. Conquest of Egypt. By Nebuchadnezzar: Berossus, Persian Writers, Phoenician History, Scripture. By Cambyses: Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Egyptian Dynasties. Jeremiah, 43:8-13, examined. That which was predicted of Nebuchadnezzar was accomplished by Cambyses. Babylon taken by the diversion of the river before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. Berossus. 4. Similarity of character. 5. Similar pedigree. Herodotus, Polyhistor, Ctesias, Xenophon. Recapitulation. Appendix to Chapter VII.

On Matthew, 1.

                Chapter VIII: The Native Persian Historians. Truth conveyed in an inflated style. Anachronisms. The story of Gushtasp and Zereer, as related by Merkhond and Charis of Mitelene, compared. Zohak recorded by Moses of Cherone. Dynasties, represented as successive, were contemporaneous. Kaianians. Geographical position, same as that of Cyrus of Herodotus and Chaldeans of Scripture. The kings of this dynasty identified. Khasrau with Cyrus. Sir J. Malcolm, Sir Wm. Jones. Lohorasp with Darius the Mede and Darius Hystaspes. Gushtasp with Ahasuerus and Xerxes. Behmen with Artaxerxes Longimanus. Kuresh with the Coresch of Scripture. This account not fiction, not derived from the Greeks, but ancient tradition. Persian historians not fairly treated. Appendix to Chapter VIII. On the feudal system of the East. Appendix II to Chapter VIII. Extent of the dominion of Coresch.

                Chapter IX: Examination of Herodotus. Are his Grecian and Asiatic chronologies consistent with each other? The Grecian chronology examined.

  1. It was early in the reign of Cyrus when he attacked Croesus. (1). From the history of Croesus. (2). The condition of the Persians. (3). The age of Thales.
  2. The tyranny of Pisistratus established for the third time when Croesus sent to Athens. (l). From the history of Pisistratus. Solinus the Grammarian and Diogenes Laertius quoted by Volney. (2). The family of the Alcmaeonidae. The length of each tyranny examined. Corsini, Barthe’lamy, Lurcher, Blair, Clavier, Du Fresnoy, Clinton. The thirty-six years computed from the first tyranny to the expulsion of Hippias. The Asiatic and Greek data compared. The history of Cimon and Miltiades. The sons of Pisistratus ruled four years after their father’s death. From the expulsion of Hippias to Marathon. Result. Cyrus came to the throne after Darius. Confirmed by Herodotus. Darics. Herodotus compared with Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor. The Persian historians. Berossus. Nitocris five generations after Semiramis, when the Median power was rising. Death of Cyrus. Herodotus, Ctesias, Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, Strabo, Tragus Pompeius, Jornandes, Pseudo-Megasthenes. Egyptian chronology of Herodotus. Marriage of Cambyses with Nitetis. Rhodope. Strabo, AElian. Idanthursus. Megasthenes, Strabo. Voyage of the Phoenicians. Strabo. Herodotus compared with Ctesias, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Wilkinson. Conclusion. Appendix I to Chapter IX. When Herodotus wrote. Appendix II to Chapter IX. On the authenticity of Herodotus. Appendix III to Chapter IX. The chronology of the Cyropaedia.

                Chapter X: The Canon of Ptolemy. Grounds of uncertainty. 1. Wrong filling up of the spaces between the recorded eclipses. 2. Error in supposing the date of a solitary year marked the continuity of the reign. 3. Wrong identification of the person in whose reign the eclipse is recorded. Internal features of the two copies of the Astronomical Canon. Compared with the Ecclesiastical Canon. Variations are designed and methodical. Design in the Ecclesiastical Computation. Mardoc-Empadus not Merodach-Baladin. Two copies of the Astronomical Canon compared. One designedly altered. Isarindinus, Asordanius of Polyhistor, and Esarhaddon of Scripture. The copy of Theon altered. The dates of Alexander Polyhistor lengthened twenty-one years by Eusebius. The eclipse thus transferred from one reign to the other. An error of two years in the copy of Syncellus. Wrong identification of Nabopolassar with Nebuchadnezzar. The three chronological records compared. Scripture, Dynasties of Egypt, Astronomical Canon. Tirhakah of Scripture, the Teracos of Manetho. Esarhaddon of Scripture, the Esaradinus of the Canon. Necho and Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Scripture. Necho also in Manetho, Nebuchadnezzar in the Canon. Scripture and the Canon compared. The twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt discussed. Wilkinson, Rosellini. The Dynasties of Egypt agree with Scripture, not with the Canon. Nabopolassar identified with Sardanapalus. Sardanapalus identified with Esarhaddon. Testimony. Mar-Iblas in Moses of Cherone, Constantine Manasses, Cedrenus, Eusebius (Mai). Confirmed from chronology. Recapitulation of this head. Wrong filling up of the intermediate reigns. No similarity with other historical documents. What authority attaches to the Era of Nabonassar? It is not Chaldaean. It is styled Egyptian by Censorinus and Ptolemy himself. The observations are reduced to the Era not recorded in connexion with it. Ptolemy first mentions the Era. Hipparchus records the observations in connexion with Greek dates. Ptolemy reduces the Chaldcean Era to the Era of Nabonassar. The Era of Alexander being used, argues It was more ancient than the Era of Nabonassar. The period employed by the Chaldaeans different. Hesychius, Suidas, Geminus, Pliny, Halley, Freret. Proved by the observations at Babylon since the death of Alexander. Era of Nabonassar not used by chronologists, astronomers, or historians. Ptolemy probably composed the skeleton. The views of Eusebius visible in the filling up. Ammonius of Alexandria. Appendix I to Chapter X. Hieroglyphics. Appendix II to Chapter X. Olympiads.

                Chapter XI: An attempt to elicit some light with regard to the times of the Captivity. Wrong points of contact, in different systems of chronology. Wrong identifications. Nature of the evidence. Evidence should be classified. Different theories of the Captivity. Philo (page 234), Megasthenes. These two documents compared. What family of evidence? Probably ancient Jewish documents, but not of much historical value. Oriental Chronicle (page 242) — Short Hebrew ChronicleAlexandrian Chronicle. Julius PolluxEusebius. Syncellus, Cedrenus, their confusion of names accounted for. Scaliger.

                Chapter XII: Conjectural History. Same individuals sometimes under different names. Kai Ka’oos same as Nebuchadnezzar. Ka’oos same as Cambyses, yet Khosrou same as Cyrus. Cambyses a corruption of Kumbakht. Cyrus the Great was the first of the name. Accounts of three different individuals under the name of Cyrus. Herodotus and Ctesias compared. Ctesias and Alexander Polyhistor compared. Cyrus and Cambyses sometimes confounded. Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus. Kai Kobad is Cyrus the Great. Herodotus and Polyhistor differ two generations. Grecian and Asiatic chronology of Herodotus reconciled. Zohak identified with Ahasuerus. The dream —Ferdousi, Chamich. Murdas (note, page 255), Azhdahak, and Astiag, compared (note, page 256). Belshazzar. Probably Siyawesh. Reigned during his father’s lifetime. Dates of events during the Captivity. The desolations terminated B.C. 423. Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, beginning of B.C. 511. Paulus Orosius, Clement of Alexandria. Relation of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to that of Darius. The Cambyses of the Canon was Nabonad. The seventy years of Babylon’s supremacy. Tyrian Annals Philostratus. Proclamation of Coresch, B.C. 444. Fulfilment of Ezekiel, 29:21. Fulfilment of Ezekiel, 29:11 Order of events during the Captivity. Years of the Kings of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar II reigned seven years and a half before his madness. Egypt did not revolt from Darius, but from Nebuchadnezzar. Sir Gardner Wilkinson. Judith. Apries began to reign about the eighth of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabopolassar the same as Esarhaddon. Sardanapalus. Darius and Astyages probably the same individual. Eclipse of Thales, June 19th, B.C. 549. Appendix to Chapter XII. On the date of the death of Darius Hystaspes. Table, shewing the seventy years of the Chaldean monarchy and seventy years’ desolations of Jerusalem.

                Chapter XIII: On the prophecies relative to the overthrow of Babylon. Dr. Keith. Principles of interpretation. Isaiah, 13-14:27. Isaiah, 21.  Isaiah, 44:24-45:13. Jeremiah 1 and 51. Daniel, 5:25-28.

                Chapter XIV: The date of Our Lord’s birth. Luke 2:1,2, and 3:1,2. Dates in Josephus inconsistent with each other. The dates in Josephus with relation to other eras. Olympiads, Consular years, Sabbatical years. The date of the building of the temple. Events crowded in the latter part of Herod’s reign. Note. —On the Roman chronology. Herod probably died A.D. 7. On the Taxing by Cyrenius. A census during the reign of Herod. Only one census by Cyrenius. The census by Cyrenius was in the reign of Herod. The reign of Archelaus. The end of Philip’s reign. Conclusion. Two sets of dates in Josephus, one agreeing, the other inconsistent with Luke. Appendix I to Chapter XIV. On the animus of Josephus with regard to Christianity. Appendix II to Chapter XIV. On Isaiah, chapter 7.  Appendix III to Chapter XIV. The government of Petronius in Egypt. Coray, Geographie de Strabon.

                Chapter XV: The History of the Evangelists. The Lord born, some time before the death of Herod. Length of the Baptist’s ministry. Length of the Lord’s ministry. Indications of time positive and inferential. Positive indications of three years. Whether should St. Matthew’s or St. Luke’s Gospel be the basis of a harmony? Neither Gospel can be undeviatingly followed. Instances of transposition in St. Luke’s Gospel. Instances of transposition in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Other instances of transposition in St. Mark and St. Luke. Result. Luke, 6:1 , interpreted. The Passover, Matt. 14, &c. a convenient division of the Gospel History. The Transfiguration. Arrangement.Chronology of the Gospels. The chronology of the Acts of the Apostles. St. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, the third year after his conversion. St. Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem, the fourteenth year after his conversion. Our Lord crucified, A.D. 36. Appendix to Chapter XV. On the Roman History.

                Chapter XVI: Daniel’s second vision, chapter 8. Reference to former vision. Connexion between the eighth and ninth chapters. Passages in Daniel elucidating each other. The Roman power. The time. Two epochs. Decree respecting the seventy (70, LXX) weeks not human but divine.The decree dates from the time of Daniel’s prayer. “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are cut off “. Hengstenberg, Mede. From the 2300. “To restrain transgression”. “To seal sin”. Fulfilled after the retreat of Cestius Gallus. “To cover transgression.” “To seal the vision” “To anoint a Holy of Holies”. The seven and sixty-two weeks. The command, ver. 25, different from that of ver. 24. The command, ver. 25, that of Coresch. The connexion of ver. 25 with the preceding verse. The sixty-two weeks terminate upon the excision of Messiah. The seven weeks. The one week. The seven, sixty-two, and one, are not subdivisions of the seventy (70,LXX). The half week. The covenant confirmed. General summary.

                Chapter XVII: An abstract of some different interpretations of the seventy (70, LXX) weeks of Daniel. Some terminate the seventy weeks about the time of the crucifixion. Some terminate the seventy weeks about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (424), Sulpitius Severus, Scaliger, Mede, Parry, Hales. Chauney, Johnson, Hare (426), Archbishop Magee. Archbishop Usher, Petavius, Bishop Lloyd, Marshall, Hengstenberg (430), Faber, Greswell. Broughton, Sir John Marsham, Livelie. Agreement with previous authors. Appendix to Chapter XVII. On the expressions relative to time in Daniel, chapters 10;  11; and 12.

                General Index.   Scriptural Index. }}

                {{ Preface:   An assertion constantly repeated without contradiction, though it may be unsupported by evidence, yet does, nevertheless, take firm hold of the mind; like the ceaseless action of water, it imperceptibly wears away all opposition; and men mistake familiarity with a name for intimacy with facts, properties, or ideas, as the case may be. In like manner, a supposition which has long been received, for that very reason alone, will be deeply rooted in our belief; and an attempt to establish a contrary position will scarcely meet with many unprejudiced hearers. “It is a piece of rare good fortune,” says Ernesti, “to meet with one who is willing to give up his preconceived notions, and who has the will, or even the courage, to admit the opinions of others; I, therefore,” continues he, “do not hope for such a result in many cases, and should wonder extremely were it to happen to me any more than it has to others.” (*Ernesti, Bib. crit.*) I, unfortunately, can appropriate this language in its full force, for my doubts begin at that point of ancient history which all others have assumed as established.

                But that the common method of reconciling Scriptural and profane history should be supposed satisfactory, can be attributed, I think, only to its having been so long suffered, in a kind of misty indistinctness, to settle upon and corrode the mind. I am convinced that, were it first to be presented to the intellect when the reflective powers are in exercise, rather than drilled into the apprehension at the age when facts and fables are received indiscriminately, it would be as universally disputed as it is now undoubtedly received.

                Suppose, by way of illustration, that the historical writers of France and England, in professing to give certain parts of English history, mentioned a portion commencing and concluding with two kings of the name of William, an Anne and three Georges intervening, that in one of these histories the reign of one other king is implied, but his name not mentioned, whereas, in the other history, we find the name of a fourth George; that the names in both histories occur in the same order, the first mentioned William in each history coming to the throne by the prince of the former dynasty being deposed, the national faith being greatly modified, and laws for the preservation of the principles instrumental in bringing the aforesaid William to the throne being enacted by him; and that the second of these Williams did, moreover, according to both histories, break down these exclusive laws. That, notwithstanding this similarity, some discrepancy in the account of one Prince Leopold existed, the English historians declaring him to be heir to the throne of Britain, while the French maintained that he was king of some small country dependent upon France; surely this dissimilarity would not be sufficient to set aside the general identity.

                However, suppose one to broach the opinion that these histories did not refer to the same period, and that, in maintaining his hypothesis, he was necessitated to use such language as the following : —” It is true that in each history the first William comes to the throne as the first of his dynasty, but the proper name of the William in one history is James, and he did not depose the former prince, but came in peaceably as the next heir, and thus he established the laws of Scotland in England, and so the two kingdoms of England and Scotland were united; it must be admitted that, according to this arrangement, ‘the confusion of names is embarrassing;’ but then, we must observe, that William, in the English language, appears similar to the Pharaohs of Egypt or the Caesars of Rome, for we find that the founder of the English monarchy was William the Conqueror, and after him was a William Rufus, like Pharaoh Hophra or Pharaoh Necho. So with respect to the Georges. This was a name given probably in relation to the patron saint of the country, and these kings took the title in consequence of the series of victories gained, as they supposed, under his auspices during those reigns. This happy conjecture has been confirmed by a gold coin of that period having been discovered, on one side of which is the head of a George, and, on the reverse, the representation of the patron saint overcoming a huge dragon.

                “To revert, however, to the names. The two successors of James had the name of Charles; and this, by the way, shews the error of the ancient historians in saying the sovereigns were first coined during the reign of one of the later Georges. The very name denotes that they might have been coined by any king; and, as these Charleses were also called Georges, it is most probable that the sovereigns were first coined to commemorate the restoration of sovereign power in the second Charles. The usurper James is not mentioned; the second William in one list corresponds with the first-mentioned William in the other; the account of Anne is in the wrong place in the history, notwithstanding some plausible arguments from the texture of the history advanced in its favour; lastly, the third-mentioned George is the one whom we call George the First.”

                Now, absurd as this appears, it has its counterpart in the present adaptation of the Scripture account of the kings of Persia to the received view of that history. In the Scripture we find the names of seven Persian kings, six of which are the same, and occur in the same order, as is found in the received view of Persian history. Yet this is not taken as the point of contact between the two histories.  (*Richardson’s Dissertation, note, pp.60, 96-98.) But Darius, we are told, is a Persian word from Dara, denoting a prince; thus, Darius, like Pharaoh, is a general name for the kings of Persia. So Darius the Median is Astyages or Cyaxares the Second; he came to the throne as next heir to Belshazzar, who was slain by some conspirators at a feast; thus the laws of the Medes and Persians were established at Babylon. (*Jahn, Arch. Bib. ch. ii.  *Hales. )This Cyaxares was the first person who established a system of taxation; Strabo, therefore, is in error when, on the authority of Polycritus, he makes; Darius Hystaspes the author of this mode of raising revenue. (*Jahn, Arch. Bib. ch. ii. § 233.)  Herodotus also erroneously attributes the first coinage of darics to Darius Hystaspes. It was a more ancient king of that name. (*Sir J. Newton.)

                It must be admitted that, according to this arrangement, “the confusion of names is embarrassing, the royal title Ahasuerus is applied to Xerxes, Ezra 4:6; to Artaxerxes Longimanus, Esther 1:1; and to Astyages the father of Cyaxares, or Darius the Mede, Daniel, 9:1.” (Hales. vol. ii. p. 449.) The Magian usurper is not mentioned. The first mentioned Artaxerxes denotes Cambyses, for the word simply means a great warrior, and so is applicable to any of these kings. The second-mentioned Artaxerxes is Artaxerxes the First. The second-mentioned Darius is Darius the First; and, though Artaxerxes be mentioned before him, Ezra 4:7, 24, we must remove that difficulty by supposing rather a harsh parenthesis. (*Howes, Hales.) We must not conceive that “the angel spake precisely” in the ninth of Daniel; and, as to the mention of the seventy years in Zechariah, we can only suppose it “an unfortunate coincidence.” (*Pemble. *Layman.*) It is a mistake, moreover, to think that Mordecai went into captivity; for, though the language of Esther does seem to imply that he did, and although all ancient Jewish historians say that Kish was the father of Saul, yet we must admit, that Kish was the captive, because from the extent of dominion attributed to Ahasuerus, it is impossible that the history of Esther could have been so early as the Captivity.

                These few instances will shew that my parallel is not exaggerated. There are two Williams, whose names, as well as the relative bearing of their reigns, are changed; so in like manner two kings of the name of Artaxerxes are treated. To the three of the name of George, the three of the name of Darius correspond; and, if I have said that these were royal titles rather than individual designations, the same is said of Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. If I have said, the history of Anne was in the wrong place, the same is affirmed of Artaxerxes. If, to establish my parallel, it would be necessary to do violence to the histories most nearly contemporary, such is the case with regard to Scripture, Strabo, and Herodotus.

                Then, why are we not shocked with this violent wresting of the sacred text? Is it not because we are familiarized with the reiterated statement, or that, despairing of anything more rational, we sink into indifference?          Nor are profane historians treated with more justice than the Scripture.

                The Coresch of Scripture is assumed to be Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy; in adapting the Scripture in accordance with this view, we have our choice between the histories of Herodotus and Xenophon.

                The history of Cyrus, as recorded in the Cyropaedia is essentially different from the account given by Herodotus; it is not the discrepancy which might arise from one historian mentioning a fact which the other omits to record; but the whole machinery of the story in Herodotus turns upon the fact of Astyages having no son; and the machinery of the Cyropaedia as essentially depends upon the existence of Cyaxares, son of Astyages, and uncle to Cyrus.

                We are then called upon to make our choice between these two authorities; one contradicts the other; so, in admitting the one, we reject the other.

                Now, though it be admitted that the Cyropaedia has more the air of fable than even the history of Herodotus, and though, by both ancients and moderns, its historical authority has been rejected, yet it being supposed more practicable to reconcile the sacred record with Xenophon than with Herodotus, the testimony of the former is received, and Cyaxares the Second, who apparently is introduced as a foil to the hero of the tale, is made a real personage, and identified with Darius the Mede.

                But Xenophon being preferred, we must abide by his authority. What then is the agreement? Scripture says Darius the Mede took Babylon; and whilst there, he personally settled the internal arrangements of the kingdom. Xenophon says that Cyaxares did not take Babylon, nor was he there, but in Media, after the conquest. Xenophon says that Cyrus took Babylon; Scripture does not say that Cyrus took Babylon, and it is impossible to account for, not the silence of Daniel, but his testimony by implication to the contrary effect, had the capture by Darius been the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah.

                So far there is no agreement in history, nor is the chronology which is adopted more in accordance. Following the Astronomical Canon, or the assertion of Eusebius, Cyrus is made to reign seven years in Babylon; but, according to Xenophon, Cyrus took Babylon before he began to reign either in Media or Persia. Therefore, if we follow Xenophon, we must adopt the Ecclesiastical Canon, which seems to have been constructed with a view to this history, and which, therefore, gives thirty-one years to Cyrus over Babylon. But then we shall be told that, according to Herodotus, Babylon was taken much later in the career of Cyrus. What then becomes of the testimony of Xenophon? Cyaxares the Second is no longer a real, but an ideal personage, introduced as necessary to elicit certain virtues in the character of Cyrus; and this, I suppose, is the judgment of most unprejudiced persons in reading the Cyropaedia.

                But giving the Scripture all the support which it can receive from identifying Darius the Mede with the Apocryphal Cyaxares, and yet receiving the authority of Herodotus, we learn that the first time Babylon was taken was by Cyrus. But Babylon was taken by Nabopolassar, and in the very way that Cyrus is said to have captured it; for Nebuchadnezzar so fortified that city, that it should not again be taken by the turning of the river as then clearly Nabopolassar did not take Babylon after Cyrus had taken it; if the first capture was by Cyrus, it must have been identical with the capture by Nabopolassar. (*Berossus, in Cory, p.39.) Herodotus says the second capture of Babylon was by Darius. According to the received view of Scripture, the first capture of Babylon was by Darius.

                So far then I think I may say the evidence is not legitimate. Xenophon is first used on account of his creating a person to be identified with Darius the Mede, and then Xenophon is contradicted by what Scripture says of Darius the Mede; Herodotus is rejected in the early history of Cyrus; but, as Babylon was taken by Darius, when he was sixty-two years of age, Xenophon must be rejected who makes the taking of Babylon by Cyrus before he reigned over either Media or Persia; and Herodotus must be used to countenance the taking of Babylon by Cyrus in the latter part of his reign, although in conjunction with a king whose existence Herodotus denies. If we turn to Berossus and Megasthenes, their testimony is not more in accordance. When Darius the Mede took the kingdom, Belshazzar was slain (Dan. 5:30,31). When Cyrus took Babylon, Nabonnedus the king was not killed, but made Satrap of Carmania (Berossus in Cory, p. 42 ; Megasthenes in Cory, p. 45).

                Such is the evidence for the received points of contact between sacred and profane history. I will proceed to examine how it harmonizes events before and after the termination of the Captivity.

                The first year of Cyrus over Babylon is supposed to have been about B.C. 536. The prayer of Daniel, ch. 9 was about two years before, and then the seventy years’ desolations were drawing to a close. The desolations commenced when the temple was burned, and the captivity of Jeconiah commenced eleven years before, or circ. B.C. 616, at which time Mordecai went into captivity. It is generally admitted that the history of Esther belongs to the reign either of Xerxes or Artaxerxes. Philo and Josephus say that Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes; he could have been no king prior to Xerxes because it was not till the close of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, that the Persian empire extended to India. We will then take the reign of Xerxes as the most favourable supposition, and his seventh year was B.C. 479. So Mordecai was 137 when his young and beautiful cousin was taken to Ahasuerus. Some years after he was sufficiently active to take upon himself the administration of the affairs of that mighty empire.

                Herodotus tells us, that before the overthrow of Amosis by Cambyses, Egypt had enjoyed the greatest prosperity for forty years; but this was the very time that Scripture tells us Nebuchadnezzar was to make Egypt utterly desolate. Therefore, according to history, Egypt was in the greatest prosperity, when, according to prophecy, it should have been in the greatest adversity.

                Such is the agreement before the termination of the Captivity; the chronological marks which we gain either from prophecy or history, relative to the times since the Captivity, are not more harmonious.

                Gabriel tells Daniel, that at the time of his supplication the command went forth, which he came to shew. This command was with regard to the cutting off of Messiah, and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. But the time of Daniel’s prayer was, according to the received scheme, B.C. 538, about 535 years before the supposed date of Messiah’s birth, about 570 before his death, and upwards of six centuries before the destruction of Jerusalem, yet the chronological prophecy of the seventy (70, LXX) weeks admits of only 494 years to the latest of these events.

                The other chronological marks of this period shew the same discrepancy. The fourteen generations from the Captivity to Messiah average forty years to a generation instead of 33 1/3, which is the regular number proved by experience from the times of Herodotus; which is, moreover, the proportion from David to the Captivity, counting, according to the Evangelist, fourteen generations, and which is the average the dates, according to my view, give between the Captivity and Messiah.

                The Temple was burned circ. B.C. 606. Haggai, in the second year of Darius Hystaspes, calls upon those who remembered that temple to compare with it the temple which they were then erecting. If those who remembered the former temple were at that time about twelve years old, and they could not have been much less, they were ninety-eight when Haggai appealed to them, This it may be said is within the verge of possibility. I will give another instance which certainly is not.

                Half of those who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, entered into covenant in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, B.C. 445, ninety-one (91) years after they had come from Babylon. The chronological difficulties of the received view must be confessed to be considerable.

                The strange perversion of names is also a difficulty.

                Darius the Mede is said to be the same individual as Darius, son of Ahasuerus. This is necessary in order to fix the capture of Babylon at the close of the seventy (70) years, and thus to connect with it the decree of Coresch for the return of the Jews. This Darius, son of Ahasuerus, is thus identified with Cyaxares, son of Astyages; but what a confusion of names have we here! Darius is Cyaxares, and Ahasuerus is Astyages. But it is not simply a confusion, it is a violent perversion. Darius is a name known to both the Greek and Hebrew writers; that is to say, Darius is admitted to be the Greek expression of Dariavesh, and Axares is the Greek expression of Ahasuerus, or Ahashverosh, with the Persian Kai prefixed; so that to the son we give the distinguishing name of his father, and on the father we as arbitrarily confer the name of his father. And what is the authority for this? The doubtful identification of Darius the Mede with the apocryphal Cyaxares.

                The other changes are no less arbitrary. Ahasuerus, which has its known counterpart in Greek, is turned into Cambyses, and Artaxerxes, equally a known name, is identified with Smerdis who reigned only seven months; yet messengers are sent to his court from Samaria, and his decree for stopping the building of the Temple is sent back and enforced. But to know in Judea that Smerdis was king, and to send an embassv to him would take more than seven months; so that, not only is there an arbitrary change of the name, but the circumstances are

improbable.

                By this means the second Darius in Scripture is made Darius the First, the second Artaxerxes becomes Artaxerxes the First, and the third Darius is identified with Darius the Second, though Jaddua, who was high-priest in his reign, met Alexander at Jerusalem. Nothus having died in B.C. 404, and Codomanus, having been overthrown in B.C. 331, Jaddua must have been high-priest between seventy-five (75) and eighty (80) years.

                These difficulties appear to me formidable; for, according to the received view, Scripture is made to contradict Herodotus, Xenophon, Berossus, Megasthenes, and even the Scripture itself.

                Chapter XVI: Daniel’s Second Vision, Chapter 8. Reference to former vision. (*Being anxious that my view of the seventy (70, LXX) weeks should be examined independently of other controverted points, I have abstained from reprinting my views on Dan. ii. and vii.) Connexion between the eighth and ninth chapters. Passages in Daniel elucidating each other. The Roman power. The time. Two epochs. Decree respecting the seventy (70, LXX) weeks not human but divine. The decree dates from the time of Daniel’s prayer. “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are cut off “. Hengstenberg, Mede. From the 2300. “To restrain transgression”. “To seal sin”. Fulfilled after the retreat of Cestius Gallus. “To cover transgression.” “To seal the vision” “To anoint a Holy of Holies”. The seven and sixty-two weeks. The command, ver. 25, different from that of ver. 24. The command, ver. 25, that of Coresch. The connexion of ver. 25 with the preceding verse. The sixty-two weeks terminate upon the excision of Messiah. The seven weeks. The one week. The seven, sixty-two, and one, are not subdivisions of the seventy (70, LXX). The half week. The covenant confirmed. General summary.

                The Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks.

                …..A slight additional confirmation of the relation the ninth chapter bears to the eighth may be drawn from the order of the chapters. We have seen in the chronology, that the vision in chap. 10-12 was granted Daniel between the vision, chap. 8, and the narration in chap. 9; but chap. 9 being the explanation of chap. 8 naturally follows immediately after it.

                Another idea strikes me as relevant. While all Christians acknowledge that the prophecy of the seventy weeks has been fulfilled, few seem agreed as to ‘how it was fulfilled. This is as might have been expected. The prophecy not being isolated and independent, but part of a prediction in great measure still unaccomplished, it is intelligible that the manner in which part is fulfilled may be surrounded with difficulty until the time of the complete accomplishment of the whole draws near.

                As the vision, chap. 10-12, was vouchsafed between the vision of chap. 8 and the interpretation, chap. 9, and as, in each, the kingdoms which arise towards the four winds are mentioned, and as each prophecy extends to the time of the end, or the last end of the indignation, it would appear (if we are near the time of the end) that the prophecy of chap. 11 and 12 would also be of use in interpreting chap. 8, and it is still more likely that the information given in chap. 9, as it came after chap. 11, and 12, would be of use in eliciting the meaning of that prediction.

                Thus, then, the visions of Daniel, though granted at sundry times, and in divers manners, are connected; and we have to consider, in one view, the vision in the beginning of chap. 8; the conversation between the saints; the partial, and, therefore, insufficient explanation given in the latter part of chap. 8, together with the fuller interpretation given in chap. 9, withal, not neglecting the visions in chaps. 7 and 10-12. I will commence by throwing together the passages in 8 and 9. which appear to assist in interpreting each other…. (Displayed are the verses from the chapters 8-12 which is harmonized to complete the order of the visions & prophecies relevant to the 70 Years.)…

                If this be a correct arrangement of the prophecy with its interpretations, very little remains towards fixing some important points, namely, the power specified by the little horn, and the times intended for his oppression of the Jews, and his own ultimate overthrow.

                The vision embraces a period of time commencing from ‘after‘ the conquest of India by Darius, until ”the last end of the indignation;” (*Dan. 8:4.) for the ram was pushing  westward, northward, and southward, but not eastward. As, however, the dominion of Ahasuerus extended to India, (Esth. 1:1.) the Persian conquests must have been pushed to the east before that time. According to the chronology which I have advocated, Darius had already conquered India when Daniel had this vision.

                The prophet already knew the succession of the four monarchies; (*Dan. 2.) he also probably knew that three powers should coexist together with the fourth in the last days. (*Dan. 7.) I suppose the prophecy we are now examining gives more details regarding one of these kingdoms already predicted.

                It (*The Roman power.) would arise out of one of the subdivisions of the Alexandrian kingdom; it would be small at first, but would extend its conquests towards the south and towards the east; and, therefore, from the north and west, as relating to the Macedonian kingdom. It would also extend towards the pleasant land, and would be the instrument of God’s indignation in visiting the Jews for their overflowing iniquity, and would accomplish the scattering of Daniel’s people, and destroy the city and the sanctuary.

                This power would wax great or stand up in the latter times of the subdivisions of the Macedonian kingdom; it, therefore, follows in succession upon that kingdom.

                The point of time is further determined by “When the transgressors are come to the full.” Who “the transgressors” are, will appear from a comparison of the following expressions: “The transgression that maketh desolate to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot;” and this is explained by “The host was given over for the transgression against the daily sacrifice.”

                In the interpretation given to Daniel, the host are designated “thy people,” which are connected also with his holy city, “Thy people and thy holy city to finish the transgression.” The holy city is Jerusalem, and “the host,” “the host of heaven,” “the transgressors,” “the people of the holy ones,” Daniel’s “people,” are in plain language his “people Israel,” as he himself styles them. (*Matt. 27:53. *Dan. 9:20)

                We are, moreover, told that the transgressors would come to the full at the conclusion of the seventy weeks (70, LXX). “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are cut off upon thy people …. to finish the transgression,” or, which leads to the same result, “to restrain apostasy,” or, as I conceive our Lord expresses it, “to fill up the measure of their fathers,” for the rejection of him was the transgression against the daily sacrifice which made the sanctuary desolate. (*Matt. 23:32.) “Behold,” he says, “your house is left unto you desolate; for I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth,” &c. (*Matt, 23:38.) The effect of this was the giving up the sanctuary and host to be trodden under foot; the proximate sign of which our Lord gives to his Disciples, saying, “When ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” (*Luke  21:20.)

                The prophetical anticipation of the Jews was, “The Romans will come and take away our place and nation.” This had been strongly intimated by this prophecy of Daniel; for the geographical position of this power, the time of its rise, its instrumentality in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Jews, mark the kingdom of the Caesars: and if there is any doubt as to whether the nation was a colony of the Greeks this evidence would be sufficient to preponderate.

                The language of Gabriel, in describing “the king of fierce countenance,” corresponds very remarkably with the prediction of Moses, which is, I believe, universally applied to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. (*Dan. 8:23. Deut. 28:50, &c.)

                The little horn is, therefore, the Roman power, which, in the first instance, cut off Messiah the Prince, then destroyed the temple and Jerusalem, and dispersed the Jews; it subsequently cast down the truth by craft, —that is, I conceive, by the reception and corruption of Christianity. This power will continue until after the restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation; and the determination of the time when this important event shall transpire is, I believe, the principal object of the vision. Into this inquiry I propose now to enter.

                “A certain saint” asked “the wonderful numberer”  “How long [shall be (*The Time.)] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice] and the transgression making desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” The question divides itself into two material parts. The first part is “concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression making desolate,” which I understand to be in substance the same as the preceding verse, and which, in fact, gave rise to the question, the marginal reading of which is “The transgression against the daily [sacrifice].

                The second part is the effect of that transgression, namely, “the sanctuary and the host” being given “to be trodden under foot.” The answer given at that time embraces the whole of the question, and, therefore, extends to the end of the times of the Gentiles, during which Jerusalem is to be trodden under foot; for, at the conclusion of the 2300, “the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” But the time occupied by the subdivision of the question is not at that time given, namely, “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression making desolate?” Moreover, the point from which the whole period of time is current is not given; therefore, the time of the expiration of the 2300 was also at that time hidden. It is this information, upon these two points, relating to time, which, I apprehend, in accordance with the Divine command of chap. 8 Gabriel imparts in Dan. 9:21, &c. ‘Into the examination of it I will now enter more minutely‘.

                I endeavoured to shew in the chronology that there were two periods of seventy (70) years, —one, the service of Babylon, the other the desolation of Jerusalem; and that the desolations terminated with the first year of Darius Nothus. (*Two epochs, one for the seventy (70), another for the seven & sixty-two (69) weeks.)

                I hope to establish presently that the termination of each of these periods is a fresh epoch; and for this reason I premise that, in considering the command respecting the seventy (70, LXX) weeks, in ver. 24, I do not wish to mix it up with the information respecting the seven and sixty-two (69) weeks given in ver. 25.

                   I hope I have proved that Gabriel, in chap. 9 gave the man greatly beloved such information as would enable him to understand the vision of chap. 8. That information I conceive to be contained principally in the twenty- third and twenty-fourth verses.

                “At the beginning of thy supplications,” says the angel, “the commandment came forth, and I came to shew [thee], for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the commandment, and consider the vision.” I do not know why, in the authorized version, the same word, when repeated in the same verse, should not be rendered similarly, particularly when the connexion seems so manifestly to require it. “The command came forth, which I am come to shew, therefore understand the command.” Daniel is to understand that which Gabriel came to shew, namely, “the command.”

                This command was not any human decree, (*Decree not human, but Divine.) for the angel would not have been sent from heaven with weariness of wing to inform Daniel of an enactment of earthly origin; his proper office would be rather to acquaint the one beloved of God with the Divine mind and purpose. The particulars, moreover, given by the heavenly messenger could flow from the decree of God alone, and not from any edict of man. “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish transgression,” &c.

                But if any one suppose that the decree was to rebuild the temple, let him remember that that work was recommenced, not in consequence of any human edict, but of the command of God, given through his prophets Haggai and Zechariah; and the edict of Darius was subsequent, and only giving permission to continue the work already commenced. (*Ezra  5:1,2.) Hence, though in Ezra  6:14, the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, are all mentioned, yet are they distinct from “the commandment of the God of Israel,”  (*Ezra  5:1; 6:14.) which was made known to Zerubbabel and Joshua through the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah. “Thus speaketh Jehovah of Hosts, saying, This people say the time is not come, the time that Jehovah’s house should be built …. is it time for you to dwell in your ceiled houses, and this house [lie] waste? (*Hag. 1:1-3. *Hag. 1:12-14). …. then Zerubbabel …. obeyed the voice of the Lord and they came and did work in the house of the Lord of Hosts their God.”   Now, “the time to favour Zion, yea, the set time was come,” the period of the seventy (70) years desolations was then expired. (*Ps. 102:13.)

                According to either view, therefore, the command to which Gabriel refers in ver. 23 was issued from heaven.

                Were it not for the great difference of opinion as to from the time of when the edict was issued, I should think it self-evident. (*The decree dates from the time of Daniel’s prayer.) Daniel set himself to pray in the first year of Darius. And, “At the beginning of thy supplication,” says Gabriel, “the commandment came forth.” The command came forth, therefore, in the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus.

                But it may be asked, When did the edict commence to take effect? I answer without hesitation, when it was issued. It is not said that the decree was then made, but that the command then came forth; it was not the first promulgation of the prophecy concerning “the transgression,” for of that Daniel had heard in the eighth chapter; but it was a decree limiting the time which that state of things should continue. Daniel, therefore, could not understand this limitation of time to date from any other period but that of the going forth of the commandment.

                If the time was not current from the beginning of Daniel’s supplication, as the speech of the angel would imply, Daniel would have been as ignorant, respecting the time, after, as he was before, Gabriel had acquainted him with the command.

                If the time was not current from the going forth of the command, the angel did not inform Daniel from what time it was current; and, if Daniel was ignorant of the ‘terminus `a quo‘ of this chronological prophecy, he was not only left in the dark respecting the principal point, but now, after its fulfilment, we must be equally uncertain as to whether it was chronologically correct.

                What Dr. Hengstenberg says may be urged with much force. With God word and execution are one: he speaks, and it is done; he commands, and it stands fast. (*Ps. 33:9.) This coincidence of word and deed is impressed even upon the very language; the verb to rebuke with God signifies real chastisement; and may we not say, that with God, to hear and to deliver are identical; and so to command signifies in itself the execution of the Divine commands.

                The ‘terminus `a quo’ of the seventy (70) weeks dates, therefore, from some part of the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, who, as I have shewn, was Darius Nothus. I will proceed to examine the subject-matter of the command, as recorded in verse 24.

                If one builds an interpretation upon a rendering: differing in any degree from the authorized translation, it is advantageous to be able to follow learned men who have preferred the same translation, and who have not built a similar theory upon it. (*”Seventy weeks are cut off.”) This removes all suspicion that the meaning was adopted for the sake of the interpretation. Dr. ‘Hengstenberg‘ renders the first clause of  this verse, “Seventy weeks are [is] cut off over thy people and over thy holy city;” and, he adds, “most commentators observe that ‘cut off’ is used figuratively for determined; but the very use of the word, which does not elsewhere occur, while others, much more frequently used, were at hand, had Daniel [quaere, the angel?] wished to express the idea of determination, seems to argue that the word stands here from regard to its original meaning, and represents the seventy (70) weeks as a period cut off from subsequent duration and accurately limited.” Mede had before spoken to the same effect. “The word here translated determined or allotted, signifies properly to be ‘cut’ or ‘cut out;’ and so may seem to imply such a sense as if the angel had said to Daniel, ‘Howsoever your bondage and captivity under the Gentiles shall not altogether cease until that succession of kingdoms, which I before shewed thee, be quite finished; yet shall God, for the accomplishing his promise concerning the Messiah, as it were, cut out of that long term a certain limited time, during which the Captivity of Judah and Jerusalem being interrupted, the holy city and commonwealth, in some measure, shall again be restored, and so continue till seventy weeks of years be finished’.”

                Had these two eminent men seen and argued for the connexion between the eighth and ninth chapters, their language could not have been more to my purpose, and I need add but little. (*Mede’s Works, fol. p. 697.*)

  1. It is by understanding the command, chap. 9, and considering the vision, chap. 8, that the vision is to be comprehended; but the principal feature in the command, chap. 9, is not what should be done, for that had already in great measure been announced; the decree was respecting ‘when‘ it should be done.
  1. If the seventy (70) weeks are to be cut off, it must be from something like in kind; therefore, it must be from some time, and the ‘2300‘ being the only time mentioned in the vision, and the time given in chap. 9 being in order that Daniel should understand the vision, chap, 8, the seventy (70) weeks must be cut off from the longer portion of 2300 previously mentioned in the vision .

                Before passing to the next words, I will add two more valuable observations from Hengstenberg, “The indefinite determination of time, as concealed in the word ‘weeks,’ was intentionally chosen not to destroy the boundaries between prophecy and history. Still, though the time was concealed, it was not ambiguous.”

                The second observation is, “that the anomaly of number (seventy (70) weeks ‘is‘ cut) marks that the time here comes under consideration, not as particulars, but as a whole, i.e. ‘a period of seventy (70) weeks is cut off.’ “

                I am able still 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; and sin, according to its worst character, is here designated, as apostasy from God and rebellion against him.” “The margin of our Bible,” says Chauncy, “has ‘to restrain,’ to which sense I adhere …. that which seems to be understood here by restraining transgression, is withholding them from final apostasy till the end of the seventy (70) weeks, so that, how wicked soever the people of the Jews proved themselves from time to time, yet God kept them from universal apostasy.”

                “‘To seal sin‘,” (*”The K’ri has ‘to bring sins to the full,’ which Ewald prefers.” —Brown, note, p. 379.)  holds forth God’s judicial hardening” of persons in sin, giving them up to hard and impenitent hearts; hence Job, in his distempered and afflicted condition, has a saying like this, “My transgression is sealed up as in a bag.” (*Job 14:17.) Job supposes that God had taken a note of all his sins, and laid them up till a fit time to call him to account about them, and to punish him for them. (*Caryl.) So Moses, speaking of a people persevering in contumacy and wickedness, says, “Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up by me among my treasures?” (*Deut. 32:34. Chauncy.) These two clauses then mark the moment of transition. Dating from some part of the first year of Darius Nothus, the Jews were, for seventy weeks, restrained from complete apostasy ; but, at the expiration of the seventy (70) weeks, they were given up to judicial blindness; or, according to the language of the prophecy which the information of chap. 9 is to complete, then the sanctuary and the host should be given to be trodden under foot.

                According to this, we must look for some event or some act to mark when the transgression was no longer restrained, and the desolation consequent upon the judicial blindness of the Jews was at hand. This, I think, we derive from the prophecy of the Lord, (*Luke 21:20.21.) “When ye shall see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that the ‘desolation‘ thereof is nigh ; then ‘let‘ them which be in Judaea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst of it depart out, and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto, for these be the days of vengeance,” &c.

                The Jews were not wholly cast off for some time after the crucifixion of the Lord, as we may learn from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians; where, in drawing out the allegorical history of Sarah and Hagar, he shews that the promised seed was at that time born, but that the son of the bond woman was still in the house, and persecuting the children of promise; that shortly, however, Ishmael (*Gal. 4:30.) would be cast out.

                This epistle was written, according to the common chronology, about A.D. 58; the casting out of the Jews was, therefore, after that date.

                In writing to the Thessalonians, the apostle implies, that killing the Lord was not the last act in filling up the sins of the nation, but the subsequent rejection of the (*1st Thes. 2:15,16.) apostles of the risen Lord.

                Nor could the city be given up until the elect were removed from it; till the salt of the land was removed, the mass was preserved from utter corruption: therefore, when the Christians fled to the mountains, the nation was given up to apostasy.

                I will now repeat the question, chap. 8, together with the answers:

                “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression making desolate to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?” (*Dan. 8:13.)

                The answer to the first part of the question is, “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are cut out upon thy people, and thy holy city, to restrain the transgression, and to seal sin;” but, respecting the whole period of the vision of the evening-morning, it shall last unto 2300, then shall “the sanctuary be cleansed.” (*Fulfilled A.D. 67.)

                The portion of this prophecy, which is fulfilled, agrees  with the received chronology. After the retreat of Cestius, which, according to Mr. Greswell, was October 1, A.D. 66, the Christians, heeding the sign of the Lord, fled as doves to the mountains: this, then, must have been before the Passover in the year A.D. 67.

                The first year of Darius commenced, according to Theon’s copy of Ptolemy’s Canon, An. Nabonassar 325; which, according to ‘l’Art de Verifier les Dates‘, was B.C. 424; which, added to the year when apostasy was 424 no longer restrained, A.D. 66, makes seventy (70) weeks, or —490 (*424 + 66 = 490) years. (*There is some little difference in these dates. Hales makes the retreat of Cestius, November, A.D. 65, and the destruction of Jerusalem is placed by Jahn, A.D. 69.)

                The two clauses which we have considered seem necessarily to mark the termination of the seventy weeks; and, if the fulfilment of the other clauses was within the prophetic period, perhaps this is all which we should require. We are not to expect that the fulfilment of every clause would mark the termination of the seventy (70) weeks.

                “‘To cover transgression‘, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” are expressions which, doubtless, relate to the atonement of Messiah. In allusion to the former of these two expressions, or words of similar import in the Levitical law, the Lord is called our propitiation, and he is said to be set forth as a propitiatory. (*1st John 2:2; 4:10. Rom. 3:25.)

                The bringing in of everlasting righteousness is also apparently a Levitical term, alluding to the blood of the victim being brought by the priest into the most holy place. These terms contrast the eternal and efficacious blessing of the sacrifice of Messiah with the shadowy and transient benefit of the ceremonial righteousness.

                I would, nevertheless, suggest that perhaps the idea presented is not of the righteousness wrought out, but wrought out and applied to one portion of Daniel’s people, for the work of Messiah is not mentioned until the following verse; and all that is said in verse 24, terminates upon Daniel’s people, “Seventy (70) weeks are cut out upon ‘thy people‘.”

                This pair of clauses is in antithesis to the former pair; these are the blessings which the elect were obtaining whilst the rest were hardening. All Daniel’s people did not apostatize; the Lord was a precious stone to some, and a stone of stumbling to others; and, as the apostatizing of the one portion was not complete and final till the Christians separated, so we may infer that the work of redemption was not applied to all whom God foreknew until the time of rejecting the rest; for the work of grace was going on until the act of judicial hardening took effect.

                If this idea be admissible, these clauses mark the termination of the seventy (70) weeks as well as the former.

                By the expression, “‘to seal the vision‘,” I do not understand that the vision was to be sealed up, in the sense of closing as the expression is used in chap. 12, for then the vision would have been open and understood previously, and would be sealed when it had been interpreted.

                Moreover, in whatever sense the vision is sealed, in the same sense the prophet is sealed; but I cannot conceive how the prophet could be sealed up, —a difficulty which our translators seem to have felt; and, therefore, instead of “prophet,” as it is in the margin, they have put “prophecy” in the text; but, even suppose it was “prophecy” that was sealed up, how could we understand it? not that prophecy was then to cease amongst the Jews, for that had long been the case. (*Unless we refer the expression to the Apocalypse.) If, then, sealing in the sense of closing is insisted on, it must be that Daniel’s people would thenceforth have their eyes blinded as well as their hearts hardened.

                But I prefer to understand sealing in the sense of putting the stamp of authenticity upon the vision. We saw that the question in chap. 8 divided itself into two material parts. Now, according to the law and test given in Deut. 18:21,22, the fulfilment of a part of a prediction was the assurance of the truth of the whole. According to this view, the fulfilment of the part of this vision at the end of the seventy (70) weeks established the certainty of the whole: the judgment thus becomes a sign that mercy is still in store.

                Perhaps the sealing of the prophet also refers to chap. 8:13, the wonderful numberer whose interpretation would be established by the fulfilling of the first part.

                But there is another idea which I would propose. Our Lord, in his great prophecy, takes up this question of the certain saint, and as it were unfolds it and fits it into his prophecy. (*Matt. 24. Luke 21.) Now, as the former clauses relate to the work of Messiah in his priestly office, perhaps this refers to his prophetical office. As a minister of the circumcision, he was sealed by the miraculous powers imparted to him by God the Father; but as prophet he would be sealed when his predictions were accomplished. This, then, may look forward to the sign given by the Lord, “When ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies,” &c.

                “’And to anoint a holy of holies‘.” (*Exod. 30:26; 40:9; Lev. 8:10.) This corresponds  with what Moses did in type after the erection of the tabernacle, and so agrees with Dr. Hengstenberg’s opinion, for he considers it to be the imparting of the Spirit to the new temple of the Lord, the Church of the New Covenant. He also remarks that the anointing of “a holy of holies” stands in antithesis to the desolation of the sanctuary, ver. 26. Chauncy expresses this meaning very well, “I look at this to be the erecting and consecrating a gospel-sanctuary, and spiritual worship, and the effusion of the Spirit thereon …..which began at Pentecost.” But I doubt whether the gospel-sanctuary was wholly freed from the weak and beggarly elements, until the bond-woman was cast out. (*Acts 15.) A “burthen” was laid upon the Gentiles, in consideration to the Jews, because Moses was read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day; and the antithesis between this holy of holies and the worldly sanctuary seems to confirm this view, the erection of the one being completed shortly before the destruction of the other.

                The conclusion from the consideration of the twenty fourth verse is, that all the events there mentioned transpired within the seventy (70) weeks; that the two first necessarily and distinctly define the close of that period; and we may view the other clauses as in one sense extending to that period also.

                The Seven and Sixty-Two (69) Weeks.

                In the 24th verse Gabriel had answered Daniel respecting the termination of the seventy (70) years’ desolations; from that time there was to be a period of 490 years, during which the Jews should not be in absolute subjection to the Gentile monarchies, the termination of which would be marked by the effect upon that people of the sufferings of Messiah, as is explained above. The angel now proceeds, in ver. 25, to give information as to when those sufferings of Messiah should be. (*Dan. 9:25.) “Also thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the word to cause to return and to build Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince [are] seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” Our translators seem to have been influenced in the rendering of this verse by what they supposed must be the connexion and meaning. There is mention made of seven and sixty-two weeks, and one week is subsequently introduced; these they naturally enough concluded to be subdivisions of the seventy weeks previously mentioned, and, therefore, turned a mere copulative into an illative, and the future into the imperative.

                But it does not appear that the ‘command‘ alluded to  this 25th verse can be the same as the command in 24; ‘this‘ is defined as a command causing the return, ‘that‘ was a decree respecting the apostasy of the nation; the command in verse 25 is respecting the building of the city, the decree, ver. 24, relates to the city already built, “Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy holy ‘city‘.” As the nation was in the power of the Gentiles, the command, ver. 25, must have been a human decree; and, if it was to be acted upon, it must have been known and promulgated. The decree in ver. 24 was, as we have seen, Divine in its nature, it was hidden, and only made known to Daniel because greatly beloved.

                I wonder that Mr. Greswell did not observe that there were two distinct decrees; for he says, “Two classes of events, which are neither the same in themselves, nor is their beginnings and their endings respectively, are connected together in the scope of its [the prophecy’s] disclosures. . . .to one of these classes we may give the name of the facts of the Christian ministry, and to the other that of the facts of the Jewish war.” The distinction, I conceive, admirably defined. (*Greswell’s Dissertations, vo. iv. p.329.)

                Still there may be a question as to what decree this was; for, in addition to the Divine command, three edicts of kings are mentioned in Scripture, and each has had its advocates: (*The command, ver. 25, that of Coresch.) “And they builded and finished [the temple]according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Coresch, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia.” (*Ezra, vi. 14.)

                The command of Coresch is mentioned, Ezra 1:1 ; 2nd Chron. 36:22: that of Darius, Ezra 6:8, &c.: and that of Artaxerxes appears to be in Ezra 7:12, &c. I agree, with Archbishop Magee, that the decree of Cyrus is obviously the command referred to in Dan. 9:25.

  1. The decree was to build Jerusalem; therefore, it must have been before the first of Darius; for at that time Jerusalem was inhabited. (*Dan. 9:9.) It was a reproach to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that they were dwelling in ceiled houses, whilst the temple was in ruins. (*Hag. 1.4.) In Ezra 4:12 also, which was before the reign of Darius, the building of the city is mentioned.
  2. The express object of Gabriel’s coming to Daniel was not only to cause him to know, but to understand respecting the decree; and this because Daniel himself was personally beloved. The angel, then, must have spoken to Daniel’s comprehension, and the only decree of which Daniel could know was that of Coresch.
  3. As Daniel knew of the decree of Coresch, and of no other, and as he had witnessed both the return of the Jews, and the rebuilding of the city in consequence of it, he must have inferred that Gabriel alluded to it and to no other.
  4. If Gabriel had meant some future and unknown decree, Daniel had more probably been deceived than informed. God would have hidden from the man greatly beloved the grand object of his prayers and desires. That would be far from him, and the thought should be far from us. (*Comp. Gen. 18:17, with Dan. 9:23.)
  5. When it was demanded of the Jews, by what right they proceeded to the building of the temple, they appealed to the decree of Coresch, and no other as their human authority. (*Ezra 5:3-16.)

                I have given the rendering of this verse, which is adopted by Mede, Broughton, and Chauncy. Willet and Hales give the same meaning, even more distinctly “from the going forth of the word to restore [thy people], and to rebuild Jerusalem,” &c. This seems to agree with the tenour of the former verse, which mentioned what would happen to the people and the city, and here is a decree respecting the people and the city. In this case there could be no doubt as to which decree is meant; for, though there may be some shadow of reason for saying that the decrees of Darius and Artaxerxes embraced the building of Jerusalem, there could be none for saying that they could relate to the return from the Captivity.

                If it be objected, that in the decree of Coresch there is no mention of the city, but only of the temple, I answer, that it recoils with greater force against the decrees of Darius and Artaxerxes; in which, likewise, there is no mention of the building of the city; they, in fact, only enforce the decree of Coresch respecting the temple.

                But, that the decree of Coresch did include the building of Jerusalem, is certain from Isa. 44:28; 45:13. The precision of the prophet’s language is striking, “saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built;” but Coresch could do little for the temple: so, respecting it, all that the prophet adds is, “and to the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid.” This was the fact. Jerusalem was built in consequence of the decree of Coresch; but, after the foundations of the temple were laid, the people were broken off from the work until the second of Darius. (*Hengstenberg asserts that Dan. 9:25, refers not to a human but to a Divine decree. This is necessary for his theory; for the dates the seventy (70) weeks from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, a year in which there was no royal edict; he, therefore, assumes that there was a Divine command. But the arguments which I have urged against the edicts of the first of Darius and the seventh of Artaxerxes equally militate against any supposed edict of the twentieth of Artaxerxes.         If we were to admit that the decree of verse 25 was issued from heaven, we should still be obliged to refer it to the first of Cyrus, because for this, and this alone, we have Scripture warrant (Isa. 44 and 45; see also Jer. 29:10). This decree was so well known that Cyrus referred to it, saying, that God had charged him personally to execute it.)

                It appears evident that the record in Ezra was not of the whole decree of Coresch; indeed, the part relating to the temple, as it is recited by Darius, is fuller than as given in Ezra 1. And Josephus speaks of the building of Jerusalem as mentioned in the decree. (Ant. xi. 1,3.)

                There can then be little doubt but that the decree of Coresch is intended; and thus, each of the terminations of seventy (70) years is made the commencement of another prophetical period, the seventy (70) weeks springing from the termination of the seventy (70) years’ desolations, the seven and sixty-two weeks dating from the seventy (70) years which were accomplished on Babylon.

                (*Connexion of ver. 25 and 24.) In order to shew the connexion, I would paraphrase the verse in this manner: “Thou shalt also know, that though seventy (70) weeks, dating from the time of your supplication, is the allotted season of grace and forbearance to your people; yet a period of seven and sixty-two weeks, dating from the decree of Coresch for the restoring of Jerusalem and the temple, is the season fixed for the cutting off of Messiah“, — this being the procuring cause of grace to the elect, and the occasion of the judgments upon those who neglect the great salvation. The first seven weeks will be consumed in accomplishing the immediate object of your prayer, namely, repairing the desolations of the city and the sanctuary.

                “And after threescore and two weeks Messiah shall be cut off.” This I understand to be a declaration in plain terms of what it was said, in chap. 8:11, the Roman power would be the instrument in executing, “He magnified himself against the prince of the host.”

                “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy [desolate] the city and the sanctuary.” This is the interpretation of the last clause of chap. 8:11….”and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” And this I consider the desolation, which, it had been mentioned, Dan. 8:12, would be the consequence of the transgression against the daily sacrifice. In other words, the apostasy from Messiah was the transgression of the Jewish nation which brought the desolation by the Roman armies. “The Lord hath accomplished his fury: he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof. (The kings of the earth, and all the inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy should have entered into the gates of Jerusalem); for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, that have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her.” (*Lam. 4:11-13,20. Sixty-two weeks terminate upon the excision of Messiah. John 12:12-15.)

                The period of sixty-two weeks terminates upon Messiah as Prince or Leader; and, therefore, I conceive, cannot be before his entry into Jerusalem as her king; John, and clearly the sixty-second week terminates about the time of Messiah’s being cut off.

                If what I have said be correct, that the seventy (70) weeks mark the time for the benefits and consequences of Messiah’s death to be received or rejected, but the sixty-two mark the time of these benefits being wrought out, then, I presume, we cannot refer their term either to an earlier or later date than from the crucifixion to Pentecost. (*The seven weeks.)

                I had long been inclined to think that the repair of the city-wall, in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, marked the close of the seven and commencement of the sixty-two weeks. This was, doubtless, because our translation says, the street and wall should be rebuilt, and in troublous times, although there is no mention of a wall in the original. (*Dan. 9:25.)  Most take it for granted that the translation is correct. Mede tries to justify it, taking the expression to denote ‘that circuit bounding out the limits of the city where on the wall was built: ‘Brown, from Ewald, says, it is the pool or water-conduit; (Brown ordo. Sac. note, p. 379.) but Hengstenberg is very decided against any such meaning, and renders the passage: “A street is restored, and built, and firmly it is determined, and in a time of distress.” This sounds, perhaps, rather harsh; but I scarcely venture to offer an opinion on such an author. Chauncy says, it seems “to denote the polity and judicature of the city, — the place of judicature being in the street or market-place (Job 29:7); for I find it here joined with the street, and used in the sense of decision or administration of justice.”

                Take, however, either rendering, we must look for the fulfilment in the work carried out by Ezra under the decree of Artaxerxes Mnemon.

                There are expressions in Scripture relating to time, which, according to our use of language, would necessitate our understanding time complete and precise; yet, as used in Scripture, we must understand time current to be intended. See, amongst other passages, Matt. 12:40; 27:63; compare Luke 1:59, with 2:21; John 2:19; 20:26; 1st Cor. 15:4.

                If my dates are correct, the event which I consider marks the seventh week, falls within, but does not mark the close of the week. I should, I confess, rather have found that it terminated the week; but, if we have the warrant of Scripture for the contrary, that will, of course, be satisfactory.

                I do not allude to the general use of expressions relating to time, which I noticed above, but to the uncontradicted declaration of the Jews, that the temple was forty-six years in completing. This was accomplished in accordance with the decree of God, through the decrees of Coresch, Darius, and Artaxerxes. (*John 2:20. Ezra 6:14.)

                Coresch, we have seen, began to reign in the commencement of B.C. 444; in which year he issued his proclamation. The decree of Artaxerxes for beautifying the temple, and establishment of the worship of God, was probably issued, and certainly acted upon, in the seventh of Artaxerxes. (*See chap. 12. Ezra 7:27; 9:9; Ezra.7:8.)

                The temple was founded in the second year of Coresch, B.C. 443, forty-six years from which time brings us to B.C. 398 for the completion of the temple.

                The commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon is generally supposed to have been in the end of B.C. 405 or early in B.C. 404. (*Clinton, vol. ii. ch. xviii. )The seventh year of his reign was, therefore, completed B.C. 398.

                At the same time, that is, on the first day of the first month, in the eighth of Artaxerxes, the reformation by  separated from the Canaanites, and in great contrition, by covenant, firmly established the worship of God. (*Ezra 10:17.)

                Possibly the completion of the temple, and the separation of Israel to the pure worship of God, marked the first period of the prophecy. It is true, that this event did not exactly define the close of the seven weeks, for it was only forty-seven years from the first of Coresch; but it is not said “after seven weeks the street shall be built,” as it is said, “after sixty-and-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off” “And the completion of the temple was in the latter part of the seventh week.(*The street was to be built in a strait, or “in straightness of times,” which expression, though it be commonly understood of the character of those times, Marshall and Archbishop Magee seem to refer to a limitation of time.)

                “And after sixty-and-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off.” Sixty-two weeks from March, B.C. 397, would bring us to March, A.D. 38, for the crucifixion, which, were I guided by the Gospel history alone, is the very year I should fix upon for that event. At the same time, I admit that, according to the received chronology regarding the Roman Emperors, we cannot put the crucifixion later than A.D. 36. This, it is true, brings the crucifixion to the latter part of the sixty-second week; but, as the prophecy is so minute as to mention a half week, I think we must look for an exact fulfilment.

                The connexion of the latter part of verse 26 with the former is in relation of cause and effect; because Messiah was cut off, the city and sanctuary were destroyed: thus this line of information is brought down to where ver. 24 had stopped.

                The expression, “The people of the prince that shall come,” refers, I apprehend, to chap. 8:23,24, as that does to the eleventh verse of the same chapter, each denoting the power that was to destroy the sanctuary and the host.

                (*One Week: 70th.)

                Verse 27 gives the exact date of this overthrow; and, taking the ‘one week‘ in the regular order of narration, it does not belong to the seven and sixty-two weeks, but is a continuation of the decree of heaven which Gabriel came to announce in explanation of the vision in chap, 8, this verse fixing the time of the fulfilment of the latter part of chap. 8:11, as the previous verse had declared the cause of the desolation.

                If the seven and sixty-two weeks were parts of the seventy (70) weeks, doubtless we should be led to suppose that the one week was also; perhaps I should say, the structure of the prophecy would require it: but, if the seven and sixty-two are not parts of the seventy (70), which, to my mind, they evidently are not, then there is no proof that they are parts of any seventy. (*Seven, sixty-two,  and one, not subdivisions of the seventy.)

                If, according to the common interpretation, the seven and sixty-two weeks are to be taken with the one week, as subdivisions of the seventy (70), then the latter part of ver. 26 is parenthetical, and ver. 27 explains what is meant by ” after sixty-two weeks,” in ver. 26 ; but if, as I suppose, the one week is added to the seventy, then ver. 27 unfolds the events which occur upon the apostasy of the nation being completed, so that, proceeding chronologically, ver. 27 is in immediate connexion with ver. 24, the angel, as I have said, reverting to the explanation of the vision, ch. 8.

                “And one week will strengthen a covenant with the many, and the half of the week will abolish sacrifice and meat offering.” (*The half week.)

                Most interpreters viewing the general tenor of the prophecy as merciful, understand the first clause as denoting that some will receive the blessings of some covenant at that time; but the language rather implies that a covenant already entered into would be strengthened. (*The covenant confirmed.) The whole Jewish worship being necessarily abolished, the bond-woman and her son cast out, being no longer heir with the free-woman (*Gal. 4:30.), did undoubtedly strengthen and confirm the believing Jews in the Covenant; and that this confirmation was necessary —that there was great peril of apostasy— before the destruction of Jerusalem, the epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently manifests. This interpretation harmonizes very well with the abolition of the daily sacrifice in the half of the week.

                But, considering that the tenor of the prophecy intimates retributive justice as much as tender compassion, and that the former part relates to both portions of Daniel’s people, this clause also may, I conceive, be viewed with relation to the unbelieving as well as the believing Jews, for covenants have their penal sanctions, and covenant faithfulness is engaged to enforce these as much as to fulfil the promises. (*Dan. 9:11,12.) Daniel, in his confession, owns that God had already confirmed his words, that is, his penal threatenings in the law; but the same law announced that, if they continued their obstinacy, the Lord would punish yet seven times, or years, for their sins, “And I will bring a sword upon you, the vengeance of the covenant.” (*Lev.  26:25.) This week in the prophecy may refer to that seven times of judgment which would fearfully confirm the covenant in vengeance for transgression; the abolition of the sacrifice and meat-offering literally understood marking the impossibility of the Jews remaining under the Horeb covenant, and the destruction of the temple, making the renewal of the ordinances connected with the covenant impossible. At this time also the idol standards of the desolator were planted upon the battlements of Jerusalem.

                The end of the week marks the “end of the war,” which was to close in “desolations.” “Remarkable is the reference in which these words stand to the close of ver. 25. By an irrevocable decree of God will the city now lying in ruins be rebuilt; by an equally irrevocable decree will it again sink into ruins.”

                I am inclined to understand the latter part of ver. 27. (*Hengstenberg.) thus: “And as regarding the overspreading of the desolating abominations [they shall continue] even until the end,” that is, of the 2300, “the end of the indignation” (chap. 8:19). Our authorized version seems to imply that the idolatry of the Jews was the cause of their continued desolation, yet their sin upon this occasion, which brought the desolation here spoken of, was not idolatry, but the crucifixion and rejection of Messiah. Hence I am inclined to believe that the wide-spread idolatry of the desolator is intended, first as Rome Pagan, and then as Rome Papal, and that this clause is, therefore, parallel with ch.  8:12, “and it cast down the truth to the ground.” Also with viii. 24, “And he shall desolate wonderfully,” &c.

             The dates are as follows :—(*General Summary.) Seventy (70) weeks terminated some time before March: A.D.67, beginning of the one week. Cessation of daily sacrifice, according to Greswell, July: A.D.70, half-week. Burning of the temple, August: A.D.70, half-week. Recapture of Masada when the war ended: A.D. 73, end of the week.

                Thus the general summary of my scheme is as follows: —The termination of each of the two periods of seventy (70) years is made a fresh epoch.            One period of sixty-nine (69) weeks, divided into seven and sixty-two, springs from the decree of Coresch.            Another period of seventy-one (71) weeks, divided into seventy and one, which one is again halved, springs from the termination of the desolations.              The period dating from the deliverance out of Babylon ends with the deliverance accomplished by Messiah.        The period springing from the close of the desolations, ends in the apostasy and desolation of the Jews and their city.     I have now only to apply to the unfulfilled part of the prophecy, the information which we have acquired.

                “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression making desolate.” (*Dan. 8:13.) The transgression making desolate was completed A.D. 67; the portion of time then run out was seventy (70) weeks or 490 years, which “cut out” from 2300 leaves 1810 years current from that time to when “the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” According to this calculation, we may look for the cleansing of the sanctuary A.D. 1877. (*It is scarcely necessary to remark that this expression does not denote the second advent of Messiah. I do not believe any chronological prophecy terminates upon that event; indeed, it appears inconsistent with the duty of incessant watchfulness for his glorious appearing. He may come at that time, or he may come after, or he may come before.)

                Chapter XVII: An Abstract of Some Different Interpretations of the Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks of Daniel. Some terminate the seventy weeks about the time of the crucifixion. Some terminate the seventy weeks about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian (424), Sulpitius Severus, Scaliger, Mede, Parry, Hales. Chauney, Johnson, Hare (426), Archbishop Magee. Archbishop Usher, Petavius, Bishop Lloyd, Marshall, Hengstenberg (430), Faber, Greswell. Broughton, Sir John Marsham, Livelie. Agreement with previous authors.

                Of the various interpretations which have been offered of this famous prophecy, I give a few which have fallen in my way. There are, I believe, many more, and some which, had I had an opportunity of seeing, I should not have passed in silence. The interpretations may be classified, in great measure, into those which terminate  the seventy (70) weeks about the time of the Lord’s death, and those which terminate them about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. The disposal of the one week, and the half week, and the divers methods of elongating the period, make the other principal variations. (*Some terminate the seventy weeks with the crucifixion; some with the destruction of Jerusalem.)

                “Clement,” says Bishop Kaye, “if I understand him, thus calculates Daniel’s seventy (70) weeks. The temple was rebuilt in seven; then, after an interval of sixty-two weeks, the Messiah came; then, after an interval of half a week, Nero placed an abomination in the temple of Jerusalem; and, after another half week, the temple was  destroyed by Vespasian.” (*Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria. p.383.)        If this’ be a correct view, Clement’s chronology, especially with regard to the death of Christ, must have been very different from ours; but I should suspect he made a different commencement for the seventy and for the seven and sixty-two weeks, or else he must have supposed the last week longer than the rest.

                Tertullian commenced the seventy (70) weeks from the first of Darius Nothus, whom he supposed to be the Darius of Daniel 9 and concludes them with the conquest of the Jews by Vespasian, in which I conceive he was in the main correct.

                Sulpitius Severus is of the same mind.

                Scaliger commences with Darius Nothus and ends with the half week to the destruction of Jerusalem; but he did not suppose Darius, son of Ahasuerus, to have been Darius Nothus: here I think he went a step farther from the truth than the ancients; but, in dating the sixty-two weeks from an independent origin, the fifth of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and terminating with the passion of our Lord, he advanced a little in elucidating the prophecy.

                The great Joseph Mede dates the seventy weeks from the third of Darius Nothus to the destruction of Jerusalem; he also advances another important step, as I conceive, in the interpretation of this prophecy: he says, “I take not this epoch [in ver. 25] to be that of the whole seventy weeks, but a second root of another and a lesser period; “but then he is very lame I think both in his translation and interpretation; “Shall be sevens of weeks, even sixty-two weeks; “but sixty-two weeks cannot be divided by seven without a fraction; he feels this defect, and, therefore, adds that, if we must have some limited time of forty-nine years, he would date it from the same epoch as the sixty-two weeks, and make the times concurrent and not consecutive.

                Dr. Parry commences the seventy weeks with the second of Darius Nothus, whom he maintains to be the Darius of Haggai, and terminates them with the destruction of Jerusalem. The seven weeks he dates from the same epoch, and terminates the thirty-second of Artaxerxes Mnemon. (*Neh.xiii.6.) The crucifixion was not “after sixty-two weeks,” but ” in the latter days of the sixty-two weeks” Christ was put to death in a judicial manner ; ” for they,” Daniel’s people mentioned before, “will not be comp. Lev. *vii. his.” There is much that is good in this interpretation; but the cutting off of Messiah in the latter part of the sixty-two weeks is lame; for, according to the doctor’s calculation, it does not fall within the last week. The doctor did not see the two different decrees.

                Hales says the prophecy must be divided chronologically into sixty-four, one, and five weeks. I suppose he is of Pemble’s opinion, that the angel did not speak precisely. He commences the seventy in the fourth of Darius. One important point Dr. Hales has kept alive —the connexion of the seventy weeks with the vision of ch. viii.  (*”The seventy weeks, considered as forming a branch of the 2300 days, was originally due to the sagacity of Hans Wood, Esq. of Rosemead.” — Hales’ Analysis, vol. ii. p. 518.)

                Now, though these great men had the main truth, the commencement and close of the seventy weeks, there were other points, which the moderns at least, lost sight of. Calvin and Willet justly maintain that the seventy weeks begin where the seventy years end.

                Chauncy saw the necessity of dating a decree from the termination of the desolations in Dan. 9:1. He also saw that the decree of Cyrus was referred to ; and, seeing but one decree, he made the first of Cyrus the termination of the desolations ; then, to make the chronology suit, he renders it, ” seventy weeks are to be divided into segments,” &c. ; then he makes a space between the seven weeks and the sixty-two, and again between the sixty-two and the one week. But Livelie had pointed out long before, that a verb singular is joined to a noun plural, noting the entireness of the number [a period of] ” seventy weeks is cut out,” &c. The justness of this is confirmed by Hengstenberg.

                John Johnson, A.M. maintains the following positions: (*Brett’s Life of Johnson, 1748. p.376, 371.)

  1. The weeks commence from the beginning of Daniel’s prayer.
  2. They are weeks of years, and all, save the last, of equal length. [What warrant is there for this exception?]

                III. The first seven weeks are repeated [so that, according to him, the prophecy is of seventy-seven weeks].

  1. The sixty-two weeks ended with the actual approach of Christ.
  2. The last week contains seventy-seven years, beginning from the approach of Christ and ending with the destruction of Jerusalem ; and he adds, rather strangely, “this I conceive explains what our Saviour says about the days being shortened.” Still there are some good points.
  3. Johnson is correct in maintaining that the weeks begin with the prayer of Daniel ; he strongly denies the possibility of any time before the commencement or between the subdivisions of the weeks ; he rightly calls the decree a divine decree, and not a human commission ; he sees that part terminates on the death of Messiah and part on the destruction of Jerusalem ; but two points he seems to have missed,— one, who Darius, son of Ahasuerus, was, the other, that there were two decrees, one terminating on Messiah’s death, one on the destruction of Jerusalem ; and that was what made him maintain the errors in his second and fifth propositions.

                Hare translates and expounds the prophecy thus : —

                Ver. 24. ” Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to restrain rebellion,” &c.

                Ver. 25. ” Know, therefore, and understand, from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the ruler, shall be seventy-seven weeks. Threescore and two are to be counted back again ; and then the street shall be built and the wall, even in troublous times.”

                Ver. 26. ” And after threescore and two weeks, Messiah shall be cut off,” &c.

                Ver. 27. “And he [the governor that shall come] shall establish a treaty of peace with many during one week.”

                Hare terminates the seventy-seven weeks with the Lord’s coming to the temple at twelve years of age ; from this he reckons back sixty-two weeks for the completion of Jerusalem, which falls on the fortieth of Artaxerxes; from this he counts forward seventy weeks to the rebellion of the Jews, the beginning of the last week, in which the utter destruction of Jerusalem is accomplished ; the one week coming after the seventy, makes eighty-six weeks in all.

               I think Hare must have been hard pressed before he would have made so many doubles backward and forward.

                Archbishop Magee was engaged for many years of  his life upon the study of this prophecy; and we may be permitted to apply to him what was said of him by Dr. Wall, with reference to another subject. “If Dr. Magee was unable to reconcile [the language of this prophecy with the received chronology], this object can hardly be effectible by means of the data which he had before him; for, in clearness and strength of intellect, no writer that ever engaged in the investigation has been found his superior.”  (*Wall, on Alphabetic Writing, p.366.) The pamphlet is entitled “A Discourse upon the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel,” by Wm. Magee, Archbishop of Dublin; Salisbury, W. B. Brodie, and Co. Canal Street, 1837.

                “Weeks weeks,” i.e. a multitude of weeks, “Thus,” says he, ” the time of Messiah’s coming is sketched in a general indefinite outline, which the angel then proceeds to fill up with the most minute particulars “….”Know therefore, and understand that, from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the prince shall be weeks seven and seventy,” 539 Chaldean years, or 531 Julian years, and ninety-two days. The decree “can be no other than the decree of Cyrus.”. . . . “Threescore and two shall the street be built again and the wall.” During sixty-two weeks, the city and wall should stand in a completed state. 434 prophetic years make 427 Julian years and 278 days, from the thirty-second of Artaxerxes to the birth of Messiah.”…. And in the contracted reckoning of the times (that is, making the seventy-seven weeks only as many prophetic years, or seventy-five Julian years, and 326 days), “even next after the threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” This seventy-seven years the archbishop calculates from the birth of Messiah to the destruction of Jerusalem.

                The dates he adopts are: Decree of Cyrus, June 22nd. . . B.C. 538 City finished by Nehemiah, Dec. 20th . . . B.C. 435

                Destruction of Temple, August 10th . . . A.D. 70

                He paraphrases the prophecy thus :—

                “The seventy (70) years which were wanting to complete those weeks of years which the Jews, forgetful of their law, had neglected to observe, being now nearly concluded, I am commissioned to inform you that, agreeably to the divine promise, your nation shall be restored; and, with a view to the accomplishment of the divine purposes, many of such weeks of years are allotted for its continuance. Even weeks weeks of years are determined upon thy people and thy holy city for the anointing the most holy, and thereby for the finishing the transgression, the making an end of sins, the effecting atonement for iniquity, the bringing in everlasting righteousness, and the perfect accomplishment of all that had been foretold by the prophets:’ That you may the more fully comprehend the nature of that assurance, you must know and understand that, from the going forth of the long foretold decree of Cyrus, for the return from the captivity, and the rebuilding of your city, unto the coming of the long-promised Messiah the Prince, shall be weeks seven and seventy. Threescore and two of these shall the city and its walls have been perfectly completed. And in the contracted reckoning of those seven and seventy times, which shall follow next after the threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off, and the city and sanctuary, being no longer acknowledged as his, coming in power as a conquering prince, he will destroy the rebellious people, overwhelming them as with a flood, and end the war only with their total destruction. With many of the Jews shall he confirm the Christian covenant, through that one week, in the midst of which he is to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, by the sacrifice of himself; but, when upon the borders of the temple he shall cause the abomination of desolation to be displayed, then an utter end, even a speedy one, shall be poured upon the desolate.”

                One is at first surprised, though, perhaps, it is not difficult to account for such a strong and clear intellect as the archbishop’s adopting so perplexed and complicated a system as this. The decree of Coresch and the death of Messiah were so obviously the termini of the decree, Dan. 9:25, that he could not surrender these points; and the above was the only method by which he could reconcile them with existing views of chronology.

                Generally, however, those who make the excision of Messiah the prominent point of the prophecy set aside the decree of Coresch, and commence the seventy (70) weeks in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.

                Archbishop Usher leads the way in starting from the twentieth of that king’s reign, marking the termination of the sixty-nine weeks with the commencement of our Lord’s ministry and half a week more to the crucifixion.

                Petavius adopted this view with some little variation. Usher, upon the authority of Thucydides, raised the twentieth of Artaxerxes to B.C. 454. Petavius supposed Artaxerxes in joint reign with Xerxes for nine years before the death of his father.

                Bishop Lloyd dates from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, but computes what he calls Chaldaean years of 360 days, sixty-nine weeks of such years make 476 Julian years to the crucifixion; the seven weeks close the Old Testament Canon by Malachi; the seventieth week he refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

                Marshall adopts and defends this view with some little variation; it seems to me eminently defective.

                Hengstenberg has revived the view of the Primate of Ireland. He conceives that Krger of late, as Vitringa formerly, has proved the twentieth of Artaxerxes to have been B.C. 455. He supposes the city was completed seven weeks after this date, —the sixty-ninth week ends with the commencement of our Lord’s ministry, B.C. 782. He altogether denies, with Ideler, that history knows any other mode of reckoning the reign of Tiberius than from the death of Augustus; the last week is divided by the crucifixion. (* Greswell, when not speaking of the reign of Tiberius, says,. “I lay it down as a fundamental principle, that no king’s reign bears date except from the demise of his predecessor.”—Vol. iv. p. 489. I believe he should not make the reign of Tiberius an exception.)

                But, although this view has the countenance of great names, it appears very defective. The seventy (70) weeks do not spring from the time of Daniel’s prayer; they do not embrace the destruction of Jerusalem; the decree of Coresch is not noticed; and there is only an imaginary point to mark the termination of the seven weeks; and lastly, there was no decree in the twentieth of Artaxerxes; so that, out of six necessary points, only one is grasped by this interpretation.

                Mr. Faber commences the seventy (70) weeks with the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and terminates them with the crucifixion. The holy city he understands figuratively, —the sixty-nine weeks reach to the commencement of the Gospel dispensation; the seven first weeks, to the completion of the figurative holy city, that is, the Levitical polity; the half week, he understands of three years and a half before the abolition of the Levitical sacrifices towards the close of the siege of Jerusalem.

                Mr. Greswell understands the prophecy to contain seventy (70) and a half (½) weeks, divided into seven, sixty-two, half a week, and one (70½) week. The epoch of sixty-nine weeks is the seventh of Artaxerxes, B.C. 458, and its close marks the commencement of John’s ministry, A.D. 26, the consummation of the half week, the virtual cessation of sacrifice in the crucifixion; the week ending with the exclusive preaching to the Jews.                Greswell makes the seven weeks to mark a new point of time from whence to count the seven and sixty-two weeks again, which he terminates with the end of the Jewish desolations, A.d. 75; thus, like Johnson, he counts the seven weeks twice over .          Had Mr. Greswell terminated the seven and sixty-two upon the crucifixion, and the seventy upon the desolations, instead of the reverse, I think his view would have been nearer the truth. But, against making the half week distinct from, and not a division of, the one week, Hengstenberg mentions “a fatal objection,” which Marshall before had noticed, ” the article does not allow us to think of the half of a week, but only of the half of the definite before mentioned week.” (*Hengstenberg, vol. II. p. 355. Broughton.)

                The difficulties appearing so great in the way of giving an orthodox interpretation in conformity with received views of history, some, who had more faith than judgment, set aside history altogether. Such was Hugh Broughton, who makes 490 years from the Cyrus of Herodotus to the resurrection of Messiah.

                Others, whose faith was not sufficient to outweigh their judgment, have set aside the Messianic interpretation altogether. Sir John Marsham, for example, reckons seven weeks to Cyrus the prince, God’s anointed, Isa. 45; sixty-two weeks to Antiochus, who, for one week, makes a covenant with many of the Jews; for half a week more is the ceasing of the daily sacrifice and setting up of the abomination of desolation, 1 Mac. 1:45, 54.

                Livelie reckons seven weeks to Messiah the Governor, from the third of Darius Nothus to the thirty-second of Artaxerxes; the succession of anointed priests from that time he supposes to be intended by Messiah; then, during sixty-two weeks, the city remained built, and the succession of priests continued to the ninth of Nero, when the seeds of Jerusalem’s captivity were sown by the extortion and cruelty of Albinus. The last week Messiah was cut off, that is, the last ruler of Jerusalem, when the city also was destroyed.

                I know not whether faith or judgment predominate in this scheme; perhaps it gives a triumph to neither.         Why there is such a variety of interpretations would not be altogether an idle question. It is not simply the difficulty in the chronology; the vigorous minds of Scaliger and Mede had, in a measure, overcome that difficulty. It is not from obscurity in the language; it has been well said by one, that we are not embarrassed by the obscurity but by the plainness of the language.         I think the variety of interpretation is caused by there being so many points: one mind seizes upon one and gives prominence to it, while, by another, that is neglected and some other point is put into the foreground; the more simple views are the more meagre, and those who attempt to be more comprehensive are the more complicated.

                With Clement of Alexandria, I agree that the temple was rebuilt in seven weeks, and that sixty-two weeks from that time terminated upon Messiah.        That the sixty-nine weeks terminate upon Messiah is also the view of Usher, Petavius, Lloyd, Marshall, Hengstenberg, and Faber.        With Tertullian, Sulpitius Severus, Scaliger, Mede, and Parry, I commence the seventy (70) weeks about the commencement of the reign of Darius Nothus, and end with the conquest of the Jews.         With Tertullian, Sulpitius Severus, and Parry, I further agree that Darius, son of Ahasuerus, was Darius Nothus.        With Hales, I maintain the connexion of seventy (70) weeks with the prophecy in Dan. 8.       With Chauncy, Johnson, and others, I date the seventy (70) weeks from Daniel’s prayer.         With Archbishop Magee and Chauncy, I conceive that the decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem must be that of Coresch.        And with Mr. Greswell, I see that two classes of events are predicted, which he, with great clearness, designates “the facts of the Christian ministry, and the facts of the Jewish War.”

                Thus, though upon the whole, my view of the prophecy is not precisely the same as that of any of my predecessors, yet I am not without powerful authority for all my positions; and it is gratifying to observe that the earliest views are those with which mine most closely correspond.

                I here close my inquiry. If I have failed in elucidating the prophecy, I am in the predicament of many who have gone before me ; if even I have succeeded in establishing my principal points, I doubt not I have erred in detail. If any are inclined to think I have meddled with matters too high for me, I believe none are more aware of it than I am myself. I have been led by a way which I knew not ; but to an end which I greatly wished. I trust that I have at least made out a case sufficiently strong to induce others to pursue the inquiry.

                Appendix to Chapter XVII. On the Expressions Relative to Time in Daniel, Chapters 10;  11; and 12.

                       The point to which I purpose directing my attention in the last prophecy of Daniel is, the nature of the time. This, indeed, is of primary importance in fixing the laws by which we must be governed in our schemes of interpretation; for it is evident, if the 1290 and 1335 days are to be taken literally, then the important events of the latter part of the 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.

                Some may infer, from the 2300 in Dan. 8 having proved to be years, that the 1290 and 1335 days in Dan. 12 must be interpreted to denote years also. But, even were we to admit that the expression in Dan. 8 did properly denote 2300 diurnal revolutions, but which symbolically intimate as many annual revolutions, still I would not admit any analogy.

  1. Because the prophecy in chap. 8 is symbolical, and, therefore, must be unfolded according to the laws of symbolical interpretation; and the same laws may possibly extend to the expressions relating to time. But the prophecy of chaps. 10-12 is not symbolical, nor even figurative, but is literal; the genius of the prophecy, therefore, being different, it seems to follow that the laws of interpretation may also be different; if, indeed, that can properly be called an interpretation which is only an adaptation of the historical facts, when fulfilled, to their literal predictions.
  2. The expression translated “days,” in Dan. 8, is different from the term rendered “days ” in Dan. 12; therefore, no argument for interpreting one word in one prophecy of one character can be drawn from the explanation of a different word in another prophecy of another character.

                The laws for elucidating each prophecy must, I conceive, be decided separately according to the character and genius of each.

                Now, the character of the prophecy, chaps. 10-12, is rather what we may call ‘biographical‘, for it details the actions of ‘individual‘ kings. I see no more warrant for saying the willful 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, —vileness and extortion are characteristic of individuals, and why not willfulness? Surely, if the willful king denotes anything but an individual, the King of the South who comes against him must equally. The genius of the prophecy, therefore, seems to require that the measure of time connected with the actions of the willful 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 thousand three hundred and five and thirty days,” seems to imply that some individuals would endure for the whole 1335 days.

                The sketch of the reigns of the previous individual kings is apparently with the intention of introducing the reign of the willful king, the particulars of whose reign are more largely detailed. But if the willful king denote not an individual, but a system extending through a period of above 1300 years, the account, which is so minute in the introduction, when it comes to the special subject of the prophecy, instead of being a circumstantial detail, is attenuated into the vagueness of generality.

                The use of the same term, in the same prophecy, by the angel who is in a manner identified with the machinery of the prophecy, seems to require a literal acceptation. “I fasted,” says Daniel, “three weeks of days.” (*Hengstenberg, however, objects to this rendering.) During these “one and twenty days” the angel says he was withstood. Now, no one supposes that Daniel fasted one and twenty years; we must not, therefore, infer that the angel was withstood one and twenty years. And when the same angel, in the same prophecy, again mentions “days” without any intimation of a change in the term, are we not to understand it in the same sense?

                What makes this argument more forcible is, that the term “days” is not used in the prophecy, but in the ‘explanation of the prophecy‘, which the angel vouchsafed to give to the man greatly beloved. We could scarcely be justified in looking for a recondite meaning in a term in the explanation of a prophecy, in itself so plain and of such common occurrence; for, in that case, the more plain a term is, the more obscure would be the explanation, because the less are we called upon to look for a hidden meaning; whereas, on the other hand, if the term is in itself somewhat mysterious, that in a manner directs us to attempt unfolding the dark saying.

                These considerations induce me to think it more probable that the words are to be taken in their literal acceptation.

                It will follow that the time of the willful king must be within three years and a half of the resurrection. For when the willful king comes to an end, “many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

                To Daniel’s question, “Oh, my Lord, what [shall be] the end of these [things]?” the answer is, “From the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up [there shall be] 1290 days.” All, therefore, from ch. 11:31, where the placing of the abomination making desolate is mentioned, belongs to the last days.

                As I undertook to examine the times of Daniel, chronological and prophetical, I felt bound to state these reasons for not entering into any historical elucidation of the prophecy in Dan. 10-12.

  1. Miller.

Miller’s Works. Volume 2. Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the Year 1843, Exhibited in a Course of Lectures. 1833-1843. 1843. William Miller  (1782-1849). Published by Joshua V. Hines.  Boston. (Calvinist Baptist Preacher, self-taught Bible student of prophecy. Millerism, Adventism, & Jehovah’s Witnesses (International Bible Students).

                Table of Contents:  Introduction:

               Lecture 1: The Second Appearing of Christ. Titus 2:13. Looking for that blessed hope, and glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ.

             Lecture 2: The First Resurrection. Rev. 20:6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power; shall reign with him a thousand years.

                Lecture 3: The Two Thousand Three Hundred (2300) Days. Dan. 8:10,11.  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand three hundred (2300) days: then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

                Lecture 4: Daniel 9:24. Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

                Lecture 5: Pagan Rome numbered. Rev. 13:18. And his number is six hundred threescore and six (666).

                Lecture 6: Daniel’s Vision of the Latter Days; or, An exposition of the Eleventh Chapter of Daniel. Dan 10:14. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.

                Lecture 7: Daniel’s 1260, 1290, and 1335 Days explained. Daniel 12:8. And I heard, but  understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

                Lecture  8: The three Woe Trumpets. Rev. 8:13. Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabitants of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels which are yet to sound.

                Lecture  9: The Epistle to the Seven Churches of Asia, considered as applying to Seven Periods of the Gospel Church. Rev. 1:20.

                Lecture 10: The Epistle to the Seven Churches of Asia, considered as applying to Seven Periods of the Gospel Church. Cont’d.

                Lecture 11: The New Song. Rev. 5:9. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, &c.

                Lecture 12: The Seven Seals, as representing Events to the End of Time. Rev. 5:5.  Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

                Lecture 13: The Two Witnesses, as having been slain in the French Revolution. Rev. 11:3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophecy 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth.

                Lecture 14: The Woman in the Wilderness. Rev. 12:6. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there 1260 days.

                Lecture 15: The Seven Last Plagues, or Seven Vials. Rev. 16:17.  And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air, and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying It is done.

                Lecture 16: The Parable of the Ten Virgins. Matt. 25:1. Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

                Lecture 17: On the Punishment of the People of God Seven Times for their Sins. Lev. 26:23,24.

                Lecture 18: Solomon’s Song, 8:5. Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?

                Lecture 19: Signs of the Present Times. Matt. 26:3. But can ye not discern the signs of times?

                                Introduction: …. In order that the reader may have an understanding of my manner of studying the Prophecies, by which I have come to the following result, I have thought proper to give some of the rules of interpretation which I have adopted to understand prophecy.

                Prophetical scripture is very much of it communicated to us by figures and highly and richly adorned metaphors; by which I mean that figures such as beasts, birds, air or wind, water, fire, candlesticks, lamps, mountains, islands, etc., are used to represent things prophesied of  – such as kingdoms, warriors, principles, people, judgments, churches, word of God, large and smaller governments. It is metaphorical also, showing some peculiar quality of the thing prophesied of, by the most prominent feature or quality of the figure used, as beasts –if a lion, power, and rule; if a leopard, celerity; if a bear, voracious; and ox, submissive; a man, proud and independent. Fire denotes justice and judgment in its figure; in the metaphor, denotes the purifying or consuming up the dross or wickedness; as fire has a cleansing quality, so will the justice or judgments of God. “For when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” Therefore almost all the figures used in prophecy have their literal and metaphorical meaning; as beasts denote, literally, a kingdom, so metaphorically good or bad, as the case may be, to be understood by the subject in connection.

                To understand the literal meaning of figures used in prophecy, I have pursued the following method: –I find the word “beast” used in a figurative sense; I take my concordance, trace the word, and in Daniel 7:17, it is explained to mean “kings or kingdoms.” Again, I come across the words “bird or fowl,” and in Isa. 46:2, it is used, meaning a conqueror or warrior, –Cyrus. Also, in Ezekiel 39:4-9, denotes armies or conquerors. Again, the words “air or wind.” as used in Rev. 9:2, and 16,17, to understand which I turn to Eph. 2:2, and 4-14, and there learn that is used as a figure to denote the theories [?] of worldly men or vain philosophy. Again, “water or rivers” are used as figures in Rev. 17:13, it is explained to mean “peoples nations.” “Rivers” of course mean the nation or people living on the river mentioned, as in Rev. 16: 12. “Fire” is often used in a figurative sense; explained in Num. 21:27, 28, Deut. 32:22, Psal. 78:21, Heb. 12:29, to mean justice and judgment.

                As prophecy is a language somewhat different from other parts of Scripture, owing to its having been revealed in vision, and that highly figurative, yet God in his wisdom has so interwoven the several prophecies, that the events foretold are not all told by one prophet, and although they lived and prophesied in different ages of the world, yet they tell us the same things; so you take away one, a link will be wanting. There is a general connection through the whole; like a well-regulated community they all move in unison, speaking the same things, observing the same rules, so that a Bible reader may almost with propriety suppose, let him read in what prophecy he may, that he is reading the same prophet, the same author. This will appear evident to anyone who will compare scripture with scripture. For example, see Dan. 12:1, Matt. 24:21, Isa. 47:8, Zeph. 2:15, Rev. 18:7. There never was a book written that has a better connection and harmony than the Bible, and yet it has the appearance of a great store-house full of all the precious commodities heart could desire, thrown in promiscuously; therefore, the biblical student must select and bring together every part of the subject he wishes to investigate, from every part of the Bible; then let every word have its own Scripture meaning, every sentence its proper bearing, and have no contradiction, and your theory will and must of necessity be correct. Truth is one undeviating path, that grows brighter and brighter the more it is trodden; it needs no plausible arguments nor pompous dress to make it more bright, for the more naked and simple the fact, the stronger the truth appears…..

                The time when these things shall take place is also specified, by some of the prophets, unto 2300 days, (meaning [?] years;) then shall the sanctuary be cleansed, after the anti-Christian beast has reigned her “time, times, and a half;” after the two witnesses have prophesied “a thousand two hundred and threescore (2300) days, clothed in sackcloth;” after the church captivity in the wilderness, “forty-two months,” after the “gospel should be preached in all the world for a witness, then shall the end come.” The signs of the times are also given, when we may know, he is near, even at the door. When there are many “lo here’s and lo there’s;” when the way of truth is evil spoken of; when many seducers are abroad in the land; when scoffers disbelieve in his coming, and say, “Where is the promise of his coming;” when the wise and foolish virgins are called to trim their lamps, and the voice of the friend of the bridegroom is, “Behold, he cometh;” when the city of the nations is divided into three parts; when the power of the holy people is scattered, and the kings of the east come up to battle; when there is a time of trouble, such as never was before, and the church in her Laodicean state; when the seventh seal opens, the seventh vial is poured out, the last woe pronounced by the angel flying through the midst of heaven, and the seventh and last trumpet sounds; –then will the mystery of God be finished, and the door of mercy be closed forever; then shall we be brought to the last point, his second coming…..

                If I have erred in my exposition of the prophecies, the time, being so near at hand, will soon expose my folly; but if I have the truth on the subjects treated on in these pages, how important the era in which we live! What vast and important events must soon be realized! and how necessary that every individual be prepared, that day may not come upon them unawares, while they are surfeited with the cares and riches of this life, and the day overtake them as a thief! “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that day should overtake you as a thief,” 1st Thess. 5:4. In studying these prophecies, I have endeavored to divest myself of all prepossessed opinions, not warranted by the word of God, and to weigh well all the objections that might be raised from the Scriptures; and after fourteen years’ study of the prophecies and other parts of the Bible, I have come to the following conclusions, and do now commit myself into the hands of God as my Judge, in giving publicity to the sentiments herein contained, conscientiously desiring that this little book maybe the means to incite others to study the Scriptures, and to see whether these things be so, and that some minds may be led to believe in the word of God, and find an interest in the offering and sacrifice of the Lamb of God, that their sins might be forgiven them through the blood of the atonement, “when the refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of power,” “when he comes to be admired in all them that believe in that day.”…..Wm. Miller, Hampton, Washington, NY.

                Lecture 3: The Two Thousand Three Hundred  (2300) Days. Daniel 8:13,14.

                …..1. I am to explain some of the figures used in the text; and, 1st, the “daily sacrifice.” This may be understood, by some, to mean the Jewish rites and ceremonies, and by others, the Pagan rites and sacrifices. As both Jews and Pagans had their rites and sacrifices both morning and evening, and their altars were kept smoking with  their victims of beasts, and their holy fire was preserved in their national altars and temples devoted to their several deities or gods, we might be at a loss to know which of these to apply this figurative expression to, did not out text and context explain the meaning. It is very evident, when we carefully examine our text, that it is to be understood as referring to Pagan and Papal rites, for it stands coupled with “the abomination of desolation,” and performs the same acts, such as are ascribed to the Papal abomination, “to give both the sanctuary and host to be trodden under foot.” See, also, Rev. 11:2, “But the court, which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” This last text only has reference to the Papal beast, which was the image of the Pagan; but the text in consideration has reference to both Pagan and Papal. That is, How long shall the Pagan transgression and the Papal transgression tread underfoot the sanctuary and host? This must be the true and literal meaning of our text; it could not mean the anti-Christian abomination alone, for they never desolated the Jewish church; neither could it mean Antiochus, the Syrian king; for he and his kingdom were made desolate and destroyed before Christ; and it is evident that Christ had an allusion to this very power, when he told his disciples, Matt 24:15, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place.” I believe all commentators agree that Christ meant the Roman power  –if so, then Daniel has the same meaning; for this is the very passage to which Christ alluded. Then the “daily sacrifice” means Pagan rites and sacrifices, and the transgression of desolation, the Papal; and both together shall tread underfoot the “sanctuary and host,” which brings me to show what may be understood by “sanctuary and host.” By sanctuary, we must understand the temple at Jerusalem, and those who worship therein, which was trodden underfoot by the Pagan kingdoms of the world, since the days of Daniel, the writer of our text; then by the Chaldeans; afterwards by the Medes and Persians; next by the Grecians; and lastly by the Romans, who destroyed the city and sanctuary, levelled the temple with the ground, and caused the plough to pass over the place. The people of the Jews, too, were led into captivity and persecuted by all these kingdoms successively, and finally by the Romans were taken away and destroyed as a nation. And as the prophet Isaiah, 63:18, says, “The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.” Jeremiah, also, in Lam. 1:10, “The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her pleasant things; for she hath seen that the heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation.” The word host is applied to the people who worship in the outer court, and fitly represents the Christian church, who are said to be strangers and pilgrims on the earth, having no continuing places, but looking for a city whose builder and maker is God. Jeremiah, speaking of the gospel church, says, 3:19, “But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the host of nations?” evidently meaning the church from the Gentiles. “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed or justified,” means the true sanctuary which God has built of lively stones to his own acceptance, through Christ, of which the temple at Jerusalem was but a type, the shadows having long since fled away, and that temple and people now destroyed, and all included in unbelief. So whosoever looks for the worldly sanctuary to be built again, will find themselves as much mistaken as the unbelieving Jews were, when they looked for a temporal prince in the Messiah. For there is not a word in the prophets or apostles, after Zerubbabel built the second temple, that a third one would ever be built; except the one which cometh down from heaven, which is a spiritual one, and which is the mother of us all, (Jew and Gentile,) and which is free and when that New Jerusalem is perfected, then shall we be cleansed and justified; for Paul says to the Philippians, 3:20,21, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself;” that is, “they that are his at his coming.” We see by these texts –and many more might be quoted –  that the spiritual sanctuary will not be cleansed until Christ’s second coming; and then all Israel shall be raised, judged, and justified in his sight……

                In these verses we learn that the fourth beast would be diverse from the others. This was true with Rome; that kingdom first rose from a small colony of adventurers settled in Italy. Rome, also, had seven different forms of government, while the others had but one. We learn that this kingdom would devour, break in pieces, harass and perplex the people of God, whether Jew or Gentile; that it would be divided into ten kingdoms, and afterwards there would arise another power which would swallow up three of the ten kingdoms. This was all true with the Roman government. “In A.D. 476, the Western Empire fell, and was divided into ten kingdoms by the Goths, Huns, and Vandals,  – France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Naples, Tuscany, Austria, Lombardy, Rome, and Ravenna. The three last were absorbed in the territory of Rome,” (E. Irwin,) and became the States of the Church, governed by the Papal chair, the little horn that had eyes and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. This description cannot apply to any other power but the church of Rome. “Had eyes,” showing that they made pretence at least to be the household of faith; “eyes” meaning faith, and “mouth that spake very great things,” showing that the church would claim infallibility; “whose look would be more stout than its fellows,” showing that he would claim authority over all other churches, or even the kings, the other horns. See Rev 17:18: “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” That the little horn is a part of the fourth kingdom is evident, for it was to come up among the ten horns which were upon the head of the beast; and there cannot be a shadow of a doubt, even in Scripture itself but that Rome is meant by this fourth beast; for what power but the Roman will answer the description here and elsewhere given in Daniel?

                “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Daniel 7:21,22. In these verses we are taught clearly that anti-Christ will prevail over the church of Christ until the first resurrection and the first judgment, when the saints are raised and judged, which utterly destroys the modern idea of a temporal millennium, a thousand years before the dead are raised and judged. This also agrees with the whole tenor of Scripture; as, “judgment must first begin at the house of God,” and “whom he shall destroy with the brightness of his coming;” when the Ancient of Days shall come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, “to give reward to his servants, the prophets, and them that fear his name, small and great, and destroy them who destroy the earth,” described next verse, 23. 

                “Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times, and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end,” 24-26.  In these verses we have the history of the fourth beast, or Roman power, during 1260 years of the close of this kingdom, which I shall, in some future lecture, show is the meaning of time, times, and a half. We have also another clear description of the Papal power: “He shall speak great words,” etc. –the blasphemies against God, in the pretensions of the Roman clergy to divine power, working miracles, canonizing departed votaries, changing ordinances and laws of God’s house, worshipping saints and images, and performing rites and ceremonies too foolish and ridiculous to be for a moment indulged in, and which any unprejudiced mind cannot for a moment believe to be warranted by divine rule, or example of Christ or his apostles. And we are again brought down to the time when the judgment shall sit: “And the kingdom, and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, (not temporal, as some say, or a thousand years, but an immortal and eternal,) and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” It is very evident that this verse brings us down to the time when the kingdom of Christ will be complete “in the greatness of the kingdom.” Every word in Scripture has a meaning, and its own proper meaning, unless used figuratively, and then explained by Scripture itself. “Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me; but I kept the matter in my heart.”…..

  1. The time or length of the vision – he 2,300 days.

                What must we understand by days? In the prophecy of Daniel it is invariably to be reckoned years; for God hath so ordered the prophets to reckon days. Numb. 14:34, “After the number of days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall you bear your iniquities, even forty years.” Ezek. 4:5,6, “For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity according to the number of days, three hundred and ninety days; so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou has accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days; I have appointed thee each day for a year.” In these passages we prove [?] the command of God. We will also show that it was so called in the days of Jacob, when he served for Rachel, Gen. 29:27: “Fulfil her week (seven days) and we will give thee this also, for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet other seven years.”

                Nothing now remains to make it certain [?] that our vision is to be so understood, but to prove that Daniel has followed this rule. This we will do, if your patience will hold out, and God permit.

                Now turn your attention to the ninth chapter of Daniel, and you will there learn that fifteen years after Daniel had his last vision, and sixty-five years after Daniel explained Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and 538 years B.C., Daniel set his face unto the Lord God by supplication and prayer; and by confession of his own sins, and the sins of the people of Israel, he sought God for mercy, for himself and all Israel.

                And while he was speaking and praying, as he tells us, Daniel 9:21, “Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, (see Daniel 8:16,17), being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplication the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.        “Seventy (70, LXX) weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week, (or last half, as it might have been rendered,) he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abomination, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

                What do we learn from the above passage? We learn our duty in prayer, and God’s goodness in answering. We learn that the angel Gabriel was sent to instruct Daniel, and make him understand the vision. You may inquire what vision? I answer, The one Daniel had in the beginning [8:1-27], for he has had no other. We also learn that Seventy (70) weeks, which is 490 days, (or years, as we shall show,) from the going forth of a certain decree to build the streets and walls of Jerusalem in troublous times, to the crucifixion of the Messiah should be accomplished. We also learn that this seventy (70) weeks is divided into three parts; seven weeks being employed in building the streets and walls in troublous times which is forty-nine (49) years, sixty-two weeks, or four hundred and thirty-four (434) years to the preaching of John in the wilderness, which two, put together, make sixty-nine (69) weeks, or four hundred and eighty-three (483) years, and one week the gospel was preached; John three and a half (3½) years, and Christ three and a half (3½) years, which makes the seventy (70) weeks, or four hundred and ninety (490) years; which, when accomplished, would seal up the vision, and make the prophecy true. We also learn that, after the crucifixion of Christ [i.e. after the 490 years], the Romans would come and destroy the city and sanctuary, and that wars will not cease until the consummation or end of the world. “All that may be true,” says the objector; “but where have you proved that the seventy (70) weeks were four hundred and ninety (490) years?” I agree I have not yet proved it, but will now do it. We shall again turn your attention to the Bible.

                Look at Ezra 7:11-13: “Now this is the copy of the letter that the king, Artaxerxes, gave unto Ezra, the priest, the scribe, a scribe of the law of God: perfect peace, and at such a time. I make a decree that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites in my realm, which are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.” This is the decree given when the walls of Jerusalem were built in troublous times. See, also, Neh. 4:17-23. Ezra and Nehemiah being contemporary, see Neh. 8:1. The decree to Ezra was given in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign, Ezra 7:7, and that to Nehemiah in the twentieth year, Neh. 2:1. Let anyone examine the chronology, as given by Rollin or Josephus, from the seventh year of Artaxerxes to the twenty-second year of Tiberius Caesar, which was the year our Lord was crucified, and he will find it was four hundred and ninety (490) years. The Bible Chronology says that Ezra started to go up to Jerusalem in the 12th day of the first month, (see Ezra 8:31,) 457 years before the birth of Christ; he being 33 when he died, added to 457, will make 490 years. Three of the evangelists tell us he was betrayed two days before the feast of the Passover, and of course was the same day crucified. The Passover was always kept on the 14th day of the first month forever, and Christ being crucified two days before, would make it on the 12th day, 490 years from the time Ezra left the river Ahava to go unto Jerusalem.

                                If this calculation is correct, –and I think no one can doubt it,– then the seventy (70) weeks was fulfilled to a day when our Savior suffered on the cross. Is not the seventy (70) weeks fairly proved to have been fulfilled by years? And does not this prove that our vision and the 2300 days ought to be so reckoned? Yes, if these seventy (70) weeks are a part of the vision. Does not the angel say plainly, I have come to show thee; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision? Yes. Well, what can a man ask for more than plain positive testimony, and a cloud of circumstances agreeing with it?

                But one thing still remains to be proved. When did the 2300 years begin? Did it begin with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? No. For if it had, it must have been fulfilled in the year A.D. 1697. Well, then, did it begin when the angel Gabriel came to instruct Daniel into the 70 weeks? No, for if then, it would have been finished in the year A.D. 1762. Let us begin it where the angel told us, from the going forth of the decree to build the walls of Jerusalem in troublous times, 457 years before Christ; take 457 form 2300, and it will leave A. D. 1843; or take 70 weeks of years being 490 years, from 2300 years, and it will leave 1810 after Christ’s death. Add his life, (because we began to reckon our time at his birth,) which is 33 years, and we come the same A. D. 1843.

                Now let us examine our subject, and see what we have learned by it thus far. And,

1. We learn that there are two abominations spoken of by Daniel. The first is the pagan mode of worship, which was performed by the sacrificing of beasts upon altars, similar to the Jewish rites, and by which means the nations around Jerusalem drew away many of the Jews into idolatry, and brought down the heavy judgments of God upon idolatrous Israel; and God permitted his people to be led into captivity, and persecuted by the very nations that they, the Jews, had been so fond of copying after in their mode of worship. Therefore were the sanctuary and place of worship at Jerusalem trodden down by Pagan worshippers; and the altars, erected by the command of God, and according to the pattern and form which God had prescribed, were broken down and more fashionable altars of the heathen erected in their room. Thus were the commands of God disobeyed, his laws perverted, his people enslaved, the sanctuary trodden down, and the temple polluted, until at last God took away the Jewish rites and ceremonies, instituted new forms, new laws, and set up the gospel kingdom in the world. This, for a season, was kept pure from the worldly sanctuaries and policy of Satan. But Satan, an arch enemy, found his Pagan abominations could have but little or no effect to draw the followers of Christ into idolatry, for they believed the bloody rites and sacrifices had their fulfillment in Christ. Therefore, in order to carry the war into the Christian camp, he suffers the daily sacrifice abomination to be taken out of the way, and sets up Papacy, which is more congenial to the Christian mode of worship in its outside forms and ceremonies, but retaining all the hateful qualities of the former. He persuades them to erect images to some or all of the dear apostles; and even to Christ, and Mary, the “Mother of God.” He then flatters them that the church is infallible. (Here was a strong cord by which he could punish all disputers.) He likewise gives them the keys of heaven, (or Peter, as they call it.) This will secure all authority. He then clothes them with power to make laws, and to dispense with those which God had made. This capped the climax. In this he would fasten many thousands who might protest against some of his more vile abominations; yet habit and custom might secure them to a willing obedience to his laws, and to a total neglect of the laws of God. This was Satan’s masterpiece; and, as Daniel says, “he would think to change times and laws, and they should be given into his hand for a time, times, and a half; but they shall take away his dominion to consume and destroy it unto the end.” Therefore, when this last abomination of desolation shall be taken away, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed…..

2. We learn that this vision is two thousand three hundred days long; that days are to be reckoned years –1st, By the command of God; 2nd, By the example of Jacob; and 3rd, By the fulfillment of the seventy weeks of this vision, at the crucifixion of the Messiah. We learn by the instruction of Gabriel that the seventy weeks were a part of the vision, and that Daniel was commanded to begin the seventy weeks at the going forth of the decree, to build the streets and walls of Jerusalem in troublous times; that this decree, given to Ezra, was exactly 490 years, to a day, before the crucifixion of Christ; and that there is no account, by Bible or any historian, that there was ever any other decree to build the streets or walls of Jerusalem. We think the proof is strong, that the vision of Daniel begins 457 years before Christ; take which from 2300, leaves 1843, after Christ, when the vision must be finished. But the objector may say, “Perhaps your vision does not begin with the seventy (70) weeks.” Let me ask two or three questions. Does not the angel say to Daniel, (23, “Therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision”? “Yes.” Does not the angel then go on and give his instruction concerning the seventy (70) weeks? “Yes.” Do you believe the Bible is true? “We do.” Then if the Bible is true, Daniel’s 70 weeks are a part of the vision, and 490 years were accomplished when the Messiah was cut off, and not for himself. Then 1810 years afterwards the vision is completed; and we now live about 1803 years after; of course it must have begun within seven years of that date. But it is very reasonable to suppose it began with the seventy weeks; for the angel said it would establish the vision, that is, make it sure; for if the 70 weeks were exactly fulfilled at the death of Christ, then would the remainder be in 1810 years after, which would be fulfilled A. D. 1843, as we have before shown…..

                                Lecture 4: Daniel 9:24.

                …..This text furnished Simeon, Anna, Nathaniel, and others, with a strong faith that they should see the consolation of Israel.

                By this text [?] the high priest convinced the council of the necessity of putting to death Jesus. “Then gathered the chief priests and Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him; and the Romans will come, and take away both our place and nation.”

                “And one of them, named Caiaphas, being high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man, should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself, (not his own prophecy;) but being high priest that year, he prophesied (from Daniel’s seventy weeks; for there is not another prophecy in the Old Testament which shows what year Christ should suffer) that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that, also, he should gather together in one the children of God, that were scattered abroad,” John 11:47-53.

                The high priest argues that Jesus must die for the people.

                The seventy (70) weeks shows that the Messiah must be cut off at the close of the last week, and not for himself. Also Peter had occasion to say in his epistle, “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you, searching what, or what manner of time, the spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow,” 1st Peter 1:10,11.

                Where was the exact time of Christ’s sufferings prophesied of but in Daniel’s seventy (70) weeks? Again, to this Christ alludes when he says, “My time is not yet fully come;” And, “Then they sought to take Him, but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come:” that is, the seventy (70) weeks were not yet fulfilled [?], John 7:8,30. Mark tells us, 14:41, “The hour is come; behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

                The seventy (70) weeks were now being fulfilled. And then, at last, when Jesus had completed His work, when the fullness of time had come, He finished transgression, and made an end of sin: He then cried, “It is finished, and gave up the ghost.” The seventy (70) weeks ended, our text was fulfilled; Christ had now become the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone that believeth; He that knew no sin had become sin for us, and Death had struck his last blow that He would ever be able to give the Son of God. Daniel’s vision is now made sure –the Messiah cut off, the time proved true, as given by the prophet Daniel.

                Now, ye infidels, can this be priestcraft? And, ye Judaizing teachers, is not this the Christ? Why look ye for another?

                I shall now take up the text in the following manner:

  1. I shall show what is to be done in seventy (70, LXX) weeks.
  2. When the seventy (70, LXX) weeks began, and when they ended.
  1. The text tells us, “Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city;” that is, upon the Jews, who then were the people of Daniel, and also in Jerusalem, which then was called the “holy city.” The first question which would naturally arise on the mind, would be, What for to do? The text and its context must tell us.

                1st. “To finish the transgression.” When was transgression finished? I answer, At the death of Christ. See Heb. 9:15, “And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Isaiah 53:8,”For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people was He stricken.”

                2nd. “And to make an end of sins.” This was also performed at this death. See Heb. 9:26, “But now once in the end of the world hath He appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” And 1st John 3:5, “Ye know that He (Christ) was manifested to take away our sins.”

                3rd. “And to make reconciliation for iniquity.” Was this also performed at His death? Yes. See Col. 1:20, “And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things to Himself.” Heb 2:17, “Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren; that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

                4th. “And to bring in everlasting righteousness.” “This must be by Christ’s obedience,” says the objector, “and cannot be at his death.” Not so fast, dear sir: let us hear the testimony. Romans 5:21, “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.” And, “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Again, see Phil 2:8, “And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Paul says, “I do note frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;” evidently showing, that by Christ’s obedience unto death, He brought in everlasting righteousness.

                5th. “To seal up the vision and prophecy.” What does “to seal up” mean? I answer, it means to make sure, certain, unalterable. Consult Esther 3:12; 8:8. Solomon says, “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm;” that is, make me sure in thy love, and certain by thy power. John says, “He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.” 1 John 3:33. Paul to Rome, 15:28, “When I have performed this, and sealed to them this fruit;” that is, made sure the contributions. Again, to Timothy, 2nd Epistle, 2:19, “Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.” Therefore the death of Christ would make Daniel’s vision sure; for if a part of the vision should be exactly fulfilled, as to time and manner, then the remainder of the vision would be accomplished in manner and time, as literally as the seventy (70) weeks had been.

                6th. “And anoint the Most Holy.” The most Holy, in this passage, must mean Christ; for no human being can, or ought to claim this appellation, save him whom God hath anointed to be a Savior in Israel, and a King in Zion. See Acts 10:38, “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Also, Acts 4:27, “For of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, Whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done.” Heb. 1:9, “Therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.”

                It will next be requisite to inquire, When was Christ anointed?

                I answer, When the Holy Ghost descended upon Him, and when He was endued with power from on high to work miracles. See Isa. 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek: He hath sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”

                After Christ was baptized by John, and after being tempted of the devil forty days in the wilderness, he went in the spirit into Galilee, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as his custom was, and he stood up to read. They gave him the book of Isaiah. When he opened the book he found the passage which I have just quoted. After reading it he shut up the book and sat down. He then began to say unto them, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears,” Luke 4:1-21. This passage plainly proves that Christ was anointed on or before this day.

                Other things were to be done in the seventy (70) weeks, such as, The cutting off of the Messiah, but not for himself. This can mean nothing less than the crucifixion of Christ. See Luke 24:26, 46. “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.” Rom 5:6, “For when we were without strength, in due time (or according to the time of seventy (70) weeks) Christ died for us.”

                “And he (Messiah)[?] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” What covenant is this to be confirmed? I answer, It cannot be the Jewish covenant, for that was confirmed by Moses many hundred years before Daniel lived. There are but two covenants, it must of necessity be the new covenant of which Christ is the Mediator; Moses having been the mediator of the old, and Christ afterwards of the new. If these things are so, and the gospel covenant is meant by Daniel, then the time the gospel was preached by John and Christ is here called a week; for Christ himself preached more than seven [literal] days. Christ kept three Passovers with the Jews after He began His ministry, and before He nailed the ceremonial [?] law to His cross. This is stronger evidence that a week is seven years, and that Daniel’s 70 weeks are to be understood as meaning 490 years.

                Again, “In the midst of the week he should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” or, as all [?] Hebrew scholars agree, “In the last half of the week,” etc., is the more proper translation; and it is evident that this translation would harmonize with the other parts of the passage, “the sacrifice and oblation to cease.”

                What sacrifice and offering is this, which the Messiah was to cause to cease? I answer, It must of course be that one offering and sacrifice for sin of which all other offerings and sacrifices were but types. It could not be the Jewish sacrifices and offerings, for two good reasons.

                1st. This is but one sacrifice, and the Jews had many. It does not say sacrifices; therefore it cannot mean Jewish sacrifices, nor offerings.

                2nd reason. The Jewish sacrifices and offerings did not cease in, nor even very nigh, the last half of the week in which the Messiah confirmed the covenant with many; and, even to the present day, they make oblations, if not sacrifices. It must mean that sacrifice and oblation which the Messiah was to make to God for sin, once for all. It must mean that sacrifice which is the antitype  of all the legal sacrifices from the days of Abel to the days of the Messiah. Let us hear what Paul says, Heb. 7:27, “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this he did once when he offered up himself.”        See also Heb. 10:11,12. “And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but his man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” Many more passages might be brought to show that all sacrifices and oblations which could take away sin, or in which God the Father could be well pleased, ceased in Christ’s one sacrifice and oblation. But I have given enough to satisfy every candid, unprejudiced mind; therefore I shall,

  1. Try to prove when the seventy (70, LXX) weeks began, and when they ended.

                The angel Gabriel tells Daniel, 9:25, “Know, therefore, and understand, that, from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

                In this passage we have a plain declaration when the seventy (70) weeks began: “from the going forth of the commandment.” But what commandment? we may inquire. I answer, A command that will finally restore the Jews from their captivity under which they then were held in bondage; also to prepare the way for them to rebuild their city, repeople the same, and raise up the decayed walls, settle the streets, and cleanse the city of Jerusalem; and these things would be done in troublous times. So much is expressed or implied in the declaration of Gabriel, which I have just quoted.

                Who would give the command? is the next question. I answer, it must be a king who had power over the Jews to release and restore them. It must of necessity be a king over the Medes and Persians, or it would not be in agreement with the vision in the 8th chapter of Daniel; for he is expressly told by Gabriel that the ram he saw, and which was the first thing he did see in the vision, were the kings of Media and Persia. And now this same angel Gabriel has come the second time, and tells Daniel, plainly and distinctly, that he has come to make him “understand the vision.” What vision? The one Daniel had in the beginning, in the 8th chapter. See Daniel 9:21-23.

                Then Gabriel begins his instructions by giving him seventy (70) weeks of the vision, and then shows him, verse 24, when his seventy (70) weeks begin; or, which is the same thing, “the vision.” To read and understand the matter thus far, infidelity itself must blush to deny the premises.

                Then, if we have settle this question, the next question would be, Which king of Persia, and what commandment? I answer, It must be the fifth king of Persia noted in the Scripture of truth; for the angel Gabriel, the third time he visited Daniel to give him skill and understanding into “the vision,” says, “But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth,” Dan. 10:21. This shows that he was instructing Daniel into a vision which he before had seen, and written in the Scriptures. See Dan. 7:1, “Then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.” Dan 10:14, “Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the vision is for many days.” What vision? The one noted in the Scripture of truth, says Gabriel. Then, in Dan. 1:2, he begins his instruction to him of the vision, which he was commanded by the voice between the banks of Ulai to make him understand, by saying, “And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.” This fourth king was the ram pushing, and was the fifth king of Persia, being the fourth from Cyrus, who was then standing up. See Dan. 10:1.

                The kings, as Ezra has named them in his 4th chapter and 7th chapter, were, 1st, Cyrus; 2nd, Ahasuerus; 3rd, Artaxerxes, (the first;) 4th, Darius; 5th, Artaxerxes (Longimanus;) this last being the king who gave the commandment to Ezra to restore all the captive Jews who were willing to go to Jerusalem.

                What commandment? is our next question to answer. The decree given by Cyrus (see Ezra 1:1-11) cannot be the decree meant by the angel, for the four following reasons: –

                1st. Cyrus was the first king of Persia, and of course cannot be the fifth king, as we have already shown.

                2nd reason. The decree of Cyrus was two years before the angel gave his last instruction to Daniel, and he would not have spoken of it as being future, if it has already passed: “There shall yet stand up three kings,” etc.

                3rd reason. Cyrus’s decree was not given to build Jerusalem, but “the house of God which was at Jerusalem;” neither were the walls built in troublous times, under the decree of Cyrus.

                4th reason. This decree by Cyrus was given 536 years before the birth of Christ, or 569 years before his death. Therefore no rules of interpretation given in the Scriptures could possibly show how those things were accomplished in seventy (70) weeks, which Gabriel has shown, in our text and context, were determined to be done. This, then, cannot be the commandment, and harmonize with either Bible or facts.

                Again: the decree given by Darius, Ezra 6:1-14, cannot be the commandment to which the angel alluded, for the same reasons we have shown that Cyrus’s decree could not be the one; for this was only a renewal of the former, and this decree was issued 552 years before Christ’s death.

                The next decree or command of any king of Persia we find in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus.) See Ezra 7:6-28. In this decree we find the last command of any king of Persia to restore the captive Jews. We learn that, in this decree, the king furnished them with money and means to beautify and adorn the temple which had been built by Darius’s order a number of years before. We find that the interdict, Ezra 4:21, in which the Jews were commanded not to build Jerusalem, is now removed by its own limitation, “until another commandment be given from me.” This decree, therefore, took off this command. We learn by Ezra’s prayer, 9:9, that Ezra understood that the decree to which we allude did give them the privilege of building, in, Judah and Jerusalem, the wall which had been broken down. After Ezra had been high priest and governor in Jerusalem thirteen years, Nehemiah was permitted to go up to assist Ezra in building Jerusalem and repairing the walls, which was done in troublous times, under Nehemiah’s administration, which lasted in all 39 years. See Nehemiah, 4th to the 7th chapter. Ezra and Nehemiah, both of them having served as governors 49 years.

                Here, then, we find the fulfilment of what the angel told Daniel would be done under the command that would begin the seventy (70) weeks, and which is the same thing –”the vision.” This decree was given 457 years before Christ: the seventy (70) weeks began, and if they ended at the death of Christ, which we have proved did end them, then the seventy (70)weeks ended after Christ 33 years, making, in all, 490 years, which is 70 weeks of years.

                But it is evident that Gabriel has divided the seventy (70) weeks into three parts, and I think clearly explains the use of this division.

                “Shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” Then, as if you should inquire, What is seven weeks for? he explains, “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Ezra and Nehemiah were 49 years, or seven weeks of years, performing these very things, which ended before Christ 408. See large edition of Polyglot Bible. What is sixty-two (62) weeks for? The angel has already told us, “Unto the Messiah, the Prince;” that is, to the time Christ was anointed to preach, the meaning of Messiah. Sixty-two (62) weeks are 434 days; or weeks of years would be 434 years, which, beginning where the seven weeks ended, 408, would end 26 years after Christ, the year John began to preach as forerunner of Christ. Then “he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week,” making in all the seventy (70) weeks. Thus the seven weeks ended with the administration of Nehemiah, B.C. 408. Then the sixty-two (62) weeks ended when John began to preach the gospel, A.D. 26; and the one week was fulfilled in A.D. 33, when Christ offered himself upon the cross, as an offering and sacrifice for sin; “by which offering we are sanctified once for all.” For he need not offer himself often, as the high priest did, under the law. “But now, once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Heb. 9:26, Therefore, “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.” That is the only and last sacrifice and oblation that will be ever offered in our world, which can take away sin; “for there remaineth,” says the apostle, “no more sacrifice for sin.” Then let me inquire, What is the sum of the instruction of the angel to Daniel? I will sum it up in as few words as I can.

                After Daniel had a certain vision, commonly called “the vision of the ram, the he-goat, and the little horn,” Daniel heard one saint inquire of another, how long that vision should be. The answer was given Daniel, that it should be unto 2300 days, when the sanctuary should be cleansed or justified. Daniel then heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Accordingly, Gabriel came to Daniel, and informed him that at the end of the world, or time appointed of God, the vision should be fulfilled. He then tells him that the ram represented the Mede and Persian kingdom; and that the rough goat represented the Grecian kingdom; gives a short history of that kingdom, and its four divisions; then shows, at the close of these kingdoms, that another king would arise, (meaning the kingdom of the little horn, or Roman, describing him exactly as Moses had described the Romans many centuries before. See Deuteronomy 28:49,50. “The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance.” This, no person will dispute, means the Romans. Then why not a similar description in Daniel, 8:23? “When the transgressors (meaning the Jews) are come to the fall, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up, and his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.”

                I think the reader, divested of prejudice, cannot apply the description given in the above quotation to any other nation but the Romans. “And through his policy, he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.” This description agrees with Paul’s man of sin, the mystery of iniquity which worked in his day, and which would be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’ coming. See 2nd Thess. 2:3-8. “So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Gabriel says, “And he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;” that is, against God; the very same character which Paul has described. “But he shall be broken without hand,” that is, “by the brightness of his (Chris’s) coming,” as says Paul. But as Daniel has said, “By the stone cut out of the mountain without hand;” or, as he says, Daniel 7:21,22, “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

                After Gabriel had instructed Daniel thus far, he left him. Sixteen years afterwards, Gabriel came again to Daniel, and informed him, that he had come to instruct him, and give him skill and understanding into the vision, of which we have been speaking. He then gives him the seventy (70) weeks, shows what would be accomplished in that time, the cutting off of the Messiah, and the ceasing of the sacrifice and oblation. He mentions the destruction of Jerusalem, and the war of the little horn; the desolation of the people of God, and overspreading of abominations, He carries us to the consummation, destruction of the little horn, called here the desolator. See marginal reading. Gabriel, after giving the history of the seventy (70) weeks, dwells not in detail on the remainder of the vision, but reserves a more detailed account for the next visit, which is given unto us in the 10th to the 12th chapter of Daniel inclusive.

                But the seventy (70) weeks, of which we are more particularly speaking, the angel Gabriel has told us when it began: at the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, etc. We have found no command that will apply in all its bearings, but the one given to Ezra, which was given in the 457th year before the birth of Christ; and 33 years afterwards Christ was crucified; which two numbers, if added, make 490 years, exactly seventy (70) weeks of years. We learn that Gabriel, in order to make the vision doubly sure, divides the seventy (70) weeks into three part, seven, sixty-two, and one, making in all seventy (70). He then tells us plainly what would be accomplished in each part separately.

                1st. Seven weeks. “The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times,” No man can dispute but that this was accomplished under the administration of Ezra and Nehemiah. And it is very evident that these two were governors over Jerusalem 49 years, which makes the seven weeks of years, and carries us down the stream of time to the year 408 B. C.

                2nd. Sixty-two (62) weeks. “Unto the Messiah, the Prince;” that is, unto the time that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power to preach the gospel, either in himself or forerunner John. See Mark 1:1. Sixty-two (62) weeks of years would be 434 years. This would carry us down to twenty-six years after Christ’s birth, and brings us to the very year of “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.” Mark 1:1.

                3rd. One week. “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” One week would, of course, be seven (7) years, which, added to twenty-six, would make thirty-three years after Christ. Here, too, we find an exact and literal accomplishment of the angel’s declaration. The gospel of Jesus Christ preached by John three and a half (3½) years, and by Christ three and half (3½) years, making seven (7) years, called one week and then Messiah cut off, and not for Himself, Christ crucified, ends the seventy (70) weeks, proves Daniel’s prophecy true; establishes the vision, confounds the Jew, confutes the infidel, and ought to establish the mind of every believer in the remainder of the vision.

                Here, then, is a combination of facts and circumstances, together with dates and times, which throws upon the mind such strong array of testimony, that it would seem no rational being could withstand the proof. And me thinks I hear some say, Why all this argument?

                No one but a Jew ever disputed, but that the seventy (70) weeks were fulfilled at the death of Christ, and that a day in his prophecy was a figure of a year.

                I should not have been thus particular, and have trespassed so much on your time to prove a given point in Christendom, had I not recently met with more than one Christian professor, and even teachers in Zion, who deny that the seventy (70) weeks ended with the death of Christ, or that a day in this prophecy means a year. Some have gone so far in infidelity as to deny that “Most Holy,” in our text, and “Messiah,” in our context, means Christ. This surely would make a Jew blush. I agree that I never anticipated that any objection could be raised on those points, without a willful perversion of language, and a total disregard of the word of God.

                But man, in his fallen state, is an unaccountable, strange being; if his favorite notions are crossed, he will, to avoid conclusions, deny even his own senses. Therefore it becomes necessary for me to prove, what has been considered by many, even of the objectors themselves in previous time, given points in theology.

                It is not more than four years since many of the clergy and D.D.’s in the city of New York met a delegation of the Jewish patriarchs from the East, and in their conference the clergy and doctors brought forward the seventy (70) weeks in Daniel, as proof positive of Jesus of Nazareth being the true Messiah. They explained the seventy (70) weeks in the same manner I have to you, and asked the Jews how they could avoid the conclusions? and I understand they could get no answer. Now, suppose these same clergy and D.D.’s should meet me on the question now pending; I should not be greatly disappointed if they should deny my premises. “Why would they do thus?” say you. I answer, For the same reason that the lawyer hesitated, when he learned that it was his bull that gored the farmer’s ox.

                “But might we not understand the seventy (70) weeks to be so many literal weeks, that is, 490 common days?” say you. I answer, If so, then the command to build Jerusalem must have been given only a year and a third before Christ’s death; and it would have been very improper for Gabriel to have said, “Unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two (69) weeks,”: when he had already come, and had been preaching more than two years before the weeks began. No, my friends; every reasonable controversialist must acknowledge there is no possible way to get rid of our conclusion but to deny that Most Holy, and Messiah, means Christ, in our text and context. And I pity, and leave the man in the hands of him who knows all hearts, that is forced on to ground so untenable as this.

                If I have got a right understanding of the seventy (70) weeks, that a day stands for a year, –and I have never been able to find a Christian expositor who disagrees with me on this point, either modern or ancient, – then the conclusion is, as far as I can see, unavoidable, that the vision of Daniel is 2300 years long, and that the 490 years before Christ’s death is not only the key to unlock the commencing of the vision, but shows conclusively how and when, and manner and time, the kingdoms of this world will be broken to pieces an carried away, and no place found for them, by the stone which will become a great mountain and fill the whole earth.

                For the seventy (70) weeks must seal up the vision and make the prophecy of Daniel true. Then, if 2300 days is the length of the vision, and 490 days of that vision were fulfilled in 490 years ending with Christ’s death, so must 1810 days end the vision, which, upon precisely the same rule, will be fulfilled in 1810 years after Christ’s death, or in 1843 after his birth, which is the same thing.

                But, say some, “Daniel did not understand the vision nor end.” Then the angel Gabriel was not obedient to the heavenly command; for he was commanded to make Daniel “understand the vision,” and the vision and end are connected by the angel himself. He says, “At the time of the end shall be the vision.”

                Again: if Daniel did not understand, the angel must have been disappointed; for the angel says, “Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation; for at the time appointed, (2300 days,) the end shall be.”

                Again: if Daniel did not understand the vision and time, then his own words cannot be taken as evidence. “A thing was revealed unto Daniel, and the thing was true, but the time appointed (2300 days was long.” This shows that Daniel understood the time; for he says it was long. For no man would have called 2300 common days (not quite seven years) a long time for so many great and important events, as are noticed in the vision, to transpire in. “And he understood the thing, (that is, the time,) and had understanding of the vision.” Daniel 10:1…..

                Lecture 5: Pagan Rome Numbered: Rev. 13:18 & Daniel’s 4th Kingdom: Roman Government: Imperial & Papal.

                Lecture 6: Daniel’s Vision of the Latter Days; or, An exposition of the Eleventh Chapter of Daniel.

                ….. the heavenly messenger is –the same who confirmed Daniel in the seventy (70) weeks. See Daniel 9:1, 21. And in the second verse he begins with the fifth king of Persia, the very same king who issued the decree to Ezra to go up and build the walls of Jerusalem, which began our seventy (70) weeks, Daniel 9:25; Ezra 7:1-14. For the first Persian king was then on the throne, Daniel 10:1, which was the third year of the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia. This was the same Cyrus who was general and son-in-law to Darius the Mede, that conquered Babylon. Besides whom “there should be yet three kings,” which three kings were Artaxerxes, Darius, and Ahasuerus, as they are named in Scripture. See Ezra, 4, 5, and 6 chapters. I am aware that history has named four where Scripture has only named three. History names, 1, Cambyses; 2, Smerdis, same as Artaxerxes above name in Scripture; 3, Darius, son of Hystaspes, same as above; 4, Xerxes, same as Scripture calls Ahasuerus. Why the Scripture did not name Cambyses, if there was such a king, I am not able to tell, unless his reign was so short (which all historians agree in) that he had no hand in building or hindering the building of the temple at Jerusalem, as the other three kings had, which Ezra has named. But as Gabriel did not come to tell Daniel anything which was not “noted in the Scripture of truth,” (see Daniel 10:21, “But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth,”) therefore the language of our text now under examination will be this  –”There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia, (noted in the Scripture of truth,) and the fourth shall be far richer than they all,” etc. This fourth king was Artaxerxes Longimanus, and is the same king noted in Ezra 7 and the first and only king of Persia “noted in the Scriptures,” who ever gave a decree to rebuild the walls and streets of Jerusalem, especially in troublous times. We may therefore reasonably and conclusively determine that the messenger Gabriel begins his instruction with this king’s reign, the 5th king noted in Scripture. And if so, we have another strong and forcible evidence that Daniel’s vision of the ram and he-goat began with the seventy weeks, 457 years before the birth of Christ, and 490 years, or 70 prophetic weeks, before his death, Dan. 11: 3,4. We have the plain history of Alexander, the conqueror of the world, his death, and division of the kingdom into four great empires. Hear what Gabriel says of him more than 200 years before the event happened, and learn, ye skeptics, the evidence that this prophecy is of divine origin. “And a mighty king shall stand up that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those,” (that is, his posterity.)

                Need I, then, tell my hearers that history tells us that Alexander conquered the then known world in about six years, and that he died 323 years B.C. at Babylon; that his kingdom was divided among his greatest generals, from which division arose four great kingdoms, Egypt in the south, Persia in the east, Syria in the north, and Macedonia in the west, which kingdoms lasted until conquered by the Romans? Between the years 190 and 30 B.C. nearly all these kingdoms became Roman provinces. From Daniel 11:5,13, inclusive, we have a prophecy of the two principal kingdoms out of these four  –Egypt and Syria; and anyone who may have the curiosity to see the exact agreement between the prophecy and history, can read Rollin’s Ancient History, where he has not only given us the history, but applied this prophecy. And as I see no reason to disagree from him in his application of these texts, I shall, therefore, for brevity’s sake, pass over these texts, and examine the text,

                Dan 11:14, “And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also, the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.” The king of the south, in this verse, without any doubt, means king of Egypt; but what the robbers of thy people means remains yet a doubt perhaps to some. That it cannot mean Antiochus, or any king of Syria, it is plain; for the angel had been talking about that nation for a number of verses previous, and now says, “also the robbers of thy people,” etc., evidently implying some other nation. I will admit that Antiochus did perhaps rob the Jews; but how could this “establish the vision,” as Antiochus is not spoken of anywhere in the vision as performing any act of that kind; for he belonged to what is called the Grecian kingdom in the vision. Again, “to establish the vision,” must mean to make sure, complete, or fulfill the same. And if it cannot be shown that the Grecian kingdom was to rob the people of God, I think it must mean some other nation which would do these acts, to which every word will apply. And to this we need not be at a loss; for at this very time of which the angel is speaking, Rome, the least kingdom in Daniel’s vision, did exalt itself, and this kingdom did have the very marks in the vision, and in the even-12, 24,25 verses. And it cannot be denied but that the Jews have been robbed of their city and sanctuary by the Romans, and the Christian church has been persecuted and robbed by this dreadful beast, the Roman kingdom. It is evident too that when this kingdom falls, the vision will be completed, fulfilled, established: “but they shall fall,” says the angel in the verse under our present examination; “they shall fall;” that is, the ten horns in this fourth kingdom, when the vision is fulfilled or established, and when the stone cut out of the mountain without hands shall grind them to powder.

                We will take the 15th, “So the king of the north” (Rome is now the king of the north, because they had conquered the Macedonian kingdom, and had become masters of the countries north and east before they attacked Egypt) “shall come and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.” This was about fifty years before Christ, when Pompey, a Roman general, conquered Egypt, and made that kingdom tributary to the Romans, and afterwards entered Jerusalem, and made them subjects of the Roman government.

                See verses 16 and 17, “But he that cometh against him (Pompey coming against Egypt) shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him, and he shall stand in the glorious land which by his hand shall be consumed.” “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him,” (or men of equal conditions, as it might have been rendered.) The Roman army, of which Pompey had the command, when he went into Egypt and Palestine, were composed of the sons of all the principal citizens of Rome, who were, according to the laws of the republic, to serve ten years in the service of their country before they were admitted to receive the high offices which they might afterwards be candidates for. This accounts for the language just read in the text –”upright ones with him.” And “thus shall he do: he shall give him the daughter of woman, corrupting her; but she shall not stand on his side nor be for him.” When Pompey went into Egypt, he found that country divided between Ptolemy and Cleopatra. Pompey, after he had made them tributary to the Romans, compelled them to settle their differences by marriage. Afterwards, when Julius Caesar came against Pompey with his western veterans, with whom he had conquered the west part of Europe, and in the battle fought between these two contending rivals, Pompey and Julius Caesar, Cleopatra had the command of the Egyptian fleet on the side of Pompey; but in the midst of the action she deserted over to Caesar with her whole fleet, which turned the fortune of the day in favor of Julius Caesar. Pompey then fled into the Grecian isles, where he compelled many of them to declare in his favor. But Caesar soon followed him, and at the battle of Pharsalia completely defeated Pompey, who was slain by a band of pirates or robbers. 

                This part we have in the 18th verse, “After this shall he (Pompey) turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many; but a prince (Caesar) for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him (Pompey) to cease; without his own (Caesar) reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him, (Pompey:) 19th verse, “Then he (Caesar) shall turn his face towards the fort of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.” The history of Caesar’s death is familiar to every school-boy. After he had conquered Pompey, he returned to Rome, entered the city in triumph, and a few days after, when he was about to be crowned Emperor, he was slain in the senate-house, before Pompey’s pillar, by his own friends; “he stumbled and fell, and was not found.”       20th verse, “Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes, in the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle.” This verse describes Octavius Caesar, who first taxed the Roman provinces, Judea being taxed (see Luke 2:1,5) when our Savior was born; but Octavius Caesar, afterwards called Augustus Caesar, was not slain like his uncle Julius, nor like his successors; but died peaceably in his bed.      21st and 22nd verses, “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom; but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overthrown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also, the prince of the covenant.” In these two verses we have the history of Tiberius Caesar, who was the successor of Octavius Caesar in the Roman empire; and was one of the most vile, profligate, bloody tyrants that ever sat upon the Roman throne. History gives us the same account, that he obtained by flatteries the kingdom, and afterwards ruled it by tyranny. He also assumed the name of Augustus. In his reign Christ was crucified, “the Prince of the covenant was broken.” Here ends the history of the seventy weeks. This prophetic history being divided into four divisions, the first part is the history of the seventy weeks, to which we have been attending, which began in the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign, and ended in the 22nd year of Tiberius Caesar’s, being four hundred and ninety years; the second part will be the history of Pagan Rome, which begins with the first league made between the Romans and the Jews, and will carry us down six hundred and sixty-six years. You will likewise observe that the angel goes back and begins this history with the league.      22nd verse, “And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.”92         Let us in the first place inquire, Between whom is this league made? The Romans must be one of the contracting parties, from the fact that the angel is talking about that government before and afterwards, and that the fourth or Roman kingdom was to work deceitfully, “and through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.” See Daniel 8:25. And also from the circumstance of their being a small or republican people at first, Rome, too, was small in territory at this time, although many nations and kingdoms were tributary unto them; but who was the other contracting party in this league? I answer, It must have been some people whom the angel had in view; and he, Daniel, had the same in view, or he would have given some mark by which Daniel or the reader could have come to a just conclusion. Yes, this was the case; for he had told Daniel in the very outset, “Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days.” See our text. This, then, is the key that unlocks the whole subject, and explains two important points in the vision. First, it teaches who are the subjects of this vision; and, secondly, when, and how the Roman kingdom became connected with the vision. If I am thus far correct, then the angel has reference to the league made with the Romans 158 years B.C., when the Grecian general Bachides withdrew his army from before Jerusalem, and never returned to vex the Jews any more, as says 1st Maccabees 9:72. For the history of this league, you can read 1st Maccabees 8 and Josephus B. 12 chap. 10 sec. 6. This league was the first ever made between the Romans and the Jews, according to Josephus. It took effect 158 years B.C., when the Grecian kingdom, at the command of the Romans, ceased to trouble the Jews, and the Romans began to work deceitfully. Then began the Pagan beast to exercise his influence over the people of God.             And now let us pursue his history as given by the angel Gabriel, 24th verse, “He shall enter peaceably, even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches; yea, he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds even for a time.” This verse is a true history of the rise of the Roman power; they did scatter the prey and spoil among the provinces, and conquered more nations by their munificence and benevolence in the outset, than by their arms or battles. Rome bought more nations by riches and intrigue than she conquered in war; and she compelled the Jews to submit for about two centuries to that which no nation before had been able ever to do, viz., to be ruled by kings, governors, and high priests, appointed by the Romans, and not chosen by themselves.

                25th verse, “And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall forecast devices against him.” This is a description of the war in Egypt, under the government of Mark Anthony and Octavius Caesar. “Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow, and many shall fall down slain.” When Antony went into Egypt with a great army, Cleopatra, then queen of Egypt, deserted her husband’s standard, as she had before Pompey’s, and went over to Mark Antony with all the forces she could command, by which means Egypt became an easy prey to the Romans; so that a part of the Egyptian army, that fed of the portion of the king’s meat, were the means of destroying the kingdom. “And both of these kings’ hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.” These two kings are Antony and Octavius, their characters agreeing with the description given in this passage; history agreeing that they ruled over the Romans for a season jointly, and that they were both of them great deceivers and liars. History also informs us that after Antony had conquered Egypt, he and Octavius quarreled; Octavius Caesar declared war against Antony, marched an army toward Egypt, and at the battle of Actium defeated Antony and Cleopatra’s forces, afterwards took Alexandria in Egypt, and Antony and Cleopatra put themselves to death, and Egypt becomes a Roman province. This was thirty years before the birth of Christ.

                28, “Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits and return to his own land.” Then Octavius returned to Rome. And the next exploit that this fourth kingdom would do would be against the holy covenant. They, by their authority, crucified our Savior, persecuted the saints, and destroyed Jerusalem; and this fills up the acts of this Pagan history until towards the close of the reign of the Pagan beast.

                29, “At the time appointed, he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.” The time appointed must mean the length of the reign of this beast, whose history the angel is now giving, which I have shown, in a former lecture, is 666 years. “He shall return, and come towards the south,” not as the former or latter. Not as the Romans going into Egypt, the latter; nor the Syrians going into Egypt, as the former; but Italy must now take her turn to be overrun by the northern barbarians.

                Therefore the angel says, in the next verse, see 30, (“For the ships of Chittim shall come against him;”) the meaning of which is, that the Huns, which lived on the north of the Adriatic Sea, the place where it was anciently called Chittim, under their leader Attila, (surnamed the Scourge of God,) should ravage the Roman empire. This was fulfilled 447 years after Christ. “Therefore he shall be grieved and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so shall he do; he shall return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.”

                About the time that Attila ravaged the Roman empire, Christians conceived it to be a judgment of God upon the Romans for their idolatry and wickedness, refused to bear arms in favor of the Roman emperors, which led to a bloody persecution of Christians, and a renewal of Pagan rites and sacrifices, which had been partially suspended during the reign of Constantine and succeeding emperors, except in the case of Julian the Apostate. “And arms shall stand on his part,” that is, the force of the empire would be on the side of Paganism. “And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength.” They, in this passage, mean the governments or kings, established on the fall of the Roman empire in the west, by the Huns, Goths and Vandals of the north. “By sanctuary of strength,” is meant Rome. And it is said that at the time that Rome was taken, men, women, and children were sacrificed to their Pagan deities. “And shall take away the daily sacrifice.” The angel is giving us a history of what these kings would do, when Rome should be divided into its ten toes, or when the ten horns should arise, which the angel has heretofore explained to mean ten kings, Daniel 7:24. This is evident by his using the plural pronoun instead of the singular, as before, or as he will following, when the little horn obtains the power. To “take away the daily sacrifice,” means to destroy Paganism out of the kingdom. This was done by those ten kings who now ruled the Roman empire, and would for a little season, until they should give their power to the image beast. “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate“. They, meaning the ten kings, shall place, shall put in the room or place of the daily sacrifice or Pagan beast which would now receive its death wound by the sword, that is, by the civil power of this fourth kingdom, under the reigning power of these ten kings; for John tells us, Rev. 17:12,13, “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but shall receive power as kings one hour with the beast; these have one mind, (being all Pagans,) and shall give their power and strength unto the beast;” that is, to support Paganism. Now, this was evidently fulfilled; for after the fall of the Western Empire, A.D. 476, and before A.D. 490, ten kings had risen upon the ruins, and formed ten separate kingdoms, and names of which I have before given; they all being Pagans, of course they supported that form of worship, until they were converted to the Christian faith, which happened within the space of twenty years, Clovis, the king of France, having been converted and baptized in the year A.D. 496. By the year A.D. 508, the remainder of the kings were brought over and embraced the Christian religion, which closes the history of the Pagan beast, whose number was 666; which, beginning 158 years B.C., would end the beast’s reign A.D. 508, having reigned but a short time, (one hour, says John,) with the ten kings. We have now gone through with the angel Gabriel’s second part of the history, as we promised.

                I shall now go on with the illustration of the third part of his prophetic history, which is the history of the image beast, the deadly wound healed, or what Daniel calls “the abomination that maketh desolate.” This beast would rule over the kings of the earth, and tread the church of God under foot forty-two months, or time, times, and a half, which is twelve hundred and sixty (1260) years, in common time, or, as the angel tells us in Daniel 12:11, from the taking away the daily abomination to set up the abomination that maketh desolate, should be a thousand two hundred and ninety (1290) days, showing a difference of thirty years from the statement of the actual reign of the image beast and the other, which includes all the time from taking away down through the setting up or reign of the image beast. Therefore, to reconcile these two statements, we must conclude there were 30 years from A. D. 508, when Paganism ceased, before the image beast, or Papal Rome, would begin her reign. If this is correct, then the 1290 began 508, and would end us in 1798. But the reign of Papacy would not be set up until A.D. 538, and would end us in the same year, A.D. 1798, being 1260. [1798 -1260 = 538; 1798 -1290 = 508.] This, then is the history the angel will give us next.

                32, “And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall be corrupted by flatterers; but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.” The ecclesiastical historians tell us that in the beginning of the sixth century, about A.D. 538, a number of writers in that day undertook to prove that the Papal chair, together with councils of his approval, were infallible, and their laws were binding on the whole church. These writers were highly honored and flattered with promotion by the reigning powers; while on the other hand there were many who opposed this power of the Pope and clergy, who were denounced as schismatics and Arians [Arianism was settled in early 4th cent. at the Council of Nicaea in 325, 200 yrs earlier.], and driven out of the kingdoms under the control of the Romish church.

                33, “And they that understand among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil many days.” Those who instructed the common people, and opposed the worshipping of images, the infallibility of the Pope and councils, the canonizing of departed saints, were persecuted by the civil power, (the sword,) were burned by order of the ecclesiastical courts established by the laws of Justinian, emperor of Constantinople, whose code of laws, published about A.D. 534, gave unto the bishop of Rome power to establish courts for this purpose, and many in the sixth century and subsequent down to a late period, “many days,” suffered death, imprisonment, and confiscation of goods, in consequence of a difference of opinion in matters of religion, by the tyranny of this abomination, “the bloody city which has reigned over the kings of the earth.”                34, “Now, when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help; but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.” This text agrees with one in Revelation 12:16, “And the earth helped the woman.” “But many shall cleave to them;” that is, many men of the world would cleave to them, and professedly would flatter the true people of God that they were friendly at least to them, and by these means Satan carried on his wars against the children of God.

                35, “And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge and to make them white, even to the time of the end, because it is yet for a time appointed.” This verse shows us that even Christians would be led into some of the errors of Papacy, and would be tried and purged, even to the end of this image beast’s reign, which time is appointed, as I have already shown, to be “time, times, and a half,” 1260 years, ending A. D. 1798.

                36, “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every ‘god’, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of ‘gods’, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished, for that is determined shall be done.” The king here spoken of is the same as Daniel’s little horn, which came up among the ten horns. It is the same that blasphemed the God of heaven. It is mystical Babylon. Isa. 14:12-15; Rev. 13:5,6. The same Paul has described in his Epistle, 2nd Thess. 2:1-9; the same image beast which we have been examining the history of; and one thing is evident, that this beast will continue until the day that God pours out his indignation upon a guilty world in some form or other. [Almost 200 years later, we look back and reconsider these views of the end times.]

                37, “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.” In this passage we have a plain description of Papacy; they do not worship the same gods the Pagans did –”their fathers.” And their clergy are forbidden to marry; the Pope calls himself the vicegerent of God, or God on earth, having the keys of heaven, etc.

                38, “But in his estate shall he honor the ‘god’ of forces; and a ‘god’ whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things.” It is true that the Pope, for ages past, has had large armies at his command, and always a body-guard to attend him in his capital; also, that they adorn their pictures with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things, and that the gods they worship, such as the images of Christ, apostles, and Virgin Mary, and canonized saints, were not known to Pagan worshippers.

                39, “Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.”           These patron saints, which the Pope divided among the several nations of the earth, and in almost every family, each one having their patron saint to rule over them, by the appointment of the Pope, were strange gods indeed; and rational beings might truly wonder when they beheld the power of this last abomination over the minds and judgments of mankind. And then, again, to see the number of kingdoms, provinces, states, and territories, which the Pope has sold to enrich his coffers, without any more right or title to them than we have to the land in the moon, must convince everyone that the description given must apply to the church of Rome or the Pope, who claims to exercise this great authority by his crazy title to St. Peter’s chair.

                We have now arrived to the end of the third division of the angel’s history; for the next verse tells us, “and at the time of the end,” meaning the end of his power, to tread on the church by his civil authority, or reign over the kings of the earth, and to dispose of lands for gain.      I have brought you down, my kind hearer, through a long prophetic history of more than 2200 years, and landed you in the year A. D. 1798, when the Pope of Rome lost his civil power. In the beginning of the year 1798, on the 15th of February, a French general, Berthier, entered Rome with a French army without resistance, deposed the Pope, abolished the Papal government, and erected the republic of Italy. The Pope, being taken prisoner, was carried a prisoner by them first to Sienna in Tuscany, from thence to Florence, afterwards to Grenoble, and then to Valence, in France, where he died on the 19th of August, 1799, since which time the Pope of Rome has exercised no more of his former power over any of the kings in Europe, or the Protestant church. We shall now close our lecture on this history for the present, reserving the remainder of Gabriel’s interesting history for another lecture.

                Lecture 7: Daniel’s 1260, 1290, & 1335 Days Explained.

                “And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?” Previous to Daniel’s asking the question contained in our text, he had been taught, as we have seen in our former lecture, not only the history of future events as they would succeed each other down to the end of the world, but he had the regular order of time specified in the duration of the little horn, “time, times, and a half,” as in Daniel 7:25, and 12:7. But he had been informed of many events which should transpire after his “time, times, and a half” should be finished, and not having the length of the Pagan beast, or daily abomination, given to him at all, he could not tell or understand whereabouts in his grand number of 2300 days, the end of the civil power of the little horn, or Papal Rome, carried him: there was no rule given Daniel yet by which he could tell when or how long after the crucifixion of the Messiah before the daily sacrifice abomination would be taken out of the way, and the power of the little horn be established, and the abomination of desolation set up. Be sure, Daniel had heard the whole history down to the resurrection, and had the whole vision specified in his 2300 days. But as he saw there were evidently three divisions of the time after the crucifixion or cutting off of the Messiah at the fulfillment of his 490 years, or 70 weeks, down to the end of his 1810 years, which would be the remainder of his total number of 2300 years, after his 70 weeks should be fulfilled; and having only 1260 of those years accounted for by the reign of his little horn, leaving five hundred and fifty (550) years to be applied on the Pagan beast, and for the events which we are to attend to after the Papal beast lost his civil power, –therefore the propriety of Daniel’s saying in our text, “Then I heard, but I understood not.” He understood not how this time was divided, and especially, how much time would be taken up in the last division of the angel’s history, beginning with the 40th verse of the 11th chapter, where our last lecture ended, and finishing with the context of the 12th chapter, the verse previous to our text. That this is the plain and significant meaning, is evident from what follows our text, viz., the angel’s answer to Daniel’s question, “What shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end;” that is, my mission is closed, the words are finished, and registered in the roll of God’s word, they are sealed, that is, made sure, unalterable, will stand until every word has its fulfillment, which in the end shall be accomplished; not, as some suppose, that Daniel’s prophecy is sealed, closed up, out of sight, and cannot be understood. This is not the way of God’s dealings with us; for if this had been the angel’s meaning, he would have said to Daniel as he did to John in similar circumstances, Rev. 10:4, “Seal up those things, and write them not.” But it is the reverse; for he says in the next verse, 10, “Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand.” None of the wicked shall understand what? Why, the things before spoken of –Daniel’s vision and instruction. Very well, then the wicked do right for once. Certainly, if your exposition of the former text is correct, that it is hid, and cannot be known, they are obeying the command of the angel, close up and seal the words; and surely they will not be condemned for obedience. “But the wise shall understand,” says the angel. What shall the wise understand? They shall understand the vision; or the words before spoken by the angel at least. But say you, “Daniel was commanded to seal up and close the words, so that they may never know them till the end, and the wise understand them. How can these things be?” I answer, These texts explain each other. There is a close connection in the word of God which must always be kept in view, and if our exposition of one contradicts another of the same connection of like import, we may know there is a wrong in us. Now, one thing is certain, –”all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” And “secret things belong to God; but things revealed, to us and our children.” And when I see pretended servants of God, men of great pretence to piety and knowledge, disputing long and sharp on some metaphysical point in theology which they nor their hearers can never understand, and when they are asked to explain the plain declarations of God, put it off, by saying, it is sealed up, and we ought not to try to understand it, it makes me think of Aesop’s fable of the dog in the manger; of Christ’s reproof to the scribes and Pharisees, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in ourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in;” and this passage in Daniel, “The wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” You may depend upon one thing, when you hear such declarations as the above from the pulpit, that the speaker does not love his Bible as well as he loves his own popularity, and studies to support his faith, the popular writers and standard authors of the day, more than the divine revelation of God. But God is now trying His people; He is now giving them a great rule to know their love for His word. If the word of God is to them foolishness, and they take more delight in the popular writers of the day, they may depend upon it they are stumbling at that stumbling-stone. But the angel tells us that many shall be purified and made white. This was good news to Daniel, and ought to be so to us; for it is the declaration of God through the medium of Gabriel, His messenger. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety (1290) days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty (1335) days: but go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” Now Daniel had all he could ask for; now he could understand the time, and the length, and part of every division which the angel had given him in his instruction, so far as to fill up his vision of 2300 years, (as we shall call them, having proved in a former lecture that they ought to be so reckoned, and have been so fulfilled.) He has now learned that, to begin and reckon back from the resurrection, which he well knew would be 1810 years after Christ’s crucifixion, he might find out when the daily sacrifice abomination would be taken away. Therefore take 1335 years from 1810 years, would leave 475 years; and he could reckon from the end of the 70 weeks, or 490 years, to the end of pagan Rome, would be 475, from thence to the time he should stand in his lot, would be 1335 years. Then by adding 490 + 475 + 1335 = 2300 sum total years of his vision would make the sum total of his whole vision 2300 years.

                And now, let us suppose he wished to know when the abomination of desolation would end, and when it would begin. He has only to take his number, one thousand two hundred and ninety (1290), as given him by his angel, from his 1335, thus: 1335 -1290 = 45;  and he finds that 45 years before the resurrection the little horn would lose his civil power. Now, let him take his time, times, and a half, and add, say 1260 years to 45 years, and he will find that the little horn began his reign 1305 years before the resurrection, and 30 years after the daily sacrifice abomination was taken away. And now he is prepared to give his vision and the instruction of the angel all their proper bearings, and prove it thus:

1st: The seventy (70) weeks or 490 years to the crucifixion of Christ: 490. From crucifixion to taking away daily abomination: 475. From taking away Pagan rites to the setting up abomination of desolation: 30. From setting up Papal power (time, times, and a half) to the of his civil reign: 1260. From the taking away the Papal civil rule to the resurrection: 45. Now add these together, and you will have the whole: 2300  years of Daniel’s vision     

                Do you not, kind hearer, see by this mode, and by these last numbers given him, Daniel could learn every part and division of the whole history down to the time when he should stand in his lot? But now, for his instruction, we will suppose Daniel understood our mode of reckoning time; he might have given it to us in this way: –”The 70 weeks, or 490 years, will be accomplished A.D. 33. The pagan abomination will be taken away 475 years afterwards, which will be A.D. 508. The papal abomination will be set up 30 years after, A.D. 538, and will continue 1260 years, A.D. 1798. After this 45 years, I shall stand in my lot, and all that come forth to this resurrection will be blessed, A.D. 1843.” “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty (1335) days.” Rev. 20:6. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.”

                We are now prepared to give you the remainder of the angel’s instruction to Daniel, beginning where we left off in our last lecture; and you will likewise now take notice that it is the last division, and what we now shall read to you must all take place in 45 years, between the years 1798 and 1843. So that you may, almost all of you, judge for yourselves, upon your own observations, whether these things are so or not.

                We therefore begin at the 40th verse of the 11th chapter of Daniel, “and at the time of the end” of the papal civil power. Now, another person has obtained this civil power: this was Bonaparte, the ruler of the French nation. This year of which we are now treating was the very year that the French destroyed the power of the pope, and Bonaparte began his extraordinary career in conquest and authority; and it was evident, by his success and fortune, that he was raised up by God himself for some great and special purpose; and through him, as an instrument, and by means of the French revolution, the shackles that had bound more than half of Europe in bigotry, superstition, and tyranny, were burst asunder, and the inquisition and Papacy lost their power and terror over the bodies and minds of men. At this time, then, our prophecy begins, and Bonaparte is the person designated by the pronouns he and him in the prophecy: “And, at the time of the end, shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships.” This is a description of an alliance entered into by the king of Sardinia, Italy, and Spain, in the south, and Great Britain, in the north, for six years. England engaged, in this treaty, to pay the king of Sardinia 200,000 lb. per annum to furnish an army of horse and a large fleet. The command of the fleet was given to Lord Nelson. Various was the success of the allies in the south. Spain had to recede, and finally joined the French. The king of Sardinia had to leave his territories on the continent, and shut himself up in the island of Sardinia. The king of Naples fled to the island of Sicily, after making a vigorous push at the French, in November 1798, and getting possession of Rome, while Lord Nelson took and destroyed the French fleet, near the mouth of the Nile, the same year. But the French soon retook Italy; and this broke up this league, and the French remained masters of almost all that belonged to the Western Empire of Rome, except Great Britain. “And he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow, and pass over,” was literally accomplished. “He shall enter also into the glorious land,” (or land of delight, as it might have been translated.) This, I have no doubt, means Italy [?]. Bonaparte fought some of his most brilliant battles in this delightsome country. The battle of Marengo was fought, if I mistake not, in June 1800, after crossing the Alps, and impassable barrier between France and Italy, as it was supposed by his enemies. “And many countries shall be overthrown.” It is said that Bonaparte conquered three kingdoms at the battle of Marengo. “But these shall escape out of his hands, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.” Bonaparte, when he went into Egypt, calculated to march into the East Indies: he advanced into Syria, where, after gaining some advantages, he received a decisive check before St. John d’Acre, when he was obliged to raise the siege, and retreat back to Egypt with the shattered remains of his army. So the country once inhabited by the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, “escaped out of his hands.”

                42, “He shall stretch forth his hands also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape.” ‘Hands’ signifies power; and what country on the globe did not more or less feel the effects of Bonaparte’s power? Egypt, surely, did not escape; for all Lower Egypt was conquered by his arms.

                43, “But he shall have power over the treasures of gold, and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt.” Bonaparte, in his conquest of Egypt, levied contributions upon the inhabitants of the country sufficient to support and pay his troops, and brought away much with him. “And the Lybians and Ethiopians shall be at his steps.” When he first went into Egypt, he landed his army on the coast of what was anciently called Lybia, and his last battle was fought in Upper Egypt –what the ancients called Ethiopia. So both of these places were at his steps, although neither of them was fairly conquered, as was Egypt.

                44, “But tidings out of the east, and out of the north, shall trouble him.” This was what was at that time called the Holy Alliance. This was composed of most of the kings on the north and east of France, which finally proved the overthrow of the power of Bonaparte, and the restoration of the Bourbons on the throne of France. The news of this alliance caused him much trouble, and also his immediate return to France. “Therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many.” This is a plain description of Bonaparte’s campaign into Russia. He went forth with an army of 400,000 men, with fury, in order to break up the Holy Alliance. He did utterly destroy Moscow, and laid desolate the country through which he passed. He made away with more than 200,000 of his own army, besides the destruction of his enemies, say many thousand more. Such a destruction of life and property in one campaign was never known since the days of the Persians and the Greeks.

                45, “And he shall plant the tabernacle of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain,” (or mountain of delight.) This was literally fulfilled, in May 26, 1805, when Bonaparte was crowned king of Italy at Milan, –Italy lying between two seas. To “plant the tabernacle of his palace” would be to establish him as king. “Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” This closes the history of one of the most powerful monarchs –the most ambitious and fortunate of warriors, and a man of unbounded sway –that modern times had ever produced. He had destroyed, perhaps, more than 3,000,000 lives; he had dethroned more than one half of the kings of Europe; he had disposed of kingdoms at his will; all nations had been under the control of his decrees; he had commanded more than two millions of veteran soldiers; the treasures of the four quarters of the globe lay at his feet. “Yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” How soon the tale of his end is told! A breath, and his end is come; a vapor, and he is gone. O God! the breath of kings is in thy hand; thy word goeth forth, and it is done; thy decree passeth, and it stands fast. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Where are those kings that courted his alliance? Where the twenty millions of French who idolized him as a God? Where are those two millions of veteran soldiers whose bodies had been used as ramparts to mount him to glory? Where are his five brethren who sat in the seat of kings by his power? Where is his mother, made a rich dowager by his munificence? Where, O where is the empress Maria Louisa, and the young king of Italy? “And none shall help him.” Yes, Bonaparte was by the British, after he had resigned himself into their hands, carried a prisoner to the island of St. Helena, in the Atlantic Ocean, where he died in exile. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

                By this history the kings of the earth may learn that God can, with perfect ease, when the set time shall come, break them and their kingdoms to pieces, so that the wind may carry them away like chaff, that no place shall be found for them.

                I shall now examine the remainder of Gabriel’s message, contained in Daniel 12:1, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Michael, in this passage, must mean Christ; He is the great Prince, and Prince of princes.

                The time here spoken of is when Bonaparte shall come to his end, and none to help him. This was in the latter part of the year A.D. 1815. There are two things for which Christ stands up for His people to accomplish; one is their faith, and the other their judgment. Jer. 3:13. Now, it is evident he did not then stand up in judgment; therefore I shall choose the former, that he stood up to plead the cause of his people, to restrain backsliders, and to add to the church of God many who should be saved. And blessed be his holy name, he accomplished his purpose; for in the years 1816, 1817, 1818, more people were converted to the faith of Jesus than had been for thirty years before. Almost, and I know not but every town in these states was visited with a shower of mercy, and hundreds and thousands, yea, tens of thousands, were born into the invisible kingdom of the dear Redeemer, and their names recorded among the members of the church of the first born. This has lasted in a great measure for 20 years, and has spread over a large share of the Christian world; even the islands of the sea have lifted up their voices to God, and the wilderness has bloomed like the rose, and the heathen have seen of his salvation. The grace of God has distilled upon us like the morning dew, and like showers upon a thirsty soil. Surely this must be by the power of Michael, the great Prince of the covenant. “And there shall be a time of trouble, such as there never was since there was a nation, even to that same time.” This time of trouble is yet in futurity; but is hanging, as it were, over our heads, ready to break upon us in tenfold vengeance, when the angel of the gospel, who is now flying through the midst of heaven, shall seal the last child of God in their foreheads. And when the four angels, who are now holding the four winds, that it blow not on the sea nor on the land, shall cease their holding; then the angel, standing on the sea and land, shall lift his hand to heaven and swear by him that liveth forever and ever, that time shall be no longer, or, as it might, and, perhaps, ought to have been translated, “that there should be no longer delay;” that is, God would wait no longer for repentance, no longer to be gracious; but His spirit would take its flight from the world, and the grace of God would cease to restrain men. He that is filthy will be filthy still. Mankind will, for a short season, give loose to all the corrupt passions of the human heart. No laws, human or divine, will be regarded; all authority will be trampled underfoot; anarchy will be the order of governments, and confusion fill the world with horror and despair. Murder, treason, and crime will be common law, and division and disunion the only bond of fellowship. Christian will be persecuted unto death, and dens and caves of the earth will be their retreat. All things that are not eternal will be shaken to pieces, that that which cannot be shaken may remain. And his, if I am right in my calculations, will begin on or before A.D. 1839.

                “And at that time thy people shall delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” Now is come salvation indeed. The people of God are now to be delivered from outward foes and inbred lusts, from the corruptions of the grave and the vileness of the flesh. Everyone, the poor and despised child of God, will then be delivered when he makes up his jewels. “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This verse brings us down to the resurrection of the dead, when the dust will give up the bodies of the saints, and they shall awake to everlasting life, when death shall be finally conquered, and the grave resign up her captive saints to victory and glory. The angel also mentions the resurrection of the wicked, and speaks of their shame and everlasting contempt. He dwells not in detail on this second resurrection, as though it was too painful for thought, yet tells enough to let the wicked unbeliever know his awful doom, and is silent. “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever.” This verse needs no comment; it is a beautiful figure of the righteous in glory, and the durability of that happiness in the invisible and immortal kingdom of God. “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.” Some have taken occasion, form these words, to say, that this prophecy was to be shut up and sealed, that none might understand it until the end. If it was so, why give it to Daniel at all? Why note it in the Scripture of truth? Why give to us the same instruction which made Daniel understand what should befall the people of God in the latter day? But the plain and obvious meaning of the first part of this verse is, But thou, O Daniel, close up your prophecy, and set your seal to the truth of it, for at “the time of the end many shall run to and for;” that is, at the time of the end the means of travel would be greatly extended, so that many would travel into all parts of the earth, and would increase in knowledge of places, men, and things.       “And knowledge shall be increased.” Can any prophecy be more literally fulfilled than this? The increase of travel, and the means of conveyance, and the improvement in the arts and sciences at the present day, have astonished the projector themselves. But if it should mean holy things, then look at the great number of missionaries sent into all parts of our world. There are but few nations, civilized or barbarous, Christian, or heathen, but what are visited by the professed ministers of Christ, and knowledge of the word of God has increased. And within thirty years, the Bible has been translated into one hundred and fifty languages, more than three times the number of all languages that had received a translation during 1800 years before. Millions of copies of the Bible have been circulated within the thirty years past, where thousand only had been circulated before.

                “Then I, Daniel, looked, and behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the river, and said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?” Here Daniel saw the two holy ones inquiring of the man clothed in linen, which stood upon the waters of the river. This man is the same as Michael standing up for the children of thy people. The reason I assign is, he is clothed in linen, which shows he is the high priest for the people of God. It is the same angel that John describes, Rev. 10:1-6. This angel is represented as being the messenger of the covenant, by having a rainbow on his head. He was clothed with a cloud pure and white like linen. He, too, had a little book open, showing what he should do, agreeing with our explanation, spreading the gospel for the last time through the world, standing one foot on the sea, and the other on the earth, to keep down the power of anti-Christ, who sits on many waters Rev. 17:1,15, and the power of the kings of the earth, until the whole elect should be sealed. See Rev. 7:1-3. And that this Angel is the Mediator is evident. And now he closes up the mediatorial kingdom, when he says, Rev. 10:6, “That there should be time no longer,” or, as some translate it, that there should be no longer delay, which must of course have one of two meanings –either God will no longer delay His judgments, or He will no longer wait to be gracious. See next verse, and 2 Peter 3:9. Take either one or both positions, and it proves my object, that a part of the 45 years, the history of which we are now considering, is taken up in spreading the gospel, and bringing the last remnant into Christ’s fold. “For this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world as a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come;” Matt. 24:14. But the question, How long to the end of these wonders? means to the end of the reign of the beast, which the world wondered after. Rev. 13:3,7, “And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven.” This language shows us plainly, that it is the same angel which John saw in Rev. 10:1-7. And the same time is indicated in Revelation as in Daniel. Here in Daniel it is in the last 45 years, and in Revelation immediately preceding the time when the mystery of God shall be finished, all that had been declared by His servants, the prophets, the whole prophecies would be accomplished. “And sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half.” This is the same length of time given in Daniel 7:25, which is there given as the reign of the little horn. It is also the same time which is given in Rev. 11:2. Forty-two months, (three years and half,) to give the holy city to be trodden under foot. Again, the same time is given, Rev. 11:3, for the two witnesses to prophesy, clothed in sackcloth, 1260 days. Also, Rev. 12:6,14, for the church in the wilderness, and, again, in Rev. 13:5, where the anti-Christian beast had his delegated power to continue forty-two months. All these times ended in A.D. 1798, as we may hereafter show; when the 45 years began to accomplish the things which I have been attending to in this lecture. “And when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these shall be finished.”

                This brings us down to our text, and gives us another important and conclusive sign by which we may know we live on the eve of finishing the prophecies, and on the threshold of the immortal and eternal state. Let us be wise, then, and secure an interest in the inheritance among the just, that when we fail on earth, we may be received into everlasting habitations prepared for those who love Christ.

                But the last sign, “the scattering of the holy people;” a part of the perilous times. How are they to be scattered? I answer, By the error of the anti-Christian abomination, and the lo here and lo there, by dividing the people of God into parties, divisions, and subdivision. And methinks I hear you say, “Surely these things are already accomplished.” Yes, you are right, in part, but not to its extent; the sects are all divided now, but not crumbled to pieces; some are subdivided, but not scattered. The time is soon coming when father will be against the son, and son against the father. Yea, the sects are all divided now. Presbyterians are divided into Old and New School, and then again into Perfectionists. Congregationalists are divided between Orthodox and Unitarian, old and new measures, Unionists, etc. Methodists are divided between Episcopal and Protestant. Baptist are divided between old and new measures, Antimasons, Campbellites, open and close communion, etc. etc. Quakers are divided between Orthodox and Hicksites; and thus might we go on and name the divisions and subdivisions of all sects who have taken Christ for their captain.

                And now let me sum up in short what we have proved to you in this discourse. And first, I showed the length of time our history would take up, viz., 45 years. By the numbers given in Daniel 12:11-13, his 1290 days, beginning when the ten kings, represented by the ten toes in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and ten horns in Daniel’s vision, should be converted to the Christian faith, and the daily sacrifice abomination taken out of the way, viz, A.D. 508, which would end us in 1798, when the Pope lost his power to reign over the kings and trample on the holy people, and the abomination of desolation ceased his civil reign, by being deprived of his civil power by Bonaparte. I then showed you that the number 1335 days, beginning at the same time as the 1290 days, viz. A.D. 508, would end in 1843, at the resurrection, for Daniel would stand in his lot at the end of these days. And you have undoubtedly notice that this brought us to the same year that Daniel’s whole number, 2300, brought us, which is forty-five years, the difference between the two numbers, 1290 and 1335. I then began at Daniel 11:40, and gave you the history of Bonaparte, his wonderful career of conquest and power, and his final end. I then gave you the history of Michael standing up, and the reformation that followed in the years 1815, 1816, 1817, even down to the present time. The unfulfilled prophecy which must come soon upon us, the troublous times. Next we came to the time of the deliverance of the people of God, every one that sleep in the dust of the earth, and the resurrection. Then the angel gave us a few signs which would happen in the course of this time, such as the running to and fro, the increase of knowledge, the nations being restrained from preventing the gospel being preached, and scattering the power of the holy people, all which you have many of you witnessed, and can judge for yourselves whether these things are so.

                I shall now leave you for the present; and may you reflect candidly and seriously on the subject; for many of you who are now on the earth may live to witness this fulfilment; and if unprepared then, with what regret will you look back on your present opportunity, and wish you had improved these precious moments for the salvation of your souls, and for the glory of God!

                Be wise, O ye inhabitants of the earth, for the Lord will come and will not tarry, and the day of vengeance will overtake you as a thief in the night; “but the wise shall understand.” }}  

                {{ From Advent Conference October 14th, 1840: “Our object in assembling at this time, our object in addressing you, and our object in other efforts, separate and combined, on the subject of the kingdom of heaven at hand, is to revive and restore this ancient faith, to renew the ancient landmarks, to ‘stand in the way’ in which our fathers walked, and the martyrs ‘found rest to their souls.’ We have no purpose to distract the churches with any new inventions, or to get ourselves a name by starting another sect among the followers of the Lamb. We neither condemn nor rudely assail others of a faith different from our own, nor dictate in matters of conscience for our brethren, nor seek to demolish their organizations, nor build new ones of our own; but simply to express our convictions, like Christians, with the reasons for entertaining them.

                “We are not of those who sow discord among brethren, who withdraw from the fellowship of the churches, who rail at the office of the ministry, and triumph in the exposure of the errors of a secular and apostate church, and who count themselves holier than others, or wiser than their fellows. The gracious Lord has opened to us wondrous things in his word, whereof we are glad, and in view of which we rejoice with fear and trembling. We reverently bless his name, and we offer these things, with the right hand of our Christian fellowship and union, to all disciples of our common Lord, of every section and denomination, praying them by the love of the crucified Jesus, to regard the promise of his coming, and to cultivate the love of his appearing, and to sanctify themselves in view of his approaching with power and great glory; although they conscientiously differ from us in minor points of faith, or reject some of the peculiarities which exist in individuals of this conference.”

                From Signs of the Times, November 8th, 1843: “Dear Brother: My heart was deeply pained, during my tour east, to see in some few of my former friends a proneness to wild and foolish extremes and vain delusions, such as working miracles, discerning of spirits, vague and loose views on sanctification, etc.

                “As it respects the working of miracles, I have no faith in those who pretend beforehand that they can work miracles. Whenever God has seen fit to work miracles, the instruments have seemingly been unconscious of having the power, until the work was done. They have, in no instance that I recollect, proclaimed as with a trumpet that they could or would work a miracle. Moses and the apostles were more modest than these modern pretenders to this power.

                “The discerning of spirits is, I fear, another fanatical movement to draw off Adventists from the truth, and to lead men to depend on the feeling, exercise, and conceit of their own mind, more than on the word of God. If all Christians were to possess this gift, how should we live by faith? Each would stand upon the spiritual gifts of his brother, and, if possessed of the true Spirit of God, could never err. Surely the devil has great power over the minds of some at the present day. And how shall we know what manner of spirit they are of? The Bible answers : ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Then it is not by the Spirit. I think those who claim this power will soon manifest, by their fruits, that they have another rule than the Bible.

                “On sanctification I have but little at present to say. Sanctification has two prominent meanings in Scripture: setting apart for holy purposes; and being cleansed from all sin and pollution. Every soul converted to God is sanctified in the first sense. He devotes himself to God, to love, serve, and obey him forever. Everyone who obtains complete redemption, body, soul, and spirit, is sanctified in the second sense. The first kind is, or ought to be, now enjoyed by every true believer in Christ. The other will never be accomplished till the resurrection of the just when these vile bodies shall be changed. I have not written this to condemn my ‘perfect‘ brother, or to call out a reply. He may call one thing perfect sanctification, and I another. I beg of my brother to let me follow on to know the Lord; and God forbid that I should call him back. May God sanctify and prepare us for his own use. and deliver us from the wrath to come. Yours in the blessed hope, William Miller. Castleton, Vt., Oct. 12th, 1843. }}

                {{ Miller’s Letter to Elder T. E. Jones November 29th, 1844: “The disappointment which we have experienced, in my opinion, could never have been foreseen or avoided; and we have been honest men, and behaved in the truth of the Bible. I have had time, a few weeks past, to review the whole subject, and, with all the aid of Stuart, Chase, Weeks, Bush, and the whole school of modern writers, I cannot see why we were not right. Taking them altogether, instead of disproving our position, they disprove each other, and confirm me in my views of prophecy. “But, say you, time has shown us wrong. I am not so certain of that. Suppose that Christ should come before the end of this Jewish year: every honest man would say we were right. And if the world should stand two, or even three years more, it would not, in the least, affect the manner of the prophecy, but the time. One thing I do know, I have preached nothing but what I believed; and God has been with me; His power has been manifested in the work, and much good has been effected; for the people have read the Bible for themselves, and no one can honestly say that he has been deceived by me. My advice has always been for each to study the evidence of his faith for himself.” }}

                {{ See ‘Brief History of William Miller’, 1915: Letter to the Herald, Dec.3rd, 1844: “…..” I believe the ground we have formerly stood upon, as it regards the chronology of prophecy, is the only ground we can take; and if the defect is in human chronology, then no human knowledge is sufficient in this age to rectify it with any degree of certainty; and I see no good that can be accomplished by taking a stand for any future period with less evidence than we had for 1843-1844. For those who would not believe, with all the evidence we then produced, we cannot expect will now believe with much less evidence.

                “Again, it is to me almost a demonstration, that God’s hand is seen in this thing. Many thousands, to all human appearance, have been made to study the Scriptures by the preaching of the time; and by that means, through faith and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, have been reconciled to God. And those of us who have been familiar with the fruits and effects of the preaching of this doctrine must acknowledge that He has been with us in so doing, and His wisdom has in a great measure marked out our path, which He has devised for such good as He will accomplish in His own time and manner, as in the case of Nineveh by the preaching of Jonah. If this should be the real state of the case, and we should go on to set other times in the future, we might possibly be found frustrating, or trying to at least, and receive no blessing. I think my brethren will admit that God has been in the work, and He has tried our faith in the best possible manner.

                ” We have erred in many things, and even the Second Advent brethren were not prepared for the coming of Christ; they had, many of them, left the work of the Lord, and had been doing their own work. And now, my dear brethren, permit me to be plain. I hope all who are worth saving are humble enough to bear my reproof, and I mean to give it with the sincerest of motives, and with the kindest affection of my heart. “The causes which required God’s chastening hand upon us were, in my humble opinion, Pride, Fanaticism and Sectarianism…..For years after I began to proclaim this blessed truth of Christ at the door, I never, if possible to avoid it, even alluded to sectarian principles; and the first objection my Baptist brethren brought against me, was, that I mixed with, and preached unto all denominations, even to Unitarians, etc. But we have recently, my brethren, been guilty of raising up a sect of our own; for the very things which our fathers did, when they became sects, we have been doing. We have, like them, cried Babylon! Babylon! Babylon! against all but Adventists. We have proclaimed and discussed, ‘pro et con,’ many sectarian dogmas, which have nothing to do with our message. May God forgive us!  Yours as ever,  William Miller.  Low Hampton, December 3rd,1844.

                Miller’s Apology & Defense, July 1845: ” As all men are responsible to the community for the sentiments they may promulgate, the public have a right to expect from me a candid statement in reference to my disappointment in not realizing the advent of Christ in A.D. 1843-1844, which I had confidently believed. I have, therefore, considered it not presumptuous in me to lay before the Christian public a retrospective view of the whole question, the motives that actuated me, and the reasons by which I was guided.”…

                “I had never been positive as to any particular day for the Lord’s appearing, believing that no man could know the day and hour. In all my published lectures will be seen on the title-page, ‘about the year 1843.’  In all my oral lectures I invariably told my audiences that the periods would terminate in 1843            there were no mistakes in my calculation; but that I could not say the end might not come, even before that time, and they should be continually prepared. In 1842, some of my brethren preached, with great positiveness, the exact year, and censured me for putting in an ‘If‘. The public press had also published that I had fixed upon a definite day, the 23d of April, for the Lord’s advent. Therefore, in December of that year, as I could see no error in my reckoning, I published my belief, that, sometime between March 21st, 1843, and March 21st, 1844, the Lord would come. Some had their minds fixed on particular days; but I could see no evidence for such unless the types of the Mosiac law pointed to the Feast of Tabernacles.

                “Previously to this, in the fall of 1843, some of my brethren began to call the churches Babylon, and to urge that it was the duty of Adventists to come out of them. With this I was much grieved, as not only the effect was very bad, but I regarded it as a perversion of the word of God, a wresting of Scripture. But the practice spread extensively; and, from that time, the churches, as might have been expected, were closed against us.

                “I had no participation in the ‘seventh month movement’ as it is called, only as I wrote a letter, eighteen months previously, presenting the observances under the Mosaic law which pointed to that month as a probable time when the Advent might be expected. This was written because some were looking to definite days in the spring. I had, however, no expectation that so unwarranted a use would be made of those types that any should regard a belief in such mere inferential evidence a test of salvation. I, therefore, had no fellowship with that movement until about two or three weeks previous to the 22nd of October, when, seeing it had obtained such prevalence, and considering it was at a probable point of time, I was persuaded that it was a work of God, and felt that, if it should pass by, I should be more disappointed than I was in my first published time.

                “But that time passed, and I was again disappointed. The movement was of such a character that, for a time, it was very mysterious to me; and the results following it were so unaccountable that I supposed our work might be completed, and that a few weeks only might elapse between that time and the appearing of Christ. However that might be, I regarded my own work as completed, and that what was to be done for the extension of these views must be done by younger brethren, except an occasional discourse from myself.

                “I have thus given a plain and simple statement of the manner of my arriving, at the views I have inculcated, with a history of my course up to the present time. That I have been mistaken in the time, I freely confess; and I have no desire to defend my course any further than I have been actuated by pure motives, and it has resulted to God’s glory. My mistakes and errors God, I trust, will forgive. I cannot, however, reproach myself for having preached definite time; for, as I believe that whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our learning, the prophetic periods are as much a subject of investigation as any other portion of the word.

                “I, therefore, still feel that it was my duty to present all the evidence that was apparent to my mind; and were I now in the same circumstances, I should be compelled to act as I have done.

                “The ‘woman,’ or mystical Babylon, I regard as the fallen church, that ruled by means of the kings of the earth; and all churches that have the papal spirit of formality or persecution are partaking of her abominations. But it does not therefore follow that there can be no churches that love the Lord in sincerity.

                “Intimately connected with the construction which has been given to this portion of God’s word is a notion respecting the writing out of our belief. It is said by some to be Babylon to be associated together, to write out a synopsis of our belief, or to subscribe our names to our opinions. I am never afraid to put my name to whatever I may believe; and I can find no text of Scripture that forbids it. When the Jews went up from the Babylonian captivity, they made a sure covenant, and wrote it, and the princes, Levites, and priests, sealed unto it. (Neh. 9:38.)

                “With regard to the association of the church, her practice has varied in different ages according to the circumstances in which she has been placed. When all thought alike, or understood the Bible alike, there was no necessity for an expression of opinion respecting its meaning. But when heresy crept in, it was necessary to guard the meaning of Scripture, by expressing, in plain and unequivocal language, our understanding of it. It is because the early Christians did this that we are enabled to ascertain the understanding which the primitive church had of the faith once delivered to the saints. When this has not been done, the history of the church shows that error has spread with the greatest rapidity.

                “In conclusion, suffer a word of exhortation. You, my brethren, who are called by the name of Christ, will you not examine the Scriptures respecting the nearness of the Advent? The great and good of all ages have had their minds directed to about this period of time, and a multitude are impressed with the solemn conviction that these are emphatically the last days. Is not a question of such moment worthy of your consideration? I do not ask you to embrace an opinion of mine; but I ask you to weigh well the evidence contained in the Bible….” I would exhort my Advent brethren to study the Word diligently. “Let no man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit”. “Avoid everything that shall cause offense. Be humble, be watchful, be patient, be persevering”. “And may the God of peace sanctify you wholly, and preserve you blameless unto the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”   William Miller. Low Hampton, August 1st, 1845.

                Miller to the Advent Herald, ‘Address to the Public‘, September 9th, 1846:…”In my former communications to you on this subject, —which is near my heart, fills my soul at times with indescribable joy and consolation, and is big with the hope of soon, very soon, coming into possession of immortality and eternal life, —I readily confess I was misled in my calculations; not by the word of God, nor by the established principles of interpretation I adopted, but by the authorities which I followed in history and chronology, and which have been generally considered worthy of the fullest confidence.

                “I am thankful to God, although much and sorely disappointed, that I never pretended to be divinely inspired, but always directed you to the same source from which I obtained all the information I then had and now possess on this glorious and heart-cheering subject. Let me, then, exhort you, kind reader, by the value of truth, by the worth of your own soul, and the love of life everlasting, to examine your Bible on the coming of Christ, the redemption of the body, the salvation of your soul, and the everlasting inheritance.

                “Remember this is the situation of your Advent friends; this is our experience. And may God help you to love, watch, and expect the dear Saviour until He shall come. William Miller. }}

  1. Folsom.

A Critical and Historical Interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel,  by Nathaniel S. Folsom.

Boston. 1842.

                {{ Preface:

                The following work contains not a commentary on the entire Book of Daniel, but an interpretation of the prophetic parts found in chapters 2, 7,8,9, 11,12 with particular regard to those passages which are supposed by many to predict the personal advent of our Savior A.D. 1843. There are also prophecies in chapters 4,5  pertaining to the kings of Babylon alone, but they need no explanation. The narrative portions which occupy the remainder of the Book, require little or no aid to be readily understood; and what difficulties exist in them, will generally be found solved in those allusions to the narrative parts, which an interpretation of the prophetic has made necessary.

                It may appear to some a foolish and to others an unnecessary matter, to notice what is technically called “Millerism;” for the time is at hand which will effectually test its truth or its falsehood. But surely no Christian, no serious man should look on with indifference, when any portion of the popular mind is agitated throughout, and swells and heaves tumultuously, to create what evil it may, and then die away as it may. The admonition given of old, “Refrain from these men and let them alone, for if this work be of men, it will come to nought,” —is of value so far as the duty to refrain from acts of violence is concerned, but ill applies to the discussion of any truth, or the arrest of any evil. Not a few have adopted Mr. Miller’s views who are sober-minded and discerning on every other subject, and many more are searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so, and they ask for light. They have not been accustomed to study the prophecies, and they see not why A. D. 1843 may not be the date as well as 1866, etc. which have been fixed on by others. They also feel that one great element of truth is in the doctrine of the second advent, as advocated by Mr. Miller—

“The Lord will come! but not the same:  As once in lowly form He came, A Silent Lamb to slaughter led,:  The bruised, the suffering and the dead. The Lord will come! a dreadful form:  With wreath of flame, and robe of storm, On cherub wings, and wings of wind,:  Anointed Judge of humankind.”

                To this truth Mr. Miller owes the greater part of his success. Possibly also this element of truth has not received the attention in modern preaching it did in the primitive age, and it comes to the people now as something comparatively new to them. For inquirers on this subject, it will not be a thankless or useless task to have written.

                Only small portions, however, of this work will be found devoted to the modern doctrines of the personal advent of our Lord, A.D. 1843. What is said, is said plainly, and he who runs may read that whatever else may be derived from Daniel, the doctrines above mentioned cannot. Whoever wishes to turn to those portions at once will find them chiefly on pages 29,30, 42-44, 72,73, 78-80, 84,85, 140, 160,161, 166,167, 173, 212-215, 229. The general scope of the Interpretation will throw more light than any particular parts of it. But the prophecies of Daniel contain vastly more than can be interesting only to those who wish to see it satisfactorily shown that he does not predict the end of the world, A.D. 1843. The study of them makes it necessary to introduce much historical matter of great practical value and of the deepest interest. A higher end still, and one which it is the object of this Interpretation to promote more than any other, is the impression which these prophecies make, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world —an impression which the writer has himself experienced more deeply than before, unless he is deceived, and which he would impart to others. Prophecy and miracle have not yet done all they were designed to do, and can do, in working with the teachings of our Lord and His apostles to produce a tranquil, firm faith, and a righteous life.

                The order of study pursued has been from the more full, and expanded, and clear prophecies to the more brief, and comprehensive and difficult. It is obvious on a general perusal, and it is acknowledged by all who have studied these prophecies, that the general scope of each prophecy or vision is the same, or that they all tend to the same events. It would appear therefore most proper to investigate the latter prophecies first, and especially chap. 11. The prophecy next in clearness is chap. 8, and no one disputes that it is entirely parallel with chap. 11. Having studied and closely ascertained the meaning of these two chapters, the next in order is seen at once to be chap. 7, which is parallel with chap. 8, through the series of kingdoms as far as to the announcement of a new one to be set up by the God of heaven, which seems to be its own unfolding; and parallel entirely with chap. 7, is chap. 2, at least in its events, though different in description. From these the way is open to chaps. 9 and 12, which contain the remainder of the prophetic portions. The appearance of order in Commentary, beginning with the first of the book to be interpreted and proceeding through to the last, has been sacrificed to what has been judged to be at least in this instance the true and philosophical mode of investigation. The path by which the author has reached his results, is one by which he has chosen to lead others.

                Those familiar with the history of Commentary, will see that the genera] current of interpretation, which designates the fourth kingdom as the Roman, has not been pursued. The author must refer for all his reasons to his book, and would only here say that he could not find the Roman kingdom, except incidentally, in chap. 11, which is parallel with chap. 8, and with the first part of the prophecies in chapters 2, 7. But in his interpretation, though he came to it unaided by what others had said, he finds himself sustained by some who have written on the subject with much ability, as for instance in the Christian Review, March Number, for this present year. The continuance of the opinion that the fourth kingdom is the Roman, is humbly conceived to be the use it has served in the controversy of Protestants with Roman Catholics, and the influence of great names like Sir Isaac Newton, and perhaps the manner in which so good a man as Bishop Newton has spoken of those who have embraced the opposite opinion, as being only influenced by a “fondness of disputing about the plainest points,” and as maintaining the “strange wild conceit of Grotius,” or taking part with the infidel Porphyry. There is also the coincidence between the language of Daniel on the fourth kingdom, and of John on persecutions after Christ, which has seemed to identify them. But most certainly many events different in the New Testament from the Old, are yet described in the same language. And it is natural that great oppressors and persecutors, who must in so many general points resemble each other, should be described in nearly the same language. Great bad men are much alike, and hence so many very diverse applications of the prophecies. But the prophecies cannot describe all the great bad men in the world, all the persecutors of the saints. The context must guide to the particular individuals designated; and the context of Daniel by its specifications and dates, shows that he had particular individuals in view, and not a class. It is the aim of this Interpretation, scrupulously and faithfully to obey this guide.

                It remains to make a few remarks on the Book of Daniel itself The history of the holy man whose name it bears, is given so fully in connexion with his prophecies, as to need no notice here. He uttered his first prophecy soon after he was introduced to the court of the king, and when he could not have been more than twenty-three or four years of age. His first vision was revealed to him forty-eight years after his first prophecy; his final vision, in the third year of Cyrus —which must have been near the close of his life, for he was then at least ninety or ninety-five years of age, and we hear no more of him afterward.

                The Book bears throughout the impression of one and the same hand. The chief appearance of diversity is that from verse fourth of chapter second to the end of chapter seventh (2:4-7:28), it is written in the Chaldee language, but the remainder is in Hebrew. This is a peculiarity worthy to be noticed, but it affects not the question whether the whole is the work of one individual, if that individual understood both languages —and there cannot be a doubt that Daniel understood them both. Why he thus wrote, it may now be impossible to be ascertained; only conjecture can supply the reasons. All that is written in Chaldee, related particularly to the Chaldean kings or people, except chapter second in part (ch. 2), and also chapter seventh in part (ch. 7). It was fit that the Chaldeans should have these events, and also the whole of the vision of the series of kingdoms, in their own native language. There were great objects to be gained by the influence which Daniel should exert over the nation that conquered his people; and we can see from the period of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and onward, how a divine Providence ordered all things so that Daniel might throw his protection over his countrymen, meliorate their captivity, and perhaps secure the decree for their restoration. The existence of these records in the Chaldee language, would of course further this influence, and in this is an adequate reason for a part of these prophecies being found in that language. Perhaps, too, as the Hebrew language became at that time greatly corrupted, many of his countrymen born in Chaldea would understand the Chaldee better than the Hebrew.

                That these prophecies were veritable prophecies of Daniel, whose name they  bear, we have the surest grounds for believing. Whatever apparent difficulties may be presented, there is the authority of Him who referred His disciples to “Daniel the prophet,” Matt. 24:15, Mark 13:14, under circumstances too serious to admit of any doubt that He spake from His own knowledge and faith. It seems idle to say, as does Rosenmller, that our Savior spake only according to the received opinion of His cotemporaries. What purpose would he gain by it? Why not place the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem on his own sole authority, if there had been no prediction uttered by a prophet of old? What more difficulty is there in believing that even our Lord uttered a prediction of the future destruction of Jerusalem, than that Daniel did? Why must not both be cast aside, if either?

                There is also the testimony of Josephus, B. x. c. 11. see. 7, which will be found in the Interpretation. Some among the later Jews have been disposed to set Daniel aside, but there is no existence of a doubt up to the Christian era.

                The internal evidence is itself strong, as even those acknowledge, who deny that Daniel was the author. Says one of this class, Rosenmller, “There is nothing to be found in the book which might not come properly from Daniel; since he was born a Hebrew, educated at the court in Babylon, imbued with the learning of the Chaldeans and of the Magi, and especially skilled in interpreting dreams; so that there seems to be scarcely a reason why we should doubt he was the author of the book.” But then say those who doubt the genuineness of the book, there are the strange events mentioned, such as his being cast into the lion’s den, etc., and there is the wonderful particularity of events in the closing vision. But if the book is to be regarded as not genuine because of the miraculous events, what book in the Scriptures will stand? There were final causes in the Captivity and the Restoration worthy of this miraculous interposition; and a miracle in any age like that of being unharmed in a lion’s den, or thrown into a seven times heated furnace, and coming forth without a touch or smell of fire on the garments, is not greater than prophecy. In regard to the particularity of events, it is indeed wonderful, and it is well known that Porphyry, an ancient opposer of the Bible and Christianity, argued on that account that Daniel’s prophecies must have been written after the events, and they were to be found too all recorded in history. But the particularity of the prophecies of Daniel is not more remarkable than some of the prophecies of our Savior, and nothing but denial without the shadow of a substantial proof is brought against either.

                The voice which itself speaks from these very prophecies is louder than any external proof, and he who hearkens to it will find it difficult not to feel that they came from a holy man of old who spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, from that man of God whose name is imperishably inscribed on his prophecies.

                The great and leading object of these prophecies seems to be, to fix the era of the first advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to teach that the kingdom of God would be set up at the close of a series of kingdoms, the last of which had been a great oppressor of the Jews. They were also to confirm and strengthen the godly in times of great trial, cheering them with promises of strength equal to their day, and a full participation in every blessing promised as the fruits of the reign of the Messiah. The same office of confirming and strengthening, the visions of Daniel still perform, and were designed to perform, in helping the disciple more firmly to believe that Jesus is the Christ, and, believing, to have life through His name. They are still the more sure word of prophecy, a light shining in a dark place over the manger, and cross, and sepulchre of Jesus, and over the mount of His ascension to God’s right hand, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in our hearts, (2nd Pet 1:19,) until with all the other helps there is produced that firm experience of Christ formed in us the hope of glory, which is surer than all outward proof, higher than all miracle —until the dawn of perfect peace, and the star of an unchanging confidence, give the foretokens of the eternal day of glory when God shall be all in all.

                Is there not, moreover, a use for these prophecies of which we scarcely have begun to think —that they will be a great and effectual means in persuading the Jews that their Messiah has indeed come?  On their hearts has long been the vail; but when they begin in the great depths of their sorrows to seek the Lord, the vail shall be taken away, and perceiving all that the prophets have spoken of Jesus, shall become his disciples. The great moral drama of this world will not be closed, until the Jews shall be introduced to bow the knee to Jesus, and confess that He is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Then shall even those prophecies which have seemed only to shadow forth spiritual mercies by temporal imagery, be even literally fulfilled in unexampled earthly peace and prosperity. Then in the Father’s own time when all things are subdued unto Him, shall the quick and the dead be made to stand before Christ the Judge, whose appearing as compared with His first advent to receive His kingdom, is worthy to be preeminently distinguished as His second coming. To wait for Christ’s appearing, is not to expect every moment that He will come forth from his throne in heaven, but to have those vivid feelings respecting it which every thoughtful Christian has at least at times, when that period, even though it be a thousand years off, shall seem to be hastening on, soon as the sun which sets to-day shall come on the morrow. It is to look for the providential indications of His coming, as gathered from the progress of His kingdom, and as a disciple to feel that the arrival of that kingdom is made inseparably connected with his own efforts to extend it through the whole world. Haverhill, Mass. July 18, 1842. }}

                                Table of Contents.

Section I. Interpretation of Chapter XI: The long warfare between the kings of Egypt and Syria, with the calamities it brought on the Jews.

Section II. Interpretation of Chapter VIII: The desecration and the cleansing of the sanctuary.

Section III. Interpretation of Chapter VII: The four beasts, the little horn of the fourth, and the reign of the Son of man.

Section IV. Interpretation of Chapter II:3145: Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream.

Section V. Interpretation of Chapter IX:2427: The vision of the seventy weeks.

Section VI. Interpretation of Chapter XII: Conclusion.

                Section VI. Interpretation of Chapter XII: Conclusion.

               1. {{ This chapter continues the vision in chaps. 10, 11, and closes the series of the visions of the prophet. It has been reserved for this place because it was judged to need the collected light of the others, at least for the full understanding of some parts of it, (See Interpr. p. 63.) For while the vision, as all acknowledge, is the expansion of those which precede it, it “yet has this peculiarity —that it only touches briefly what has before been enlarged upon, and enlarges to a great extent on what the others had touched but briefly. The reader, with an eye that has looked over the wide field of the prophet’s visions, will now place himself at the point of view, (11:40-45, Interpr. pp. 57-62,) where the interpretation of the vision recorded in chaps. 10, 11, 12 was suspended1. “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” Michael the great prince, is the same person mentioned in the introduction of the vision, as “Michael one of the chief princes,” and “Michael your prince,” 10:13, 21. It was Michael the tutelar angel to the Jewish nation, (Interpr. p. 14, Comp. Jude v. 9.) His standing up, denotes the aid which was to be extended to the prophet’s countrymen from on high. And the Bible affords ground for believing, that the aid of angels as ministering spirits is actually extended to men, Comp. Ps. 103:20. Heb. 1: 14, Luke 1:19; 22:43.

                The time of trouble was the period of persecution and struggle, which commenced in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, particularly at the time of his last expedition into Egypt, 11: 40-45, comp. with 11:30-34.

                Up to the commencement of that period, from the time of the complete restoration of Jerusalem after the Captivity, the Jews, though tributary to foreign monarchs, were permitted to live under the immediate government of individuals chosen from among themselves, and they enjoyed a tranquillity but seldom interrupted. Wars raged around them, but the flames did not kindle on them; their land was entirely exempt down to the times of Antiochus the Great, 198 B.C. In transferring their allegiance to him from the king of Egypt, they took a heavy burden, and involved themselves in serious consequences, See on 11:14, 16, 20. And in the desecration of their temple by his son Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the persecutions immediately ensuing, arose their saddest calamities. Not even by their Assyrian conqueror, who carried the nation into captivity for seventy (70) years, were they treated with such barbarity; nor was their temple so polluted, and such compulsory measures employed to make them abandon the religion of their country, and adopt paganism. It was a time of trouble, which, so long as it lasted, had not a parallel in the history of nations.

                On the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator his son, a youth of only nine years of age, succeeded to the Syrian throne; and shortly afterward, another and successful claimant appeared, Demetrius, whom his father Seleucus Philopator, the predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, placed at Rome as hostage instead of Antiochus recalled, See on 11:21. Two armies were sent by the young king, and two by Demetrius, against Judas, in quick succession, until his band, then numbering but 3000, exhausted and discouraged, began to fall off to their homes, and only 800 remained with him against the advancing army of 20,000, the strongest and best disciplined of the forces of Syria. Judas was earnestly advised to retreat, and return with recruited and more numerous forces. But he replied, “God forbid that I should do this thing, and flee away from them; if our time be come, let us die manfully for our brethren, and let us not stain our honor.” The enemy came on. Judas and his few men fell impetuously on the right wing, where the strength of the army was, and routed it. But he was enclosed by the left wing, and finally fell, overpowered by numbers, after long resistance and terrible slaughter on both sides, 161 B.C. “The remnant ” of his band “fled.” He deserved the eulogy uttered on the occasion of his death, “How is the valiant man fallen, that delivered Israel!” 1st Macc. chap. 9. “He left behind him a glorious memorial by gaining freedom for his nation,” (Josephus Antiq. XII. chap. xi.)

                On the death of Judas, their enemies came forward more boldly, and distressed the Jews on every side. The friends and associates of Judas were sought out by apostate Jews, and delivered up to a miserable death. And it is remarked both by Josephus and the historian of the Maccabees, that the calamities of the times, with famine added, were greater than they had experienced since their return out of Babylon, and the nation seemed again on the verge of ruin, Antiq. xiii. c 1, 1st Macc. 9:27.

                The place of Judas was however supplied by Jonathan, who, though compelled to flee to the thickets on the banks of the Jordan, yet so followed up the victories of his brother, and so harassed the Syrian army, that Demetrius was glad, in about a year from the death of Judas, to grant a truce to the Jews. It continued about two years, when it was interrupted for a season, but again renewed. Meantime there appeared, 153 B.C. another claimant for the Syrian throne, Alexander Balas, supported by the Romans, and after four years he obtained it. Both Demetrius and Alexander courted Jonathan’s favor. From the former he received the appointment of king’s general in Judea, with authority to raise forces, to repair Jerusalem, to receive back hostages that had been required, and rebuild the wall around the mountain of the temple, which Antiochus Eupator, in violation of his treaty at the raising of the siege of Jerusalem, had commanded to be pulled down. From Alexander he received the commission of high priest, with a purple robe and crown of gold, worn only by princes. He immediately entered on the duties of his several commissions; and his growing power was fast rallying his nation, and disbanding all the Syrian garrisons, and expelling the wicked, when he was treacherously murdered between the contending Syrian factions, B.C. 144. To him succeeded his brother Simon, with the dignity of prince and high priest, under whom the Jews, delivered from the Syrian yoke, and no more compelled to pay tribute, became once more an independent nation, 143 B.C.

                Here then would seem to be a fulfilment, at least in part, of the promise of deliverance given in 12:1. The prophet’s people were delivered from a subjection to foreign power, which, commencing with the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 606 B.C., and interrupted by only two short intervals of unsuccessful revolt from him, had continued through a period of 463 years. It was a deliverance effected for everyone found written in the book, i.e. every faithful one for whom it was surely purposed; (Comp. “scripture of truth,” Interpr. p. 15;) everyone who should not perish in those struggles; every faithful one who, having fallen into divers trials, and been spared through them, should be made white by them, 11:35. Compare also the language in Is. 4:3, “And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem.” Also Exod. 32: 32,33 —”Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin: and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.”

                But notwithstanding all this, did such a deliverance then take place, that the true Israelite would not look for something further still, as its higher and not remote consummation? would not even the language “little help,” 11:34, applied to the deliverance begun by Mattathias and his sons, lead to the expectation of something more? Only 40 years passed away, and civil commotions began to arise, which in the reign of Alexander Janneus cost the lives of more than 50,000 of the Jews. On the death of Alexander, and afterwards of his queen, the succession was disputed between her sons Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, until finally the Roman general Pompey then in the neighborhood, was introduced as umpire. His decision, which was in favor of the weaker Hyrcanus against Aristobulus, not being complied with by the latter, Pompey proceeded to enforce it, attacked Aristobulus who had possession of the city, and at last subdued it, with great slaughter of the Jews. Judea once more became a province, B.C. 63, and lost its new freedom; nor from that day to the present has she regained it [In 1948 Israel would become a state in possession of most their land.]. Was the deliverance, then, which was effected under Judas Maccabeus and his brethren, the adequate and entire fulfilment of this prophecy? Was it to this alone that the “long warfare” led the way? Having gone through this long series of prophetic events, was the end a temporal prosperity of only 40 years, and an independence of only 80 years? It certainly admits an application to the higher deliverance by our Lord Jesus Christ, going forth under the protection of “an angel strengthening Him,” (Luke 22:43) in the new reign, the new kingdom of heaven, of which He is the head.

                The phrase “at that time,” in the first clause fixes the commencement of the period of struggle for freedom toward the close of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, (11: 40-45, Interpr. pp. 57-62). Michael should then take his stand for the Jews, should then arise, and gird himself for their aid. But how long the struggle should continue, is not told.

                The phrase “at that time,” in the last clause looks back to “the time of trouble” in the middle clause. At that period of trouble, continue as long as it might, (and we have seen that it continued beyond the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and that it was at least 25 years from the standing up of Michael before the prophecy could have had its accomplishment in its application even to the complete temporal deliverance of the Jews,) at that period of trouble, continue as long as it might, the kingdom of David, so long and so often promised, should be set up, the Son of David come, of whom it could be so truly said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” John 8:36. And so it was. This was the great closing scene of trouble before Christianity, the reign of the Son of God, was established. The prophet, looking from a point of time so far back as 534 B.C., down to within 160 years of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, —a period which should be a time of trouble with only a few intervals of quiet, —could with propriety contemplate the salvation effected by Christ, as coming “at that time.” It did come during that period —a period ending with such tribulation to the Jews as a greater than Daniel not only affirmed “was not since the beginning of the world to this time,” but added, “no, nor ever shall be.”

                In the application of 12:1, both to the deliverance under the sons of Mattathias and to the higher spiritual redemption accomplished by Christ, the prediction has been regarded not as predicting primarily an event, which event is typical of another, (See Interpr. p. 86,) but as a general prediction which, as genus includes several species, may include more than one event, but in its application must however be determined by the context and circumstances of the case. Should such an interpretation be deemed inadmissible here by any, then that would seem to be preferred which passes entirely over this period of temporal struggle and deliverance, and fixes solely on the reign of the Messiah. The phrase “at that time,” may signify ‘when that time shall be ended, (for the authority so to render it, see on the phrase “in the days of these kings,” Interpr. 154, 155,) and denote that the kingdom of the Messiah should come at no remote period after the times of this persecuting king; that it should follow as the next great event after the overthrow of the Syrian power, See on chaps. 2, 7. The transition from Antiochus to Christ here at the close, has its parallel in the transition at the opening of the vision, 11:3,4, from Xerxes to Alexander —a period of 134 years. It has its parallel in the transition in other prophets from predictions of the captivity to that of the reign of Christ, Is. chaps. 7-9. It has its parallel in the other visions of Daniel in the transition from the end of the Syrian kingdom to the establishment of the fifth kingdom; for from Antiochus Epiphanes the dominion of Syria over Palestine virtually ceased. The deliverance effected by our Lord Jesus Christ was not indeed from earthly trials. But Daniel, in accordance with the general mode of the prophets, and, as we have seen in the other visions, with his own, describes the spiritual deliverance under the symbols of an earthly and temporal.

                It confirms the application of this verse to Christ, that, as once and again remarked, these visions of Daniel relate to one and the same great train of events; and that this last, in chapters 11, 12, the larger and fuller development of them, must substantially contain them all. We look back to the chapters preceding, and see that mention is made of a kingdom which the God of heaven should set up, and which should last forever. Certainly that kingdom would not be omitted in this closing and more expanded vision. And accordingly we find, here at the close of the vision in the place where it should be found, a general prediction which may be applied and is properly applied to that same kingdom, a prediction of deliverance harmonizing perfectly with that in chap. 7, where judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom; a prediction which is fully realized only in Jesus as indeed “he who should have redeemed Israel,” Luke 24:21. The remarks of Rosenmller on this verse, who yet finds not the kingdom of Christ in chap. 9, are that on the death of Antiochus Epiphanes not a few of the Jews seem to have entertained the hope of the speedy arrival of the happy era concerning which the ancient prophets prophesied, viz. that under a great king of the race of David, there would spring up an altogether new and most flourishing state of things especially for the Jews. Nevertheless Gabriel teaches that it would not immediately follow, but only after great afflictions. Some have referred this deliverance to the Christians who escaped death on the siege of Jerusalem, and fled to Pella, but this is altogether too confined an application, and does not harmonize with the predictions in chaps. 2, 7, 9. The deliverance, as applied to the times of our Lord Jesus Christ must be the great salvation through faith in his name —” redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Eph. 1:7.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” The fact of a resurrection, both for the just and the unjust, and an eternal retribution, was, as we have already seen, (Interpr. 49-51,) most distinctly recognized in that “time of trouble” which began in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. It was the great motive which enabled many to suffer the most dreadful tortures rather than disobey God, and depart from His law. Must not this passage teach the doctrine they believed? Was it not one source of their belief, and one great means of its confirmation? Must not the prophet himself have so understood the passage, especially in connection with what the angel said to him in the last verse of this chapter, viz. Thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. Even if the idea in the first verse should be only that of temporal independence, achieved by the Maccabees, the context, and the exigency of the case, demand here the interpretation which makes the passage affirm the doctrine that though man dies and sleeps in the dust, yet shall he live again.

                There is indeed very highly figurative language employed in the Scriptures, to denote the renovation of the mere civil and religious state of the Jews. As in the prophet Ezekiel 37:12-14, “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land.” But here the context, and the mention of their being brought to their own land, leave us in no doubt how to understand it, though the very imagery employed is doubtless taken from the doctrine of man’s resurrection from death to a future state. But the passage in Daniel is of a different and higher character. The context and phraseology and known circumstances of the case in Ezekiel, demand a temporal resurrection; in Daniel, they as imperatively demand a spiritual. In chapter 11, the prophet had spoken of some who should forsake the holy covenant, and of some who should be faithful to it. The faithful should fall both by flame and by sword, and die before any renovation in the condition of their nation, or the coming of their Messiah. The wicked, the apostates from the covenant, they too should die; many of them should be cut off by a violent death in those very times. But this should not be the end. Those who should perish in their struggle to rescue the sanctuary from its desecration, and die manfully for their brethren; those who should choose death by flame or by sword, rather than abandon the true religion and embrace idolatry; those who waited for the promised redemption of Israel, and preferred it above their chief joy, but died without the sight, should not lose their reward, nor fail to share in the blessings of the new reign. They should live again, they should see the Messiah, they should inherit everlasting life. On the other hand, the faithless and reprobate, those who should forsake the holy covenant and sell themselves to wickedness, and sleep in the dust as well as the godly, —they too should live again, they should wake up to shame and everlasting contempt, they  “should not escape the hand of the Almighty, neither alive nor dead,” 2nd Macc. 6:26. The context therefore, and phraseology, and circumstances of the case, all concur to establish the interpretation not of a temporal but spiritual resurrection; and the doctrine is here mentioned particularly in its application to the many involved in those troublous times.

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars forever and ever.” This is a further expansion of the thought in v. 2. It is a Hebrew parallelism, and may thus read: They that be wise and turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, even as the stars, forever and ever. They were the godly, such as have already been alluded to; they were those who, like the good Eleazer and others, “left a notable example to such as be young, to die willingly and courageously for the holy laws” —”a memorial of virtue not only unto young men but unto all his nation.” The glory mentioned cannot be only the glory of their reputation —the glory in which their names should live. True, the names of a very few have shone down, and will still shine, through the ages, as stars; and the firmament, once so dark with clouds over their heads, is bright with the light of their glorious But the glory mentioned seems something better than earthly reputation; it was the glory they should be awake to enjoy. They should not lie forever trodden down in the dust, but ascend on high to enjoy a glorious condition evermore. So they believed, and believing, teach us how to understand this passage aright.

                The doctrine of immortality and future retribution was a doctrine which our Savior found established among the Jews when He appeared. It was uttered by Martha when she said of her brother Lazarus, “I know that he shall rise again at the resurrection in the last day,” (John 11:24). Our Lord explained and confirmed it more fully than it had ever been taught or believed before —”The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation,” (John 5:28,29). It was re-affirmed again and again by the apostles, and by one of them in imagery like the prophet’s, “One star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead,” 1st Cor. 15: 41,42. Does not the declaration in 12: 2,3 harmonize with these, and teach the same great truth?

                In respect to the prophet’s association of the resurrection with the deliverance of his people, it is not so associated as to bind them both together in simultaneous occurrence, as not a few now suppose. Verses 2,3 contain a truth asserted in general terms. The phrase “at that time,” in v. 1, regards the time of the deliverance, not of the resurrection. When the deliverance should come, it should be followed by the resurrection; but at how remote a period, the prophecy does not say. The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are the prophets of the New Testament, have fixed the event of the resurrection at the close of the gospel dispensation.

                The interpretation of Rosenmller on verses 2,3, is the following —”After the deliverance predicted 12:1, Gabriel teaches that on an appointed day of judgment unto which the dead shall be called back to life, the good should be separated from the wicked: the dead in the dust of the earth shall awake from the sleep of death: some of the dead shall rise to everlasting blessedness, others to everlasting ignominy.” “Nor can there be a doubt,” adds he, “that the passage relates to the resurrection of the dead to universal judgment, which the Jews were expecting at the advent of their Messiah.”

                Verses 1-3 of this chapter are made a main pillar by Messrs. Miller, etc., for supporting their doctrine of the second advent of Christ, A.D. 1843. They bind the two events of the deliverance and the resurrection together in one simultaneous crisis, asserting that the deliverance has not yet come. But certainly nothing is more common than for the sacred writers to unite two events together which yet are wide apart. We have seen it in this very vision, on 11:2,3, where Xerxes and Alexander are placed in juxta-position, when yet they were 120 years apart. We have seen it in 9:26, where the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem is given in immediate connexion with that of the cutting off of the Messiah, when yet the one took place 40 years earlier than the other. The same occurs, as already noticed, in Isaiah chaps. 7-9:7, where the events are more than 600 years asunder. The deliverance, however, here recorded by the prophet, has already come, it is the great salvation already in the world, which came “To The Jew First,” Rom. 1:16. If the resurrection is to take place only with the events predicted v. 1, then there is no resurrection for such as have fallen asleep in Jesus since he came into the world; and those who bind the two events together in close proximity virtually take sides with the Sadducean members of the church at Corinth, and involve the prophets, as those members did the apostles, in the implication of being false witnesses of God, 1st Cor. 15:15.

                The arguments by which their doctrine is derived from vs. 1-3, are, as we have seen in part on 11:20,21, 30,31, 36, (Interpr. pp. 29,30, 42-44, 54,) utterly without a basis in the meaning of the prophecy. From 11:40 they proceed as follows: The king pushed at is Bonaparte; the king of the south designates the three kings of Sardinia, Italy and Spain, allied against Bonaparte; the king of the north coming against him like a whirlwind, is the king of Great Britain; the glorious land is Italy; the tidings out of the east and north which troubled him was the “holy alliance” of kings on the north and east of France; his going forth with great fury to destroy, was the famous Russian campaign; his planting his tabernacle in the glorious holy mountain was his being crowned at Milan in Italy; Michael’s standing up means the revivals in this country in 1815-1818; the time of trouble is yet in futurity, which was first assigned to A.D. 1839, then changed to A.D. 1840. (*Miller’s Lectures, pp. 105-109, 300. Mr. Litch, another preacher of the doctrine, differs from Mr. Miller somewhat in his interpretation of the verses above mentioned. The king pushed at is still Bonaparte; the king of the south is the Turkish power in Egypt; the king of the north is the same Turkish power in Syria; the glorious land is Palestine; tidings out of the east and north were the total failure of Bonaparte’s East India expedition, and a file of newspapers sent from Sir Sidney Smith giving him an account of the disastrous state of French affairs on the continent of Europe; his planting the tabernacles of his palaces between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, means his sojourning transiently in every kingdom between the seas with which Europe is surrounded; as to the events predicted in 12:1-3, none of them have yet taken place —Address to the Clergy, pp. 98-104. Between Mr. Miller’s and Mr. Litch’s interpretation there is but little choice. One feels no disposition to ridicule on such a subject as this. And yet the words of an ancient writer very readily occur as in point  —” If a painter should have a mind to join the neck of a horse to a human head, and taking the limbs from all sorts of animals stick on them all varieties of feathers, and then make it upward a beautiful woman but downward a loathsome fish, could you help laughing at such a sight?”)

                Can such expositions as these need a formal refutation? It is needed for some, but a brief notice will suffice. Let the reader see that in respect to the place from which north and south are calculated, such writers have arbitrarily shifted the ground from Palestine to France; that they make verse 40 mean three kings together, when it speaks of one, viz. the king of the south, and they introduce another person against whom the king of the south pushes, when it is the same king of the north; that they give to the city Milan in Italy, the appellation of glorious holy mountain —an appellation given in the Bible to Mount Zion alone ; that they are compelled to find some such designation, because Bonaparte was never in Jerusalem; that the application of the period of trouble first to A.D. 1839 and then changed to A.D. 1840, has fallen to the ground, thereby furnishing premonition that their other applications of the prophecy will prove equally vain and false. Let it be considered too that these writers apply the phrase “children of thy people” to denote Christians and all true saints alive at this present day, while they apply the phrase “thy people” 9:24 also 11:14, to the Jews only, as indeed they must; that having applied it in chap. 9 to the Jews only, yet in the very next vision in chaps. 10, 11, 12, where the angel comes to tell Daniel what should befall his people —his countrymen— in the latter days, they turn aside the prophecy from those for whom it was intended and talk about the Pope, and Bonaparte, and holy alliance, and what not, with no sort of reference to the fortunes of the Jewish nation, or rather with putting them entirely out of the question. But what extravagant and absurd interpretation may not be expected from such as confound the sanctuary of God with the city Rome, or with Paganism’s sanctuary, (when Paganism had none, for the Pagan temples had been abolished,) and the continual burnt-offering with the abolition of Pagan sacrifices, and protract the date of this last event more than 100 years from the period assigned in all history?  These persons come down “to the end” in by-paths of their own which have led them utterly out of the way. They have turned aside from “the Scripture of truth” to fables. They have followed not the pure light of prophecy, but an ignis-fatuus kindled out of the vapors of their own minds.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”   To “seal the book” is the continuation of the act expressed in the phrase to “shut up the words,” and both mean not so much to bring the record of the vision to a close, as a symbolic action to denote that the vision would not be understood for the present, and was to be reserved for future use at “the time of the end,” 11:40-45; the period of trial beginning under Antiochus Epiphanes, and issuing in deliverance; the end of the former things of the Mosaic dispensation, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven.

                “Many shall run to and fro,” is literally many shall run through [it, viz. the vision] i.e. many shall eagerly peruse the vision, diligently investigate its meaning, and thus the knowledge of its aim and purport should be increased, until it should be fully understood at the needed time.  (*Mr. Wm. Miller explains this as denoting that “the means of travel will be greatly increased,” by railroads, steamboats, etc.)   This last clause confirms the interpretation above given to the phrase “seal the book.” Doubtless the wise and the godly read this prophecy in those times that tried their souls, and they were instructed, comforted, and strengthened by it. Doubtless also with all the visions that Daniel saw and recorded, at different times, it helped create that ” waiting for the consolation of Israel,” which was manifested by the “just and devout Simeon,” to whom it ” was revealed by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple, and he took the child Jesus in his arms, and said, Lord, now lettest thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.” There was also “Anna a prophetess, and she coming in, that instant, gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem,” Luke 2:25-38.

Then I Daniel looked, and behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.” The river was the Hiddekel, or Tigris, where Daniel was, when he saw the vision, 10: 4. The “other two”, persons whom he beheld, were two angels besides the one that had been talking with him.

And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it he to the end of these wonders?” “The man clothed in linen,” was the angel who first appeared in the vision, and made the revelations to Daniel, 7:16 and 8:13. The question is literally, Unto how long an end of the wonders? The demonstrative adjective pronoun “these” is the definite article in the original. To what “wonders” then, does the question relate? In 11:27, 36, 40, 45, the angel had used the language, ” yet the end shall be at the time appointed;” “he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished;” “at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him;” “he shall come to his end, and none shall help him” —language spoken in connexion with king Antiochus Epiphanes. The word translated “wonders” is substantially the same with that translated “marvellous things” in verse 36, —the only difference being, that the latter is a participial, and the former a noun, while both are derived directly from the same verb; and those “marvellous things” are not only spoken of the acts of Antiochus Epiphanes against the religious institutions of the Jews, but are also found in connexion with he “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” All this shows the question to aim beyond a reasonable doubt, to the end of the atrocious deeds of the Syrian king against the prophet’s countrymen. Of this we shall have more confirmation in the verses following.

And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.”

                The position of the angel while making the revelations to Daniel, seems from this verse to have been on the waters of the river, probably mid-way between the banks, on one of which the prophet stood.

                The word translated “power,” is hand in the original. This signification of power the word often has. But it also means, and is sometimes translated, portion, or part, as in 2nd Kings 2:7. It is also found in the plural form, in Dan. 1:21, where it is translated “times,” “ten times better,” or ten parts better. It may therefore signify portion in 12:7. For the appellation “holy people, “compare the expression “upright ones” 11:17, also 12:1; 9:24, etc.

                The clause “and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people,” is literally, and at the accomplishment of the dispersion of a portion, [or “the power”] of the holy people. In this clause, the angel uses the phrase, “accomplishment of the dispersion of a portion of the holy people,” as synonymous with the phrase “end of the wonders.”

                The question being, How long to the end of the wonders? How long to the end of the dispersion of a portion of the holy people, or the end of the season during which they were wholly without civil or ecclesiastical power  the answer is given of a time, times and a half—the same period found in 7:25, and there shown to be equivalent to three years and a half. It would be unnecessary to say more in illustration of this phrase, were it not that one authority was unintentionally passed over, on which much stress has been laid. It is found in Leviticus, chap. 26, where God threatens to punish his children seven times for their sins —which in a prophetic sense it is said makes 2520 years, and commencing with the captivity of Israel under Esarhaddon 677 years B.C. runs out in A.D. 1843. (*Millers Lectures, pp. 261, 2. Cox’s Letters, p. 66.) Now those declarations in Leviticus read thus —”If ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.” And still after, “If ye walk contrary to me, I will bring seven times more plagues upon you.” And still after, “If ye will not be reformed by me by these things, I will punish you yet seven times for your sins.” And yet once more, “If ye will not for all this hearken unto me, I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins,” vs. 18, 21, 24, 28. Now how can one fail to see, that just so many probations are here given; that if at the close of one period of probation they were impenitent and unsubdued, they should be punished yet more, and so on? If the seven times mean 2520 years, then they must be multiplied four times, which will make ten thousand and eighty (10,080) years —rather too many for those who make the world end A.D. 1843. This passage therefore affords not the least countenance to the method of the double transmutation of the times into days, and then days into years; and when one looks at the scope of the chapter, it seems strange that it should ever have been quoted for such a purpose, and that such an interpretation of it should be widely adopted. It only seems not quite so strange as the manner in which, after the “times” are brought down to the present day, the prediction of the scattering of the power of the holy people is applied to the divisions of modern Christians into sects or parties, (Miller’s Lectures, p. 113) —an evil that good men may mourn over, but not exactly the thing revealed to Daniel. (*Mr. Litch, not much less out of the way, considers this fulfilled in the “spreading” of Christians to preach the gospel, i.e. in modern missions at home and abroad! p. 108.)

                In Dan. 12:7, the context, and known circumstances and facts in the case clearly guide to the desecration by Apollonius, as the event from which the “time, times and a half” are reckoned. From that period was the city “strange to those that were born in her; and her own children left her,” 1st Macc. 1:38. And it was not until Judas said, ‘Let us go up to cleanse and dedicate the sanctuary,’ and thereupon “all the host assembled themselves together and went up into mount Sion,” (1st Macc. 4:36,37,) that the dispersion began to be ended.

                “And when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.”         As the word “things” is not in the original, to what does the demonstrative pronoun “these” relate? Is the word “wonders” to be supplied from verse 6? If so, then the idea is, that when the prophet’s people should be able to come once more into the city after their dispersion, then should commence the epoch of their deliverance from the power of the persecutor, to end with the higher redemption through Jesus Christ. And we have seen it was so. The holy people were exiles from their city from the desolation by Apollonius till they went again, 3½ years after that desolation, to purify and hallow their sanctuary. The purification of the sanctuary marks an epoch of signal deliverance. Their daily sacrifice was not again taken away, their religious services not again suspended, until indeed, after continuing more than 200 years, the temple worship was again taken away in the final desolation of their city by the Romans. The holy people went on from conquering to conquer, until their independence was once more achieved, and the still greater Deliverer at last came.

                But the phrase is not like “they all,” or “all of them;” which would most naturally have been employed, had the angel meant to say, all of the wonders. The course of the prophecy seems here to be this —How long shall it be to the end of the infamous deeds of the persecuting king? The answer is given, Three years and a half (3½ yrs). When that season of perplexity, and of treading down God’s people, shall have passed away, then what remains of the vision shall haste to its accomplishment; then may the holy people lift up their eyes, and expect “the kingdom of heaven” —a kingdom which shall be soon set up after these persecutions, and which, continuing until all things shall be subdued unto the Father in his own appointed time, shall close with the resurrection of all that are in the graves.

And I heard, but 1 understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things.”

                This question is not like that asked by one of the angels. It pertains not to duration, but to quality and particulars. It is not, How long to the end of the wonders? but, What the issue of these [things], What the after-part of these things? The word wonders is not expressed, and the word translated “end,” is not the same with that in verse 6, but the same with that translated “posterity” in 11:4. Whether the word wonders be supplied, or not, it affects not the general sentiment here contained. The question Daniel asks, has manifest reference to the last clause of verse 7. In respect to the events which should be the accomplishment of the whole series, the revelation by the angel had been given in the most general and summary manner. Daniel understood neither their nature fully, nor the particulars; he understood not the relation of their final issue to the “time, times and a half,” during which his countrymen should be dispersed. And a glance at the previous visions will sufficiently show that in respect to those events which should be ushered in by the coming of the Messiah, he had only that measure of knowledge granted to him, which would naturally lead him to desire more. And we have, in this state of Daniel’s mind, an illustration of the words of our Lord, —”Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them,” Matt. 13:17. Compare also the words of the apostle Peter 1:10-12, “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, [Dan. 9:26,] and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into,” [Dan. 12:5, 6, also 8:13.]

And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”    No more disclosures were to be made; no further particulars given. “The time of the end,” would bring further light, would fully reveal the nature of the events, and disclose them in their particulars, and their final issue. The needed light and grace would be bestowed at the time, and the prophecy though not fully understood now, would yet serve to due preparation of the heart beforehand.

Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand: but the wise shall understand.”    In those days of trial, when the king should have such indignation against the holy covenant, and against those who would not forsake it, then the godly should both study these prophecies, and understand them, and find in them the strongest motives to be faithful to the end. They should not despair of deliverance, should not distrust God’s word, and though they should fall by fire, and by sword, and by captivity, and by spoil, their calamities should work together for their On the other hand, the apostates from the covenant would still do wickedly; they would neglect God’s word, as we know from history they did, in their desire to escape the penalty of death to all with whom might be” found the book of the testament;” (1st Macc. 1:57;) and they would therefore not understand, nor have before them the great motives to endure unto the end. Moreover, by the light of this series of events, the wise and godly should be able to trace out the issue in the promised redemption of Israel. And so, as we have seen, there were those among the prophet’s people, who, in their waiting for the consolation of Israel, were doubtless giving heed to the light of these prophecies of Daniel, shining as in a dark place. There were then also the wicked, who, though the Redeemer came to them, comprehended him not. They believed not that Jesus was the Christ, they rejected him, and died in their sins.

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”                The mode of reckoning time among the Jews was different at different periods. At first, they seem to have followed the Egyptian, (See Gen. chaps. 7, 8,) which gave 365 days to the year, and divided the year into twelve months of thirty days each, except the last, which had thirty-five days. In the times of the Maccabees, and of Josephus, they followed the Grecian mode —twelve months to the year, each month alternately of thirty days and twenty-nine days, which made a year contain 354 days. At the expiration of every three years, they added, after the month Adar, (the last month of their year,) an intercalary month, to make their general time correspond with the Roman. Regarding the days as literal days, (See Interpr. p. 81-86,) and computing them by this latter method as most appropriate because they concerned the Jews when they reckoned time in this manner, we have three years, six months, and about fifteen or twenty days, which are the equivalent to time, times and a half —only the angel here gives the exact number of the days, the precise duration of the desecration.  (*We have seen that Josephus gives this same number, with the slight variation of 1206 for 1290, Interpr. pp. 93, 129.)   Even on the supposition, that only 360 days to the year are meant, it would make but three years and seven months with which the time, times and a half would correspond according to the usage of Scripture, See Interpr. p. 126- (*This mode of reckoning seems to be pursued in the book of Revelation. By comparing Rev. 12:6 and 12:14 we find that twelve hundred and sixty (1260) days mean the same with time, times, and a half. In Rev. 11:2 and 13:5, the expression forty-two (42) months is found, and in 11:3 the duration of 1360 days again. The events to which these periods of time relate in the prophet Daniel and in the apostle John, the context plainly shows to be different. But the passages in Revelation afford sufficient biblical authority for those who choose to reckon 360 days to the year, though the mode of reckoning time by one sacred writer in one age is not necessarily the same with that adopted by another sacred writer in a different age.*)     This duration, as we have seen, embraces the period of desecration from the act of Apollonius early in June of the year 168 B.C. to the purification by Judas Maccabeus in the month of Dec. 165 B.C. There is an apparent objection to this, that though the daily sacrifice was taken away in June of 168 B. C., “the abomination that maketh desolate” was not “set up” until the December following; and from the setting up of that till the dedication of the sanctuary was but three years. The objection admits of two solutions.

                The association of these two acts in verse 11, may no more denote that the same term of time is predicated of both, than the association, by one evangelist, of the thieves in the act of reviling our Savior on the Cross, teaches that both reviled Him, when, as we are informed in another place, it was the act of only one. The leading event was the abolition of the daily sacrifice; and this, though it happened earlier, draws along with it the mention of the other.

                We learn from 1st Macc. 4:57-60, that after the dedication, Judas caused the gates and chambers to be renewed. He also caused the mountain of the sanctuary to be fortified with strong walls and high towers. This last was a necessary work to secure those who went up to worship in the sanctuary from being annoyed, and even slain, by the Syrian garrison stationed in the city over against the temple. Now if we associate the two acts of taking away the daily sacrifice and setting up the abomination of desolation, and consider them to last just three years, the remaining six or seven months are not more than sufficient time for the entire renewal and defense of the sanctuary, after the event of its dedication.

                These terms of time may possibly be different from each other —the first exactly three years and six months, and the second 1290 days; the former extending from the dispersion to the dedication, the latter from the setting up of the abomination of desolation to the building of the wall, and chambers and gates. It will be observed that in the last date of 1290 days, the events, which are their limit, are not expressed, but are left to be implied.  

“Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty (1335)”

                These days are 45 more than the 1290. Reckoning the 1290 days to close with the dedication of the sanctuary in the 148th year of the epoch of the Greeks and the 25th day of the month Casleu, (the ninth month of the sacred year, but the third of the civil year,) the 45 days would reach into the 11th month Sebat of the same year 148, corresponding with our February 164 B.C. Reckoning the 1290 days to close with the complete renewal of the sanctuary, and to extend between six and seven months beyond the dedication, they reach from the 9th month of the year 148 to the fifth month of the 149th year, which corresponds with our August 164 B.C. What event, then, corresponds with the 1335 days? The author of the first book of Maccabees (and so does Josephus) relates that Antiochus died in the 149th year of the epoch of the Greeks; and as they specify the ninth month of the year one hundred forty-eight (148) as the time when the sanctuary was dedicated, there must have been of course more than 45 days from that period to the death of Antiochus —for they fix Antiochus’s death in the year one hundred and forty-nine (149), and from the dedication to 149 were ninety-four or five days. If the 1290 days close with the dedication, then the occasion of blessedness could not be the death of Antiochus, i.e. on the admission that the date assigned for his death by Josephus and the first of Maccabees is correct. His death could neither be the epoch of blessedness, nor the point of transition to any yet higher occasion of blessedness. But reckoning the 1290 days to close with the complete renewal of the sanctuary, then as we have seen above, the 1335 days reach to a point in the year 149, which harmonizes perfectly with the date as signed for the death of this persecutor of the holy people.

                The article in the Christian Review that has been referred to, fixes these several dates as follows: the 1150, (equivalent to time, times and a half,) to the dedication; the 1290, to Antiochus’s death, making 140 more than 1150 and reaching of course into the year 149; 1335, the time when the news of Antiochus’s death reached Jerusalem. The chief objection to this seems the difficulty of harmonizing the 1150 days with time, times and a half; for according to the mode in which it is known that the Jews computed time, three years would be at least 1092 days, which would leave less than two months for the half a time, and not more than two months and ten days, reckoning 360 days to the year. The author of the Review, along with many, makes the month Casleu coincide with our month November—reckoning the beginning of Nisan, the first month of the sacred year, from the new moon of March; but Robinson in Calmet says that the month Nisan may be reckoned with greater propriety from the new moon of April, which makes Nisan coincide with our December.

                Antiochus’s death was a fit season for congratulation, especially as he was cut off before he could execute his last and bitterest threats. It has its parallel, as a season of congratulation, in the destruction of the Assyrian king, which the prophet Isaiah made an occasion of a song of rejoicing, 14:7,8, “The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet, they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.”

                But the angel may have had in view, and the context seems to show that he did actually have in view, a higher occasion of blessedness than this. If in verse 1, standing at a point 534 B.C., he looked down the ages and saw the kingdom of the Messiah apparently soon approaching after the great crisis of which he had just spoken; if in verse 7, he meant to be understood to assert that the establishment of the kingdom of heaven should be hastened after the “time, times and a half” persecution under the king of the north, then may he here in verse 12, congratulate those godly ones who should be permitted to come to this expiration and final issue of the 1335 days —this “time of the end” corresponding with the prediction “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” It was a meet object for him thus to speak, to induce the true sons of Israel to live in constant expectancy of the event, until the Messiah should indeed come. The benediction thus pronounced was re-affirmed by our Lord himself, in the spirit in which it was first uttered by the angel; for when He said to His disciples, “Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them,” He also said, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see,” Luke 10:23. Matt. 13:17.

                The manner in which the dates of this chapter are interpreted by those who compute the days as years, is quite diverse. Dr. Adam Clarke applies the 1290 days to the continuance of Mohammedanism, and as that arose A.D. 612, it will as he thinks come to an end about A. D. 1900. The 1335 days he reckons from the same date, A.D. 612, which reaches down to A.D. 1950, at which time, as he thinks, the fulness of the Gentiles will be brought in, and the Great Sabbath soon after be ushered in with the year 6000 of the creation of the world, and 2000 from the birth of our Savior. Scott and others place the destruction both of Mohammedanism and Papacy at the end of the 1260 days, occupy the next 30 (1290) with the extermination of every antichristian power, and introduce the Millennium at the close of the 1335. By fixing the rise of the Papacy in A.D. 606, they coincide in general results with those already given from Dr. Adam Clarke.

                Mr. Miller and his coadjutors apply the time, times and a half —equivalent to 1260 days— to the continuance of the papal power from the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom A.D. 538, which they consider one of the three horns subdued by the little horn, thus making A.D. 1798 the epoch of the overthrow of the papal power; and they find what they consider this overthrow in the act of the French General Berthier who entered Rome that year, deposed the Pope, carried him captive to France, and substituted a republican for the papal government. The 1290 days they add to A.D. 508 (the date which they assign to the abolition of the pagan sacrifices, Interpr. pp. 43, 44), and thus make them tally with 1798 again. The 1335 days they put on to the same 508, and make them reach down to A. D. 1843, when the end of all things they say will literally have come.

                All these calculations are utterly without the sanction of scriptural usage. The last is only more arbitrary and extravagant. We have seen that this open-sesame number 508 cannot be found anywhere in history, but owes its existence to the mere cabalistic authority of those who make so much of it. The next date A.D. 538 makes even less for them; for the Ostrogothic kingdom they admit was conquered by Justinian’s army, (the Roman soldiers,) when with their interpretation of the little horn as the Pope, they ought to make the Pope the destroyer of the Ostrogothic kingdom. They avoid this inconsistency only by saying that the expression 7:8, “before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots, “means that they were plucked up before in point of time, or to prepare the way for the establishment of the little horn ; (*Litch, p. 64.) but the declaration “he shall subdue three kings,” 7: 24, decides the point that, it was the little horn which plucked up the three others.  The number 1798 has less plausibility than either 508 or 538. The papal dominion is wider and stronger now than it was then. Says acelebrated English writer, than whom none is a better judge on this subject, “During the eighteenth century the influence of the Church of Rome was constantly on the decline. During the nineteenth century this fallen church has been gradually rising from her depressed state, and re-conquering her old dominion. (*Macauly’s Miscellanies, Vol. III. p. 357.) She had been weaker before 1798 than at that time, and from that very prostration rose up forthwith in more might. So utterly does Mr. Miller and his associates stumble at noon-day over the plainest facts in the world.

                Mr. Miller’s mode of solving some of the difficulties which trouble him on the days here specified, is in harmony with what has already been presented. The 2300 days, which Daniel did not at first understand, (chap. 8,) the angel had been sent again to explain to him in chap. 9. But Daniel here says, I heard, but understood not, i.e. “he could not tell,” Mr. Miller thinks, “whereabouts in his grand number of 2300 days, the end of Papal Rome carried him, he understood not how this time was divided.” (*Lectures, p. 102. )   In other words, he had the whole cloth, but did not know how to cut it. “But in verses 10,11,” Mr. Miller adds, “Daniel had all he could ask for, and now could understand the time and length and part of every division which the angel had given him in his instruction so far as to fill up his vision of 2300 days.” (*lb. p. 103. ) Let one of Mr. Miller’s disciples instruct him, who says, “It was not for Daniel to know the full meaning, that was reserved for others.” (*Litch, p. 107.

But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”                Some, as Rosenmller, suppose the word end to refer to the end of the prophet’s life, as when the Psalmist, 39:4, says, “Lord make me to know mine end.” But as it has the article, it refers to the end above mentioned, and the sentiment is, Be not anxious to know the times, and seasons, and particulars. Go thou thy way, and wait patiently, and let the end come at the time and manner it may. Thou shalt rest from thy trials, and labors, and arise again from thy sleep in the grave, to have thy portion in the Messiah’s reign. When those days shall have ended, then shall shortly come the kingdom of heaven. And though thou shalt die before it arrive, yet because thou hast endured, and by thine own example hast instructed many how to be faithful to God in the midst of temptations and persecutions, thou shalt not fail to be a partaker of the fullest blessings of that future happy reign.   (*This sentiment is given to this last verse both by Gesenius and Rosenmller. Neither the words nor the context will bear the sense given by some —that of Daniel’s standing in his lot as a prophet. Nor are we at liberty to conjecture, in its illustration, that Daniel might have been one of the saints who arose from their graves at the death and resurrection of our Lord, Matt. 27:52,53.*)

                More than 2000 years have passed since Daniel went to his rest in the grave. The issue respecting which he inquired, has come in part —not in one simultaneous cluster of events, but in such order of occurrence as hath pleased him who seeth the end from the beginning, and with whom a thousand years are as a day. The kingdom of heaven, which the prophet foresaw, is still working deliverance in the world, and the full end is not yet; the resurrection of which Daniel wrote, and which our Savior taught, and Paul preached, has not yet come. It is still before us; it will be still before multitudes when 1843 shall have expired. The question of the time of its occurrence has nothing to do with our duty to be prepared for it. Let the truly wise and godly go his way, until the end be, not concerning himself with the calculation of the times and seasons, but holding himself in the posture of expectance, as Daniel, and as primitive Christians did, though the objects to which they looked were in reality centuries off. The final issues are unrevealed. To attempt to find them out is to decipher an unwritten record, and against the express admonition of the Great Master, ” It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power,” Acts 1:7. To pretend to know them is to set one’s self above not only prophets but apostles. If faithful to God and duty, if one endures temptation, if his love does not grow cold when iniquity aboundeth, if he neglects not God’s word, but searches it, and finds in it truth to nourish and confirm his faith and hope, then shall he rest, and his death shall be precious in the sight of the Lord; he shall stand in his lot at the end of the days, and shine as the brightness of the firmament, even as the stars, forever and ever. Then too shall he meet all the wise and godly, “who through faith stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, turned to flight the armies of the aliens, were tortured not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. They wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. These all received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect,” Heb. 11:32-40. }}

                {{  This Article by a Methodist publication is a fitting close to Folsom’s criticism. Adam Clarke and Date Setting. Dr. Vic Reasoner  (fwponline.cc)

Welcome To fwponline.CC: A Wesleyan Fellowship dedicated to the spread of Biblical Wesleyan theology. The Arminian Magazine. Issue 2. Fall 2011. Volume 29. Date published to Extended January 2012 The Hope of the Gospel (Evansville, IN: Fundamental Wesleyan, 1999), 52-55.

                There has been some attention given to the dates calculated by Adam Clarke in Daniel. Writing in the early nineteenth century, Clarke commented on Daniel 12:9 that “the time of the end” would not arrive before the twentieth century.

                Clarke interpreted the 1335 days of Daniel 12:12 as years. He suggested that if the origin of Mohammedanism in A. D. 612 is taken as a beginning point, 1335 years later would bring us to A. D. 1947, “when the fulness of the Gentiles shall be brought in.” This is hailed as a remarkable prediction since it was in 1947 that the U. N. partitioned Palestine to create the state of Israel. However, Clarke did not anticipate the formation of Israel as a nation; for him bringing in the fullness of the gentiles meant their salvation and entrance into the kingdom of God which would produce the millennium. Clarke describes this as a time when wars would cease, Jew and gentile would become one fold, and God properly worshiped over the face of the whole earth.

                Dispensationalists, however, read into Clarke their own presuppositions. They would connect Clarke’s reference to the fullness of the gentiles to Luke 21:24 which states that “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” For Jerusalem to come under Jewish control once again is interpreted dispensationally to mean that the church age is over. The close of the church age is brought about by a secret rapture and God’s agenda then becomes the establishment of a Jewish kingdom. This is not what Clarke anticipated nor did it happen in 1947.

                While I accept the postmillennial concept of Clarke, was he accurate in applying the day/year formula to Daniel 12:12? Clarke noted that v 11 specified 1290 days. With the same starting point, A. D. 612, we would then arrive at the year 1902. Clarke thought that after 1902 “the religion of the FALSE PROPHET will cease to prevail in the world.” Clarke thought the false religion might refer to the rise of Mohammadanism. Certainly, Islam is a major false religion in the world which continues to grow; however, it did not cease in 1902. Those who think Clarke’s calculations are remarkable fail to mention this one.

                Clarke also sets the rise of Roman Catholicism at A. D. 755 and calculates that its fall in A. D. 2015 (see comments on Daniel 7:25). Clearly, he was not expecting the imminent return of Christ when he wrote in 1825. However, an article on Clarke’s predictions does mention his comments on Daniel 8:13-14. Here again Clarke takes 2300 days as years. Clarke refers to Alexander the Great’s invasion of Asia in 334 B. C. and adds 2300 years, arriving at A. D. 1966. Clarke does not specifically indicate what will happen in 1966, presumably the sanctuary will be cleansed. Clarke only said this would bring it near to the time mentioned in Daniel 7:25, which was 2015. The connection is not clear.

                It is claimed in a recent article, however, that Clarke was off by one year and that 1967 was the very year that the Jews took control of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. But while Jewish control of Jerusalem is significant to dispensationalists, Clarke anticipated the reform of the Christian Church (see his comments on 7:25).

                Clarke’s day/year formula is common among those who interpret prophecy historically. William Miller interpreted the 2300 days in Daniel 8 as years, but took the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuilt Jerusalem in 457 B. C. as his beginning point. This led him to the conclusion that Christ would return to earth in A. D. 1843-4.

                A preterist approach to Daniel 8 also begins with Alexander the Great. After his kingdom was divided by four generals, a “little horn,” Antiochus Epiphanes gained control in 175 B. C. On December 16, 168 B. C. Antiochus sent 20,000 troops to seize Jerusalem. 40,000 people were massacred in three days. Sacrifices ceased, swine were offered on the altar and an idol of Zeus was erected in the temple.

                Under Judas Maccabaeus, Antiochus was overthrown on December 25, 165 B. C., an event celebrated at Hanukkah. Since temple sacrifices were offered evening and morning, 2300 evenings and morning would be 1150 days. Judas Maccabaeus purified the temple and built a new altar approximately 1150 days, or 3 ½ years after the temple had been profaned. Josephus recorded that Antiochus “spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months” [Wars of the Jews 1.1.1].

                The preterist approach also makes more sense in Daniel 12. Starting with Daniel 11:40 there is a shift to the time of the end [see Joyce G. Baldwin, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Daniel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 199-200]. This is not a reference to the end of the world, but to a time when the kingdoms of man would be replaced by the kingdom of God. This occurred during the time of the fourth empire, the Roman empire. If Daniel 9 moves past the events described in chapter 8, then the final vision, Daniel 11:40-12:13, can also move past the events of Daniel 10-11:39. Again, the temple would be profaned. This siege would be even worse than the occupation under Antiochus had been. This Roman siege lasted from 67-70 A. D.

                Daniel 12:7 refers to “time, times and a half a time.” Clarke notes in his comments on the following verse that these make 3½ years of prophetic time, but then interprets this interval as 1260 years. The preterist approach rejects the day/year formula and understands the reference in Daniel to 2300 mornings and evenings or 1150 days (8:14), 1290 days (12:11), 1335 days (12:12), and time, times and half a time (8:25; 12:7) all to refer to time periods of approximately 3½ years [see Milton S. Terry, The Prophecies of Daniel Expounded (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893), 64; 130-134].

                It should also be noted that Revelation 11:2 and 13:5 refers to 42 months; 11:3 and 12:6 refer to 1260 days. Revelation 12:14 even borrows Daniel’s phrase “time, times, and half a time.” It should be obvious that John in Revelation is referring to the same tribulation period as does Daniel. Milton S. Terry represents a later generation of Methodist scholars who had turned from the historical to the preterist interpretation [see Camden M. Cobern, Whedon’s Commentary on the Old Testament (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1901), Vol. 8; McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, 2:663-670]. Both of these volumes interpret the fourth kingdom as Syria, but concede that Rome is the traditional view. Terry taught Greece was the fourth empire.

                These interpretations do not bring Daniel’s seventy sevens up to the time of the coming of the Messiah. It is in the days of the fourth kingdom that the Messiah comes (Dan 2:44); therefore it must be Rome. This view also makes the abomination that causes desolation (9:27; 11:31; 12:11) refer to the actions of Antiochus. However, Jesus warned his followers to flee the city when this happened (Matt 24:15-21). Therefore, it must refer to an action which would happen in the first century, not a past event.

                Josephus wrote, “And indeed it so came to pass that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision and what he wrote many years before it came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them [Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7].

                However, it is entirely consistent to hold to a preterist interpretation and teach that the Roman empire is the fourth kingdom. But Clarke held to a historical approach, stating that a day stands for a year in his comments on Daniel 7:25 and again at 12:12. However, at 7:25 he connects his day/year formula with the week/year interpretation of 9:24. But “weeks” is not in the Hebrew text. The Jews had been in captivity for 70 years. Now Daniel is told what would occur during seventy sevens. The context (9:1-2) refers to 70 years, so this period, revealed to Daniel, is 70 years x 7. Clarke interprets this set of numbers accurately. Why could he not see, however, that Daniel’s references to time, times and half a time or 1200 + days either typified or referred to the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, the time of great tribulation?

                However, I affirm Clarke’s basic postmillennial theology. This has been misrepresented by the article which states that Clarke anticipated that from 1967 “it would not be long until the anti-christ would appear, and the final chapters of human history would unfold. He expected the second coming of the Messiah to be around the year A. D. 2000” [“Daniel Told Us! Adam Clarke Showed Us,” Faith in the Future, Vol. 23, No. 4 (April 1995), 16-17]. Clarke believed in a succession of antichrists. In Clarke’s day the enemies of Christianity were the papist, the pagan, and the Mohammedian.

                Each of these systems would be conquered by the advancement of Christ’s kingdom. Then the millennium would begin. If Clarke thought the antichrist teaching of Mohammedanism would end in 1902, the antichrist teaching of Roman Catholicism would end by 2015, and Christ would return at the end of the millennium, how does the author arrive at a date for the second advent which is around 2000? This projection is the presupposition of the author, not the calculation of Clarke.

                Ralph Earle also cited Clarke’s predictions for 1947 and 1966. He asked, “How could Adam Clarke make these precise predictions 150 years ago exactly to the year, as we have not seen them fulfilled? We have no answer, unless this was what these scriptures were intended to mean.” However, Earle made no reference to the other two predictions: 1902 and 2015 [What the Bible Says About the Second Coming (1970; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 85-7]. }}

  1. Smith.

Thoughts Critical & Practical, on the Books of Daniel & the Revelation: being An Exposition, Text by Text, of these Important Portions of the Holy Scriptures; by Uriah Smith. 1881-1884-1887 Review & Herald Publishing Assn. Wash. D.C. 7th Day Adventist. 

Daniel & the Revelation; The Response of History to the Voice of Prophecy; A Verse by Verse Study of These Important Books of the Bible by Uriah Smith.  Review & Herald Publishing Assn. Wash. D.C. 7th Day Adventist.  (Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1897, by Uriah Smith.  Copyright, 1907, by Mrs. Uriah Smith. This work was first published as a little book (100 pages each) in two parts in 1873, then enlarged & revised (800 pages together) over the next 30 years.)

                {{ Preface: ….. It is for the purpose of calling attention to some of these important prophetico-historical lessons, if we may be permitted to coin a word, that this volume is written. And the books of Daniel and the Revelation are chosen for this purpose, because in some respects their prophecies are more direct than are to be found elsewhere upon the prophetic page, and the fulfilments more striking. The object before us is threefold: (1) To gain an understanding of the wonderful testimony of the books themselves; (2) To acquaint ourselves with some of the more interesting and important events in the history of civilized nations, and mark how accurately the prophecies, some of them depending upon the developments of the then far-distant future, and upon conditions the most minute and complicated, have been fulfilled in these events; and (3) To draw from these things important lessons relative to practical Christian duties, which were not given for past ages merely, but are for the learning and admonition of the world today. The books of Daniel and the Revelation are counterparts of each other. They naturally stand side by side, and should be studied together. We are aware that any attempt to explain these books and make an application of their prophecies, is generally looked upon as a futile and fanatical task, and is sometimes met even with open hostility. It is much to be regretted that any portions of that volume which all Christians believe to be the book wherein God has undertaken to reveal his will to mankind, should come to be regarded in such a light. But a great fact, to which the reader’s attention is called in the following paragraph, is believed to contain for this state of things both an explanation and an antidote. There are two general systems of interpretation adopted by different expositors in their efforts to explain the sacred Scriptures. The first is the mystical or spiritualizing system invented by Origen, to the shame of sound criticism and the curse of Christendom; the second is the system of literal interpretation, used by such men as Tyndale, Luther, and all the Reformers, and furnishing the basis for every advance step which has thus far been made in the reformation from error to truth as taught in the Scriptures. According to the first system, every declaration is supposed to have a mystical or hidden sense, which it is the province of the interpreter to bring forth; by the second, every declaration is to be taken in its most obvious and literal sense, except where the context and the well-known laws of language show that the terms are figurative, and not literal; and whatever is figurative must be explained by other portions of the Bible which are literal. By the mystical method of Origen, it is vain to hope for any uniform understanding of either Daniel or the Revelation, or of any other book of the Bible; for that system (if it can be called a system) knows no law but the uncurbed imagination of its adherents; hence there are on its side as many different interpretations of Scripture as there are different fancies of different writers. By the literal method, everything is subject to well-established and clearly-defined law; and, viewed from this standpoint, the reader will be surprised to see how simple, easy, and clear many portions of the Scriptures at once become, which, according to any other system, are dark and unsolvable. It is admitted that many figures are used in the Bible, and that much of the books under consideration, especially that of the Revelation, is clothed in symbolic language; but it is also claimed that the Scriptures introduce no figure which they do not somewhere furnish literal language to explain. This volume is offered as a consistent exposition of the books of Daniel and the Revelation according to the literal system. The study of prophecy should by no means be neglected; for it is the prophetic portions of the word of God which especially constitute it a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. So both David and Peter unequivocally testify. Ps.119:105; 2nd Peter 1:19. No sublimer study can occupy the mind than the study of those books in which He who sees the end from the beginning, looking forward through all the ages, gives, through His inspired prophets, a description of coming events for the benefit of those whose lot it would be to meet them. An increase of knowledge respecting the prophetic portions of the word of God was to be one of the characteristics of the last days. Said the angel to Daniel, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased;” or, as Michaelis’s translation reads: “When many shall give their sedulous attention to the understanding of these things, and knowledge shall be increased.” It is our lot to live this side the time to which the angel told Daniel to thus shut up the words and seal the book. That restriction has now expired by limitation. In the language of the figure, the seal has been removed, and many are running to and fro, and knowledge has marvelously increased in every department of science; yet it is evident that this prophecy specially contemplates an increase of knowledge concerning those prophecies that are designed to give us light in reference to the age in which we live, the close of this dispensation, and the soon-coming transfer of all earthly governments to the great King of Righteousness, who shall destroy His enemies, and crown with an infinite reward every one of His friends. The fulfilment of the prophecy in the increase of this knowledge, is one of the pleasing signs of the present time. For more than half a century, light upon the prophetic word has been increasing, and shining with ever-growing luster to our own day. In no portion of the word of God is this more apparent than in the books of Daniel and the Revelation; and we may well congratulate ourselves on this, for no other parts of that word deal so largely in prophecies that pertain to the closing scenes of this world’s history. No other books contain so many chains of prophecy reaching down to the end. In no other books is the grand procession of events that leads us through to the termination of probationary time, and ushers us into the realities of the eternal state, so fully and minutely set forth. No other books embrace so completely, as it were in one grand sweep, all the truths that concern the last generation of the inhabitants of the earth, and set forth so comprehensively all the aspects of the times, physical, moral, and political, in which the triumphs of earthly woe and wickedness shall end, and the eternal reign of righteousness begin. We take pleasure in calling attention especially to these features of the books of Daniel and the Revelation, which seem heretofore to have been too generally overlooked or misinterpreted. There seems to be no prophecy which a person can have so little excuse for misunderstanding as the prophecy of Daniel, especially as relates to its main features. Dealing but sparingly in language that is highly figurative, explaining all the symbols it introduces, locating its events within the rigid confines of prophetic periods, it points out the first advent of the Messiah in so clear and unmistakable a manner as to call forth the execration of the Jews upon any attempt to explain it, and gives so accurately, and so many ages in advance, the outlines of the great events of our world’s history, that infidelity stands confounded and dumb before its inspired record. And no effort to arrive at a correct understanding of the book of the Revelation needs any apology; for the Lord of prophecy has Himself pronounced a blessing upon him that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein; for the time is at hand. Rev.1:1-3. And it is with an honest purpose of aiding somewhat in arriving at this understanding, which is set forth by the language above referred to as not only possible but praiseworthy, that an exposition of this book, according to the literal rule of interpretation, has been attempted. With thrilling interest we behold to-day the nations marshaling their forces, and pressing forward in the very movements described by the royal seer in the court of Babylon twenty-five hundred years ago, and by John on Patmos eighteen hundred years ago; and these movements –hear it, ye children of men– are the last political revolutions to be accomplished before this earth plunges into her final time of trouble, and Michael, the great Prince [Christ as understood by Smith], stands up, and his people, all who are found written in the book, are crowned with full and final deliverance. Dan.12:1, 2. Are these things so? “Seek,” says our Saviour, “and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” God has not so concealed His truth that it will elude the search of the humble seeker. With a prayer that the same Spirit by which those portions of Scripture which form the basis of this volume were at first inspired, and whose aid the writer has sought in his expository efforts, may rest abundantly upon the reader in his investigations, according to the promise of the Saviour in John 16:7, 13, 15, this work is commended to the candid and careful attention of all who are interested in prophetic themes.

                U.S. (Uriah Smith) Battle Creek, Mich., January 1897. }}

                Contents:  Book of Daniel:

                Chapter I.  Daniel in Captivity:  Characteristics of  Sacred Writings – Five Historical Facts – Prophecy of Jerusalem’s Captivity – Holy City Three Times Overthrown – God’s Testimony against Sin – Condition and Treatment of Daniel & His Companions – Character of King Nebuchadnezzar – Signification of Pagan Names – Daniel’s Integrity – Result of His Experiment – Daniel Lives till Time of Cyrus.

                Chapter II.  Great Image: Difficulty Explained – Daniel Enters upon His Work – Who Were Magicians? – Trouble between  King & Wise Men – Ingenuity of Magicians – King’s Sentence against Them – Remarkable Providence of God – Help Sought by Daniel – Good Example – Daniel’s Magnanimity – Natural Character – Magicians Exposed – What World Owes to People of God – Appropriateness of Symbol – Sublime Chapter of Human History – Beginning of Babylonian Kingdom – What is Meant by Universal Kingdom – Description of Babylon – Heavenly City – Babylon’s Fall – Stratagem of Cyrus – Belshazzar’s Impious Feast – Prophecy Fulfilled – Babylon Reduced to Heaps – Second Kingdom, Medo-Persia – Persian Kings, & Time of Their Reign – Persia’s Last King – Alexander the Great – His Contemptible Character – Fourth Kingdom – Testimony of Gibbon – Influences which Undermined Rome – False Theory Examined – What Toes Signify – Rome Divided – Names of Ten Divisions – Subsequent History – God’s Kingdom Still Future –  Nature, Location, & Extent.

                Chapter III.  Fiery Ordeal: Nebuchadnezzar’s Image vs. God’s – Devotion of Idolaters – Jews Accused – King’s Forbearance – Fiery Furnace – Effect on Chaldeans – Course of Three Worthies – Wonderful Deliverance – Effect on King’s Mind – Integrity Honored.

                Chapter  IV.  Nebuchadnezzar’s Decree: Oldest Decree on Record – Humiliation Confessed – Good Example – Nebuchadnezzar’s Condition – God’s Dealing with King – Magicians Humbled – Remarkable Illustration – Mercy in Judgment – Important Key to Prophetic Interpretation – Angels Interested in Human Affairs – King’s Acknowledgment – Daniel’s Hesitation – His Delicate Answer to King – Judgments Conditional – Lesson Unheeded – Blow Falls – King’s Restoration – End Gained – Nebuchadnezzar’s Death – Summary of His Experience.

                Chapter V: Belshazzar’s Feast: Closing Scenes of Babylon’s History – Celebration of  Conquest of Judea – Sacred Vessels Desecrated – God Interferes with Revelry – Phantom Hand – Change of Scene – Daniel Called – Lesson to King – Writing Interpreted – Fulfilment Follows – Edwin Arnold’s Prize Poem.

                Chapter VI:  Daniel in Lions’ Den:

Date of Persian Kingdom – Cyrus Sole Ruler – Paul’s Reference to Daniel’s Experience – Extent of Persian Kingdom – Fiendish Plot – Righteousness Daniel’s only Fault – False Witness of Conspirators – Daniel Undisturbed – Decree Secured – Victim Ensnared – King’s Dilemma – Daniel Cast into Lions’ Den – His Wonderful Preservation – Fate of Daniel’s Accusers – Daniel Doubly Vindicated – King’s Decree.

                Chapter VII:  Four Beasts:  Chronological Connection – Rule of Scripture Interpretation- Signification of the Symbols – The Kingdoms Identical with Those of Daniel 2 – Why  Vision is Repeated – Change in Babylonish History – Deterioration of Earthly Governments –  Symbol of Bear Explained – Grecia Third Kingdom – Rapidity of Its Conquests – Testimony of Rollin – Signification of Four Heads of Leopard Beast – Nondescript – Signification of the Ten Horns – A Little Horn among Ten – Judgment Scene – Temporal Millennium Impossible – Character of Little Horn – Gradual Development of Romish Church – Opposition of Arians – Three Horns Plucked Up – Millions of Martyrs – Feeble Defense – Paganism Outdone – Meaning of Time, Times, & Half – Date of Papal Supremacy – Date of Papal Overthrow – Rome Republic – Power of the Papacy Waning in Its Stronghold – Later Judgment – Ecumenical Council – Victor Emmanuel’s United Italy – End of Pope’s Temporal Power – Coming Destruction.

                Chapter VIII: Vision of Ram, He-Goat, & Little Horn: Change from Chaldaic to Hebrew – Date of Belshazzar’s Reign – Date of This Vision – Where was Shushan? – Prophecy of Isaiah Fulfilled – Angel Explains Symbols – How Goat Represents Grecians – Alexander Great – Battle at River Granicus – Battle at Passes of Issus – Great Battle of Arbela – Subversion of Persian Kingdom, B.C. 331 – Alexander’s Famous Reply to Darius – World Will not Permit Two Suns nor Two Sovereigns – Increase of Power – Alexander’s Disgraceful Death – Division of  Kingdom – The Roman Horn – How It Came out of One of the Horns of the Goat – Antiochus Epiphanes not This Horn – Rome Power Symbolized by Little Horn – What is “Daily”? – Two Desolating Powers Brought to View – When Oppression of Saints Will End – 2300 Days not Here Explained – Sanctuary Explained – What Cleansing of the Sanctuary Is – King of Fierce Countenance – By What Means Romans Prospered – Explanation not Finished – Reason Why.

                Chapter IX:  Seventy (70, LXX) Weeks: Short Time between Visions – Daniel’s Understanding of Jeremiah’s Prophecy – Daniel’s Wonderful Prayer – Gabriel again Appears – Vision of Chapter 8 Explained – Connection between Chapters Eight and Nine Established – Time Explained – Seventy Weeks – The Meaning of “Cut Off” – Testimony of Dr. Hales – Date of Seventy Weeks – Decree of Cyrus – Decree of Darius – Decree of Artaxerxes – Year 457 before Christ – Date of Christ’s Baptism – Date of Christ’s Crucifixion – Invention of Christian Era – Intermediate Dates – Harmony Established – Genuine Reading – Ptolemy’s Canon – End of  2300 Days.

                Chapter X:  Daniel’s Last Vision: Time of Daniel’s Various Visions – How Cyrus Became Sole Monarch – Daniel’s Purpose in Seeking God – Scriptural Fasting – Another Appearance of  Angel Gabriel – Effect upon Daniel – Daniel’s Age at This Time – Answer to Prayer Sometimes not Immediately Apparent – Who Michael Is – Daniel’s Solicitude for His People – Relation of Christ & Gabriel to King of Persia & Prophet Daniel.

                Chapter XI:  Literal Prophecy: Succession of Kings in Persia – Rich King – Largest Army ever Assembled in the World – Meaning of Phrase “Stand Up” – Alexander in Eclipse – His Kingdom Divided among His Four Leading Generals – Location of King of North & King of  South – Macedon & Thrace Annexed to Syria – Syrian Kingdom Stronger than Kingdom of Egypt – Divorce & Marriage of Antiochus Theos – Laodice’s Revenge – Berenice & Her Attendants Murdered – Ptolemy Euergetes Avenges Death of His Sister – Syria Plundered – 2,500 Idols Carried to Egypt – Antiochus Magnus Avenges Cause of His Father – Defeated by Egyptians – Ptolemy Overcome by His Vices – Another Syrian Campaign against Egypt – New Complications – Rome Introduced – Syria & Macedonia Forced to Retire – Rome Assumes  Guardianship of Egyptian King – Egyptians Defeated – Antiochus Falls before Romans – Syria Made Roman Province – Judea Conquered by Pompey – Caesar in Egypt – Exciting Scenes – Cleopatra’s Stratagem – Caesar Triumphant – Veni, Vidi, Vici – Caesar’s Death – Augustus Caesar – Triumvirate – Augustan Age of Rome – Birth of Our Lord – Tiberius, Vile – Date of Christ’s Baptism – Rome’s League with Jews – Caesar & Antony – Battle of Actium – Final Overthrow of Jerusalem – What is Meant by Chittim – Vandal War – “Daily” Taken Away – Justinian’s Famous Decree – Goths Driven from Rome – Long Triumph of Papacy – Atheistical King – French Revolution of l793 – Bishop of Paris Declares Himself Atheist – France as  Nation Rebels against Author of Universe – Marriage Covenant Annulled – God Declared Phantom, Christ Impostor – Blasphemy of Priest of Illuminism – Dissolute Female Goddess of Reason – Titles of Nobility Abolished – Their Estates Confiscated – Land Divided for Gain – Termination of Reign of Terror – Time of End, l798 – Triple War between Egypt, France, & Turkey – Napoleon’s Dream of Eastern Glory – He Diverts War from England to Egypt – His Ambition Embraces all Historical Lands of East – Downfall of Papacy – Embarkation from Toulon – Alexandria Taken – Battle of Pyramids – Combat Deepens – Turkey, King of North, Declares War against France – Napoleon’s Campaign in Holy Land – Beaten at Acre – Retires to Egypt – Called back to France – Egypt in Power of Turkey – Tidings out of East and North – Crimean War of l853 – Predicted by Dr. Clarke from this Prophecy in 1825 – Sick Man of East – Eastern Question; What is It? – Russia’s Long-Cherished Dream – Last Will and Testament of Peter the Great – Startling Facts in Russian History – Prophecy of Napoleon Bonaparte – Kossuth’s Prediction -Russia’s Defiant Attitude in 1870 – Russo-Turkish War of l877 – The Berlin Congress – Turkey Bankrupt – Whole Empire Mortgaged to Czar – Wonderful Shrinkage of Turkish Territory – Revolution in Turkey – Eastern Question in Future.

                Chapter XII:  Closing Scenes:  Reign of Christ – Grand Signal of Its Approach – What Events are Next in Order – Time of Trouble – Resurrection – Key to the Future – Some to Life, Some to Shame – Promised Rewards of Coming Day – Sealed Book Opened – Knowledge Wonderfully Increased – Progress of  Thousand Years Made in Fifty – Wise Understand – Daniel Stands in His Lot.

                Book of Revelation: 22 Chapters. Indexes.

                {{ Introduction: ….. His prophecy is, in many respects, the most remarkable of any in the sacred record. It is the most comprehensive. It was the first prophecy giving a consecutive history of the world from that time to the end. It located the most of its predictions within well-defined prophetic periods, though reaching many centuries into the future. It gave the first definite chronological prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. It marked the time of this event so definitely that the Jews forbid any attempt to interpret its numbers, since that prophecy shows them to be without excuse in rejecting Christ; and so accurately had its minute and literal predictions been fulfilled down to the time of Porphyry, A.D.250, that he declared (the only loophole he could devise for his hard-pressed skepticism) that the predictions were not written in the age of Babylon, but after the events themselves had transpired. This shift, however, is not now available; for every succeeding century has borne additional evidence to the truthfulness of the prophecy, and we are just now, in our own day, approaching the climax of its fulfilment…..

                2:38: ….. When we say that the image of Daniel 2 symbolizes the four great prophetic universal monarchies, and reckon Babylon as the first of these, it is asked how this can be true, when every country in the world was not absolutely under the dominion of any one of them. Thus Babylon never conquered Grecia or Rome; but Rome was founded before Babylon had risen to the zenith of its power. Rome’s position and influence, however, were then altogether prospective; and it is nothing against the prophecy that God begins to prepare his agents long years before they enter upon the prominent part they are to perform in the fulfilment of prophecy. We must place ourselves with the prophet, and view these kingdoms from the same standpoint. We shall then, as is right, consider his statements in the light of the location he occupied, the time in which he wrote, and the circumstances by which he was surrounded. It is a manifest rule of interpretation that we may look for nations to be noticed in prophecy when they become so far connected with the people of God that mention of them becomes necessary to make the records of sacred history complete. When this was the case with Babylon, it was, from the standpoint of the prophet, the great and overtowering object in the political world. In his eye, it necessarily eclipsed all else; and he would naturally speak of it as a kingdom having rule over all the earth. So far as we know, all provinces of countries against which Babylon did move in the height of its power, were subdued by its arms. In this sense, all were in its power; and this fact will explain the somewhat hyperbolical language of verse 38. That there were some portions of territory and considerable numbers of people unknown to history, and outside the pale of civilization as it then existed, which were neither discovered nor subdued, is not a fact of sufficient strength or importance to condemn the expression of the prophet, or to falsify the prophecy…..

                2:40: …..Thus far in the applications of this prophecy there is a general agreement among expositors. That Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Grecia are represented respectively by the head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, and sides of brass, is acknowledged by all. But with just as little ground for diversity of views, there is strangely a difference of opinion as to what kingdom is symbolized by the fourth division of the great image, –the legs of iron. On this point we have only to inquire, What kingdom did succeed Grecia in the empire of the world? for the legs of iron denote the fourth kingdom in the series. The testimony of history is full and explicit on this point. One kingdom did this, and one only, and that was Rome. It conquered Grecia; it subdued all things; like iron, it broke in pieces and bruised. Gibbon, following the symbolic imagery of Daniel, thus describes this empire: –”The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations or their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome.”

                At the opening of the Christian era, this empire took in the whole south of Europe, France, England, the greater part of the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the south of Germany, Hungary, Turkey, and Greece, not to speak of its possessions in Asia and Africa. Well, therefore, may Gibbon say of it: –”The empire of the Romans filled the world. And when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. To resist was fatal; and it was impossible to fly.”

                It will be noticed that at first the kingdom is described unqualifiedly as strong as iron. And this was the period of its strength, during which it has been likened to a mighty Colossus, bestriding the nations, conquering everything, and giving laws to the world. But this was not to continue.

                2:41-42: …..The element of weakness symbolized by the clay, pertained to the feet as well as to the toes. Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, lost that iron tenacity which it possessed to a superlative degree during the first centuries of its career. Luxury, with its accompanying effeminacy and degeneracy, the destroyer of nations as well as of individuals, began to corrode and weaken its iron sinews, and thus prepared the way for its subsequent disruption into ten kingdoms.

                The iron legs of the image terminate, to maintain the consistency of the figure, in feet and toes. To the toes, of which there were of course just ten, our attention is called by the explicit mention of them in the prophecy; and the kingdom represented by that portion of the image to which the toes belonged, was finally divided into ten parts. The question there naturally arises, Do the ten toes of the image represent the ten final divisions of the Roman empire? To those who prefer what seems to be a natural and straightforward interpretation of the word of God, it is a matter of no little astonishment that any question here should be raised. To take the ten toes to represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided seems like such an easy, consistent, and matter-of-course procedure, that it requires a labored effort to interpret it otherwise. Yet such an effort is made by some –by Romanists universally, and by such Protestants as still cling to Romish errors.

                A volume by H. Cowles, D.D., may perhaps best be taken as a representative exposition on this side of the question. The writer gives every evidence of extensive erudition and great ability. It is the more to be regretted, therefore, that these powers are devoted to the propagation of error, and to misleading the anxious inquirer who wishes to know his whereabouts on the great highway of time.

                We can but briefly notice his positions. They are, (1) That the third kingdom was Grecia during the lifetime of Alexander only; (2) That the fourth kingdom was Alexander’s successors; (3) That the latest point to which the fourth kingdom could extend, is the manifestation of the Messiah: for (4) There the God of heaven set up his kingdom; there the stone smote the image upon its feet, and commenced the process of grinding it up.

                Nor can we reply at any length to these positions. We might as well confine the Babylonian empire to the single reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or that of Persia to the reign of Cyrus, as to confine the third kingdom, Grecia, to the reign of Alexander. Alexander’s successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, the Grecian kingdom of the image; for in this line of prophecy the succession of kingdoms is by conquest. When Persia had conquered Babylon, we had the second empire; and when Grecia had conquered Persia, we had the third. But Alexander’s successors (his four leading generals) did not conquer his empire, and erect another in its place; they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered, and left ready to their hand.

                “Chronologically,” says Professor C., “the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ.” Chronologically, we reply, it must do no such thing; for the birth of Christ was not the introduction of the fifth kingdom, as will in due time appear. Here he overlooks almost the entire duration of the third diversion of the image, confounding it with the fourth, and giving no room for the divided state of the Grecian empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chapter 7, and the four horns of the goat of chapter 8.

                “Territorially,” continues Professor C., “it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general, on the same territory where the first, second, and third kingdoms stood.” Why not Europe? we ask. Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should. And was not the third kingdom a European kingdom? that is, did it not rise on European territory, and take its name for the land of its birth? Why not, then, go a degree farther west for the place where the fourth great kingdom should be founded? And how did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? – Only by conquest. And Rome did the same. Hence, so far as the territorial requirements of the professor’s theory are concerned, Rome could be the fourth kingdom as truthfully as Grecia could be the third.

                “Politically,” he adds, “it should be the immediate successor of Alexander’s empire, …changing the dynasty, but not the nations.” Analogy is against him here. Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Now analogy requires that the fourth kingdom, instead of being composed of a fragment of this Grecian empire, should possess a nationality of its own, distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Roman kingdom, and in it alone. But,

The grand fallacy which underlies this whole system of misinterpretation, is the too commonly taught theory that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be after the diversion of that fourth empire, that the God of heaven was to set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman empire into ten parts was not accomplished previous to A.D. 476; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up at the first advent of Christ, nearly five hundred (500) years before that date. Rome must not, therefore, from their standpoint, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon earth, must, these interpreters seem to think, be maintained at all hazards.

                Such is the ground on which some expositors appear, at least, to reason. And it is for the purpose of maintaining this theory that our author dwindles down the third great empire of the world to the insignificant period of about eight years! For this, he endeavors to prove that the fourth universal empire was bearing full sway during a period when the providence of God was simply filling up the outlines of the third! For this, he presumes to fix the points of time between which we must look for the fourth, though the prophecy does not deal in dates at all, and then whatever kingdom he finds within his specified time, that he sets down as the fourth kingdom, and endeavors to bend the prophecy to fit his interpretation, utterly regardless of how much better material he might find outside of his little enclosure, to answer to a fulfilment of the prophetic record. Is such a course logical? Is the time the point to be first established? –No; the kingdoms are the great features of the prophecy, and we are to look for them; and when we find them, we must accept them, whatever may be the chronology or location. Let them govern the time and place, not the time and place govern them.

                But that view which is the cause of all this misapplication and confusion is sheer assumption. Christ did not smite the image at his first advent. Look at it! When the stone smites the image upon its feet, the image is dashed in pieces. Violence is used. The effect is immediate. The image becomes as chaff. And then what? Is it absorbed by the stone, and gradually incorporated with it? –Nothing of the kind. It is blown off, removed away, as incompatible, and unavailable material; and no place is found for it. The territory is entirely cleared; and then the stone becomes a mountain, and fills the whole earth. Now what idea shall we attach to this work of smiting and breaking in pieces? Is it a gentle, peaceful, and quiet work? or is it a manifestation of vengeance and violence? How did the kingdoms of the prophecy succeed the one to the other? –It was through the violence and din of war, the shock of armies and the roar of battle. “Confused noise and garments rolled in blood,” told of the force and violence with which one nation had been brought into subjection by another. Yet all this is not called “smiting” or “breaking in pieces.”

                When Persia conquered Babylon, and Greece Persia, neither of the conquered empires is said to have been broken in pieces, though crushed beneath the overwhelming power of a hostile nation. But when we reach the introduction of the fifth kingdom, the image is smitten with violence; it is dashed to pieces, and so scattered and obliterated that no place is found for it. And now what shall we understand by this? –We must understand that here a scene transpires in which is manifested so much more violence and force and power than accompany the overthrow of one nation by another through the strife of war, that the latter is not worthy even of mention in connection with it. The subjugation of one nation by another by war, is a scene of peace and quietude in comparison with that which transpires when the image is dashed in pieces by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands.

                Yet what is the smiting of the image made to mean by the theory under notice? – Oh, the peaceful introduction of the gospel of Christ! the quiet spreading abroad of the light of truth! the gathering out of a few from the nations of the earth, to be made ready through obedience to the truth, for His second coming, and reign! the calm and unpretending formation of a Christian church, –a church that has been domineered over, persecuted, and oppressed by the arrogant and triumphant powers of earth from that day to this! And this is the smiting of the image! this is the breaking of it into pieces, and violently removing the shattered fragments from the face of the earth! Was ever absurdity more absurd?

                From this digression we return to the inquiry, Do the toes represent the ten divisions of the Roman empire? We answer, Yes; because,–The image of chapter 2 is exactly parallel with the vision of the four beasts of chapter 7. The fourth beast of chapter 7 represents the same as the iron legs of the image. The ten horns of the beast, of course, correspond very naturally to the ten toes of the image; and these horns are plainly declared to be ten kings which should arise; and they are just as much independent kingdoms as are the beasts themselves; for the beasts are spoken of in precisely the same manner; namely, as “four kings which should arise.” Verse 17. They do not denote a line of successive kings, but kings or kingdoms which exist contemporaneously; for three of them were plucked up by the little horn. The ten horns, beyond controversy, represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided.

We have seen that in Daniel’s interpretation of the image he uses the words ‘king‘ and ‘kingdom‘ interchangeably, the former denoting the same as the latter. In verse 44 he says that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom.” This shows that at the time the kingdom of God is set up, there will be a plurality of kings existing contemporaneously. It cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up.

                Here, then, is a division presented; and what have we in the symbol to indicate it? – Nothing but the toes of the image. Unless they do it, we are left utterly in the dark as to the nature and extent of the division which the prophecy shows did exist. To suppose this would be to cast a serious imputation upon the prophecy itself. We are therefore held to the conclusion that the ten toes of the image denote the ten parts into which the Roman empire was divided.–

                (* This division was accomplished between the years A.D. 351 and A.D. 476. The era of this dissolution thus covered a hundred and twenty-five (125) years, from about the middle of the fourth (c.350) century to the last quarter of the fifth (c.475). No historians of whom we are aware, place the beginning of this work of the dismemberment of the Roman empire earlier than A.D. 351, and there is general agreement in assigning its close in A.D. 476. Concerning the intermediate dates, that is, the precise time from which each of the ten kingdoms that arose on the ruins of the Roman empire is to be dated, there is some difference of views among historians. Nor does this seem strange, when we consider that there was an era of great confusion, that the map of the Roman empire during that time underwent many sudden and violent changes, and that the paths of hostile nations charging upon its territory, crossed and recrossed each other in a labyrinth of confusion. But all historians agree in this, that out of the territory of Western Rome, ten separate kingdoms were ultimately established, and we may safely assign them to the time between the dates above named: namely, A.D. 351 and 476.*)

                The ten nations which were most instrumental in breaking up the Roman empire, and which at some time in their history held respectively portions of Roman territory as separate and independent kingdoms, may be enumerated (without respect to the time of their establishment) as follows: The Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Suevi, Burgundians, Heruli, Anglo-Saxons, and Lombards. The connection between these and some of the modern nations of Europe, is still traceable in the names, as England, Burgundy, Lombardy, France, etc. Such authorities as Calmet, Faber, Lloyd, Hales, Scott, Barnes, etc., concur in the foregoing enumeration. (See Barnes’s concluding notes on Daniel 7.))

                As an objection to the view that the ten toes of the image denote the ten kingdoms, we are sometimes reminded that Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, was divided into two parts, the Western and Eastern empires, corresponding to the two legs of the image; and as the ten kingdoms all arose out of the western division, if they are denoted by the toes, we would have, it is claimed, ten toes on one foot of the image, and none on the other; which would be unnatural and inconsistent.

                But this objection devours itself; for certainly if the two legs denote division, the toes must denote division also. It would be inconsistent to say that the legs symbolize division, but the toes do not. But if the toes do indicate division at all, it can be nothing but the division of Rome into ten parts.

                The fallacy, however, which forms the basis of this objection, is the view that the two legs of the image do signify the separation of the Roman empire into its eastern and western divisions. To this view there are several objections.The two legs of iron symbolize Rome, not merely during its closing years, but from the very beginning of its existence as a nation; and if these legs denote division, the kingdom should have been divided from the very commencement of its history. This claim is sustained by the other symbols. Thus the division (that is, the two elements) of the Persian kingdom, denoted by the two horns of the ram (Dan.8:20), also by the elevation of the bear upon one side (Dan.7:5), and perhaps by the two arms of the image of this chapter, existed from the first. The division of the Grecian kingdom, denoted by the four horns of the goat and the four heads of the leopard, dates back to within eight years of the time when it was introduced into prophecy. So Rome should have been divided from the first, if the legs denote division, instead of remaining a unit for nearly six hundred (600) years, and separating into its eastern and western divisions only a few years prior to its final disruption into ten kingdoms.

No such division into two great parts is denoted by the other symbols under which Rome is represented in the book of Daniel; namely, the great and terrible beast of Daniel 7, and the little horn of chapter 8. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the two legs of the image were not designed to represent such a division.

                But it may be asked, Why not suppose the two legs to denote division as well as the toes? Would it not be just as inconsistent to say that the toes denote division, and the legs do not, as to say that the legs denote division, and the toes do not? We answer that the prophecy itself must govern our conclusions in this matter; and whereas it says nothing of division in connection with the legs, it does introduce the subject of division as we come down to the feet and toes. It says, “And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided.” No division could take place, or at least none is said to have taken place, till the weakening element of the clay is introduced; and we do not find this till we come to the feet and toes. But we are not to understand that the clay denotes one division and the iron the other; for after the long-existing unity of the kingdom was broken, no one of the fragments was as strong as the original iron, but all were in a state of weakness denoted by the mixture of iron and clay. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the prophet has here stated the cause for the effect. The introduction of the weakness of the clay element, as we come to the feet, resulted in the division of the kingdom into ten parts, as represented by the ten toes; and this result, or division, is more than intimated in the sudden mention of a plurality of contemporaneous kings. Therefore, while we find no evidence that the legs denote division, but serious objections against such a view, we do find, we think, good reason for supposing that the toes denote division, as here claimed. Each of the four monarchies had its own particular territory, which was the kingdom proper, and where we are to look for the chief events in its history shadowed forth by the symbol. We are not, therefore, to look for the divisions of the Roman empire in the territory formerly occupied by Babylon, or Persia, or Grecia, but in the territory proper of the Roman kingdom, which was what was finally known as the Western empire. Rome conquered the world; but the kingdom of Rome proper lay west of Grecia. That is what was represented by the legs of iron. There, then, we look for the ten kingdoms; and there we find them. We are not obliged to mutilate or deform the symbol to make it a fit and accurate representation of historical events.

                2:44: ….. We here reach the climax of this stupendous prophecy; and when Time in his onward flight shall bring us to the sublime scene here predicted, we shall have reached the end of human history. The kingdom of God! Grand provision for a new and glorious dispensation, in which His people shall find a happy terminus of this world’s sad, degenerate, and changing career. Transporting change for all the righteous, from gloom to glory, from strife to peace, from a sinful to a holy world, from death to life, from tyranny and oppression to the happy freedom and blessed privileges of a heavenly kingdom! Glorious transition, from weakness to strength, from the changing and decaying to the immutable and eternal!

                But when is this kingdom to be established? May we hope for an answer to an inquiry of such momentous concern to our race? These are the very questions on which the word of God does not leave us in ignorance; and herein is seen the surpassing value of this heavenly boon. We do not say that the exact time is revealed (we emphasize the fact that it is not) either in this or in any other prophecy; but so near an approximation is given that the generation which is to see the establishment of this kingdom may mark its approach unerringly, and make that preparation which will entitle them to share in all its glories.

                As already explained, we are brought down by verses 41-43 this side of the division of the Roman empire into ten kingdoms, which division was accomplished, as already noticed, between 351 and 476. The kings, or kingdoms, in the days of which the God of heaven is to set up His kingdom, are evidently those kingdoms which arose out of the Roman empire. Then the kingdom of God here brought to view could not have been set up, as some claim it was, in connection with the first advent of Christ, four hundred and fifty (450) years before. But whether we apply this division to the ten kingdoms or not, it is certain that some kind of division was to take place in the Roman empire before the kingdom of God should be set up; for the prophecy expressly declares, “The kingdom shall be divided.” And this is equally fatal to the popular view; for after the unification of the first elements of the Roman power down to the days of Christ, there was no division of the kingdom; nor during his days, nor for many years after, did any such thing take place. The civil wars were not divisions of the empire; they were only the efforts of individuals worshiping at the shrine of ambition, to obtain supreme control of the empire. The occasional petty revolts of distant provinces, suppressed as with the power, and almost with the speed, of a thunderbolt, did not constitute a division of the kingdom. And these are all that can be pointed to as interfering with the unity of the kingdom, for more than three hundred (300) years this side of the days of Christ. This one consideration is sufficient to disprove forever the view that the kingdom of God, which constitutes the fifth kingdom of this series as brought to view in Daniel 2, was set up at the commencement of the Christian era. But a thought more may be in place.

1. This fifth kingdom, then, could not have been set up at Christ’s first advent, because it is not to exist contemporaneously with earthly governments, but to succeed them. As the second kingdom succeeded the first, the third the second, and the fourth the third, by violence and overthrow, so the fifth succeeds the fourth. It does not exist at the same time with it. The fourth kingdom is first destroyed, the fragments are removed, the territory is cleared, and then the fifth is established as a succeeding kingdom in the order of time. But the church has existed contemporaneously with earthly governments ever since earthly governments were formed. There was a church in Abel’s day, in Enoch’s, in Noah’s, in Abraham’s, and so on to the present. No; the church is not the stone that smote the image upon its feet. It existed too early in point of time, and the work in which it is engaged is not that of smiting and overthrowing earthly governments.

2. The fifth kingdom is introduced by the stone smiting the image. What part of the image does the stone smite? –The feet and toes. But these were not developed until four centuries and a half after the crucifixion of Christ. The image was, at the time of the crucifixion, only developed to the thighs, so to speak; and if the kingdom of God was there set up, if there the stone smote the image, it smote it upon the thighs, not upon the feet, where the prophecy places the smiting.

3. The stone that smites the image is cut out of the mountain without hands. The margin reads, “Which was not in hand.” This shows that the smiting is not done by an agent acting for another, not by the church, for instance, in the hands of Christ; but it is a work which the Lord does by His own divine power, without any human agency.

4. Again, the kingdom of God is placed before the church as a matter of hope. The Lord did not teach his disciples a prayer which in two or three years was to become obsolete. The petition may as appropriately ascend from the lips of the patient, waiting flock in these last days, as from the lips of His first disciples, “Thy kingdom come.”

5. We have plain Scripture declarations to establish the following propositions: (1) The kingdom was still future at the time of our Lord’s last Passover. Matt.26:29. (2) Christ did not set it up before His ascension. Acts 1:6. (3) Flesh and blood cannot inherit it. 1st Cor.15:50. (4) It is a matter of promise to the apostles, and to all those that love God. James 2:5. (5) It is promised in the future to the little flock. Luke 12:32. (6) Through much tribulation the saints are to enter therein. Acts 14:22. (7) It is to be set up when Christ shall judge the living and the dead. 2nd Tim.4:1. (8) This is to be when he shall come in His glory with all His holy angels. Matt. 25:31-34.

                As militating against the foregoing view, it may be asked if the expression, “Kingdom of heaven,” is not, in the New Testament, applied to the church. In some instances it may be; but in others as evidently it cannot be. In the decisive texts referred to above, which show that it was still a matter of promise even after the church was fully established, that mortality cannot inherit it, and that it is to be set up only in connection with the coming of our Lord to judgment, the reference cannot be to any state or organization here upon earth. The object we have before us is to ascertain what constitutes the kingdom of Dan. 2:44; and we have seen that the prophecy utterly forbids our applying it there to the church, inasmuch as by the terms of the prophecy itself we are prohibited from looking for that kingdom till over four hundred (400) years after the crucifixion of Christ and the establishment of the gospel church. Therefore if in some expressions in the New Testament the word “kingdom” can be found applying to the work of God’s grace, or the spread of the gospel, it cannot in such instances be the kingdom mentioned in Daniel. That can only be the future literal kingdom of Christ’s glory, so often brought to view in both the Old Testament and the New.

                It may be objected again, that when the stone smites the image, the iron, the brass, the silver, and the gold are broken to pieces together; hence the stone must have smitten the image when all these parts were in existence. In reply we ask, What is meant by their being broken to pieces together? Does the expression mean that the same persons who constituted the kingdom of gold would be alive when the image was dashed to pieces? –No; else the image covers but the duration of a single generation. Does it mean that that would be a ruling kingdom? –No; for there is a succession of kingdoms down to the fourth. On the supposition, then, that the fifth kingdom was set up at the first advent, in what sense were the brass, silver, and gold in existence then any more than at the present day? Does it refer to the time of the second resurrection, when all these wicked nations will be raised to life?– No; for the destruction of earthly governments in this present state, which is here symbolized by the smiting of the image, certainly takes place at the end of this dispensation; and in the second resurrection national distinctions will be no more known.

                No objection really exists in the point under consideration; for all the kingdoms symbolized by the image are, in a certain sense, still in existence. Chaldea and Assyria are still the first divisions of the image; Media and Persia, the second; Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, and Egypt, the third. Political life and dominion, it is true, have passed from one to the other, till, so far as the image is concerned, it is all now concentrated in the divisions of the fourth kingdom; but the other, in location and substance, though without dominion, are still there; and together all will be dashed to pieces when the fifth kingdom is introduced.

                It may still further be asked, by way of objection, Have not the ten kingdoms, in the days of which the kingdom of God was to be set up, all passed away? and as the kingdom of God is not yet set up, has not the prophecy, according to the view here advocated, proved a failure? We answer: Those kingdoms have not yet passed away. We are yet in the days of those kings. The following illustration from Dr. Nelson’s “Cause and Cure of Infidelity,” pp.374,375, will set this matter in a clear light:–

                “Suppose some feeble people should be suffering from the almost constant invasions of numerous and ferocious enemies. Suppose some powerful and benevolent prince sends them word that he will, for a number of years, say thirty, maintain, for their safety along the frontier, ten garrisons, each to contain one hundred well-armed men. Suppose the forts are built and remain a few years, when two of them are burned to the ground and rebuilt without delay; has there been any violation of the sovereign’s word?– No; there was no material interruption in the continuance of the walls of strength; and, furthermore, the most important part of the safeguard was still there. Again, suppose the monarch sends and has two posts of strength demolished, but, adjoining the spot where these stood, and immediately, he has other two buildings erected, more capacious and more desirable; does the promise still stand good? We answer in the affirmative, and we believe no one would differ with us. Finally, suppose, in addition to the ten garrisons, it could be shown that for several months during the thirty years, one more had been maintained there; that for one or two years out of the thirty, there had been there eleven instead of ten fortifications; shall we call it a defeat or a failure of the original undertaking? Or shall any seeming interruptions, such as have been stated, destroy the propriety of our calling these the ten garrisons of the frontier? The answer is, No, without dispute.

                “So it is, and has been, respecting the ten kingdoms of Europe once under Roman scepter. They have been there for twelve hundred and sixty (1260) years. If several have had their names changed according to the caprice of him who conquered, this change of name did not destroy existence. If others have had their territorial limits changed, the nation was still there. If others have fallen while successors were forming in their room, the ten horns were still there. If, during a few years out of a thousand, there were more than ten, if some temporary power reared its head, seeming to claim a place with the rest and soon disappeared, it has not caused the beast to have less than ten horns.”

                Scott remarks:–

                “It is certain that the Roman empire was divided into ten kingdoms; and though they might be sometimes more sometimes fewer, yet they were still known by the name of the ten kingdoms of the Western empire.”

                Thus the subject is cleared of all difficulty. Time has fully developed this great image in all its parts. Most strictly does it represent the important political events it was designed to symbolize. It stands complete upon its feet. Thus it has been standing for over fourteen hundred years. It waits to be smitten upon the feet by the stone cut out of the mountain without hand, that is, the kingdom of Christ. This is to be accomplished when the Lord shall be revealed in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (See Ps.2:8,9.) In the days of these kings the God of heaven is to set up a kingdom. We have been in the days of these kings for over fourteen centuries, and we are still in their days. So far as this prophecy is concerned, the very next event is the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. Other prophecies and innumerable signs show unmistakably its immediate proximity.

                The coming kingdom! This ought to be the all-absorbing topic with the present generation. Reader, are you ready for the issue? He who enters this kingdom enters it not merely for such a lifetime as men live in this present state, not to see it degenerate, not to see it overthrown by a succeeding and more powerful kingdom; but he enters it to participate in all its privileges and blessings, and to share its glories forever; for this kingdom is not to “be left to other people.” Again we ask you, Are you ready? The terms of heirship are most liberal: “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Are you on terms of friendship with Christ, the coming King? Do you love his character? Are you trying to walk humbly in his footsteps, and obey his teachings? If not, read your fate in the cases of those in the parable, of whom it was said, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” There is to be no rival kingdom where you can find an asylum if you remain an enemy to this; for this is to occupy all the territory ever possessed by any and all of the kingdoms of this world, past or present. It is to fill the whole earth. Happy they to whom the rightful Sovereign, the all-conquering King, at last can say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

                7:19:  Of the first three beasts of this series, Daniel had so clear an understanding that he had no trouble in reference to them. But he was astonished at this fourth beast, so unnatural and dreadful; for the further we come down the stream of time, the further it is necessary to depart from nature in forming symbols to represent accurately the degenerating governments of this earth. The lion is a production of nature; but it must have the unnatural addition of two wings to represent the kingdom of Babylon. The bear we also find in nature; but as a symbol of Medo-Persia an unnatural ferocity must be denoted by the insertion of three ribs into its mouth. So the leopard is a beast of nature; but fitly to represent Grecia there is a departure from nature in respect to wings, and the number of heads. But nature furnishes no symbol which can fitly illustrate the fourth kingdom. A beast the likeness of which never was seen, is taken; a beast dreadful and terrible, with nails of brass, and teeth of iron, so cruel, rapacious, and fierce that from mere love of oppression it devoured, and brake in pieces, and trampled its victims beneath its feet.

                Wonderful was all this to the prophet; but something still more wonderful appeared. A little horn came up, and, true to the nature of the beast from which it sprang, thrust aside three of its fellows; and lo! the horn had eyes, not the uncultivated eyes of a brute, but the keen, shrewd, intelligent eyes of a man; and, stranger yet, it had a mouth, and with that mouth it uttered proud sayings, and put forth preposterous and arrogant claims. No wonder the prophet made special inquiry respecting this monster, so unearthly in its instincts, and so fiendish in its works and ways. In the following verses some specifications are given respecting the little horn, which enable the student of prophecy to make an application of this symbol without danger of mistake.

                7:21: The wonderful wrath of this little horn against the saints particularly attracted the attention of Daniel. The rise of the ten horns, or the division of Rome into ten kingdoms, between the years A.D.351 and 476, has already been noticed. (See on chapter 2:41.) As these horns denote kingdoms, the little horn must denote a kingdom also, but not of the same nature, because it was diverse from the others. They were political kingdoms. And now we have but to inquire if any kingdom has arisen among the ten kingdoms of the Roman empire since A.D. 476, and yet diverse from them all; and if so, what one? The answer is, Yes, the spiritual kingdom of the papacy. This answers to the symbol in every particular, as is easily proved; and nothing else will do it. See the specifications more particularly mentioned in verse 23.

                Daniel beheld this horn making war upon the saints. Has such a war been waged by the papacy? Fifty million martyrs, with a voice like the sound of many waters answer, Yes. Witness the cruel persecutions of the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and Protestants in general, by the papal power. It is stated on good authority that the persecutions, massacres, and religious wars excited by the church and bishop of Rome, have occasioned the shedding of far more blood of the saints of the Most High than all the enmity, hostility, and persecutions of professed heathen peoples from the foundation of the world. [?]

                In verse 22 three consecutive events seem to be brought to view. Daniel, looking onward from the time when the little horn was in the height of its power to the full end of the long contest between the saints and Satan with all his agents, notes three prominent events that stand as mile-posts along the way. (1) The coming of the Ancient of days; that is, the position which Jehovah takes in the opening of the judgment scene described in verses 9,10. (2) The judgment that is given to the saints; that is, the time when the saints sit with Christ in judgment a thousand years, following the first resurrection (Rev.20:14), apportioning to the wicked the punishment due for their sins. Then the martyrs will sit in judgment upon the great antichristian, persecuting power, which, in the days of their trial, hunted them like the beasts of the desert, and poured out their blood like water. (3) The time that the saints possess the kingdom; that is, the time of their entrance upon the possession of the new earth. Then the last vestige of the curse of sin, and of sinners, root, and branch, will have been wiped away, and the territory so long misruled by the wicked powers of earth, the enemies of God’s people, will be taken by the righteous, to be held by them forever and ever. 1Cor.6:2,3; Matt.25:34.

                7:23.  We have here further particulars respecting the fourth beast and the little horn.

                Perhaps enough has already been said respecting the fourth beast (Rome) and the ten horns, or ten kingdoms, which arose therefrom. The little horn now more particularly demands attention. As stated on verse 8, we find the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning this horn in the rise and work of the papacy. It is a matter of both interest and importance, therefore, to inquire into the causes which resulted in the development of this antichristian power.

                The first pastors or bishops of Rome enjoyed a respect proportionate to the rank of the city in which they resided; and for the first few centuries of the Christian era, Rome was the largest, richest, and most powerful city in the world. It was the seat of empire, the capital of the nations. “All the inhabitants of the earth belong to her,” said Julian; and Claudian declared her to be “the fountain of laws.” “If Rome is the queen of cities, why should not her pastor be the king of bishops?” was the reasoning these Roman pastors adopted. “Why should not the Roman Church be the mother of Christendom? Why should not all nations be her children, and her authority their sovereign law? It was easy,” says D’Aubigne, from whom we quote these words (“History of the Reformation,” Vol. I, chap.1), “for the ambitious heart of man to reason thus. Ambitious Rome did so.”

                The bishops in the different parts of the Roman empire felt a pleasure in yielding to the bishop of Rome some portion of that honor which Rome, as the queen city, received from the nations of the earth. There was originally no dependence implied in the honor thus paid. “But,” continues D’Aubigne, “usurped power increased like an avalanche. Admonitions, at first simply fraternal, soon became absolute commands in the mouth of the pontiff. The Western bishops favored this encroachment of the Roman pastors, either from jealousy of the Eastern bishops, or because they preferred submitting to the supremacy of a pope rather than to the dominion of a temporal power.”

                Such were the influences clustering around the bishop of Rome, and thus was everything tending toward his speedy elevation to the supreme spiritual throne of Christendom. But the fourth century was destined to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. Arius, parish priest of the ancient and influential church of Alexandria, sprung his doctrine upon the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council was called at Nicaea, by the emperor Constantine, A.D.325, to consider and adjust it. Arius maintained “that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity.” This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion. (Mosheim, cent. 4, part 2, chap. 4: Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 239.)

                The controversy itself, however, was not to be disposed of in this summary manner, but continued for ages to agitate the Christian world, the Arians everywhere becoming the bitter enemies of the pope and of the Roman Catholic Church. From these facts it is evident that the spread of Arianism would check the influence of the Catholics; and the possession of Rome and Italy by a people of the Arian persuasion, would be fatal to the supremacy of a Catholic bishop. But the prophecy had declared that this horn would rise to supreme power, and that in reaching this position it would subdue three kings.

                Some difference of opinion has existed in regard to the particular powers which were overthrown in the interest of the papacy, in reference to which the following remark by Albert Barnes seems very pertinent: “In the confusion that existed on the breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfilment of the vision. Yet it is possible to make out the fulfilment of this with a good degree of certainty in the history of the papacy.” – Notes on Daniel 7.

                Mr. Mede supposes the three kingdoms plucked up to have been the Greeks, the Lombards, the Franks; and Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lombards, the Senate and Dukedom of Rome. Bishop Newton (Dissertation on the Prophecies, pp.217, 218) states some serious objections to both these schemes. The Franks could not have been one of these kingdoms; for they were never plucked up before the papacy. The Lombards could not have been one; for they were never made subject to the popes. Says Barnes, “I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became subject to the authority of the popes.” And the Senate and Dukedom of Rome could not have been one; for they, as such, never constituted one of the ten kingdoms, three of which were to be plucked up before the little horn.

                But we apprehend that the chief difficulty in the application made by these eminent commentators, lay in the fact that they supposed that the prophecy respecting the exaltation of the papacy had not been fulfilled, and could not have been, till the pope became a temporal prince; and hence they sought to find an accomplishment of the prophecy in the events which led to the pope’s temporal sovereignty. Whereas, evidently, the prophecy of verses 24, 25 refers, not to his civil power, but to his power to domineer over the minds and consciences of men; and the pope reached this position, as will hereafter appear, in A.D. 538; and the plucking up of the three horns took place before this, and to make way for this very exaltation to spiritual dominion. The insuperable difficulty in the way of all attempts to apply the prophecy to the Lombards and the other powers named above is that they come altogether too late in point of time; for the prophecy deals with the arrogant efforts of the Roman pontiff to gain power, not with his endeavors to oppress and humble the nations after he had secured the supremacy.

                The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up before the papacy, were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths: and this position rests upon the following statements of historians.

                Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, according to Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, pp. 510, 515), in 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon (p.516) says: “Like the rest of the barbarians, he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters, and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed.”

                Again he says (p. 547): “The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the North, who had submitted, with some reluctance, to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation.”

                The reader is requested to consider carefully a few more historical statements which throw some light on the situation at this time. Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 151) says: “The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, Ulfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, and the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric, the great king of Italy, and hero of the ‘Nibelungen Lied,’ was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when, in their triumph, they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes.”

                Ranke, in his History of the Popes (London, edition of 1871), Vol. I, p.9, says: “But she [the church] fell, as was inevitable, into many embarrassments, and found herself in an entirely altered condition. A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and as neighbors most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome. The Roman bishops, meanwhile, beset on all sides, exerted themselves with all the prudence and pertinacity which have remained their peculiar attributes, to regain the mastery, at least in the patriarchal diocese.”

                Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, p. 14, says: “Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them.”

                These extracts give us a general view of the state of affairs at this time, and show us that though the hands of the Roman pontiffs might not be visibly manifest in the movements upon the political board, they constituted the power working assiduously behind the scenes to secure their own purposes. The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope, from which we can see the necessity of their being overthrown to make way for papal supremacy, is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim, given in his History of the Church, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 2:–

                “On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of these arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election.”

                An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned, as related by Bower in his History of the Popes, Vol. I, p.271. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A.D.483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew. Certainly the horn which exercised such a restrictive power over the papal pontiff must be taken away before the pope could reach the predicted supremacy.

                Meanwhile, Zeno, the emperor of the East, and friend of the pope, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy (Machiavelli, p. 6), a movement which he soon had the satisfaction of seeing accomplished without trouble to himself, in the following manner. Theodoric had come to the throne of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Moesia and Pannonia. Being on friendly terms with Zeno, he wrote him, stating that it was impossible for him to restrain his Goths within the impoverished province of Pannonia, and asking his permission to lead them to some more favorable region, which they might conquer and possess. Zeno gave him permission to march against Odoacer, and take possession of Italy. Accordingly, after a three years’ war, the Herulian kingdom in Italy was overthrown, Odoacer was treacherously slain, and Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. As already stated, he was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king, was still retained.

                The following incident will show how completely the papacy was in subjection to his power. The Catholics in the East, having commenced a persecution against the Arians in 523, Theodoric summoned Pope John into his presence, and thus addressed him: “If the emperor [Justin, the predecessor of Justinian] does not think fit to revoke the edict which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion [that is, the Arians], it is my firm resolution to issue the like edict against those of his [that is, the Catholics]; and to see it everywhere executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nicaea are heretics to him, and those who do are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse or justify his severity to the former, will excuse the justify mine to the latter. But the emperor,” continued the king, “has none about him who dare freely and openly speak what they think, or to whom he would hearken if they did. But the great veneration which he professes for your See, leaves no room to doubt but he would hearken to you. I will therefore have you to repair forthwith to Constantinople, and there to remonstrate, both in my name and your own, against the violent measures in which that court has so rashly engaged. It is in your power to divert the emperor from them; and till you have, nay, till the Catholics [this name Theodoric applies to the Arians] are restored to the free exercise of their religion, and to all the churches from which they have been driven, you must not think of returning to Italy.” –Bower’s History of the Popes, Vol. I, p. 325.

                The pope who was thus peremptorily ordered not to set his foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king, certainly could not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy till that power was taken out of the way. Baronius, according to Bower, will have it that the pope sacrificed himself on this occasion, and advised the emperor not by any means to comply with the demand the king had sent him. But Mr. Bower thinks this inconsistent, since he could not, he says, “sacrifice himself without sacrificing, at the same time, the far greater part of the innocent Catholics in the West, who were either subject to King Theodoric, or to other Arian princes in alliance with him.” It is certain that the pope and the other ambassadors were treated with severity on their return, which Bower explains on this wise: “Others arraign them all of high treason; and truly the chief men of Rome were suspected at this very time of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the court of Constantinople, and machinating the ruin of the Gothic empire in Italy.” – Id., p. 326.

                The feelings of the papal party toward Theodoric may be accurately estimated, according to a quotation already given, by the vengeance which they took on his memory, when they tore from his massive tomb in Ravenna the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes. But these feelings are put into language by Baronius, who inveighs “against Theodoric as a cruel barbarian, as a barbarous tyrant, as an impious Arian.” But “having exaggerated with all his eloquence, and bewailed the deplorable condition of the Roman Church reduced by that heretic to a state of slavery, he comforts himself in the end, and dries up his tears, with the pious thought that the author of such a calamity died soon after, and was eternally damned!” –Bower, Vol. I, p. 328; Compare Baronius’ Annals, A.D. 526, p.116.

                While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. (Gibbon, chap., 37, sec. 2.) Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. III, p. 152, note 3, says: “The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics: in Sardinia and Corsica, under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa.”

                Such was the position of affairs, when, in 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to secure the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope the head of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which, in 538, the period of papal supremacy is to be dated. And whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534-538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.

                The testimony of D’Aubigne (Reformation, book 1, chap. 1) also throws light upon the undercurrents which gave shape to outward movements in these eventful times. He says: “Princes whom these stormy times often shook upon their thrones, offered their protection if Rome would in its turn support them. They conceded to her the spiritual authority, provided she would make a return in secular power. They were lavish of the souls of men, in the hope that she would aid them against their enemies. The power of the hierarchy, which was ascending, and the imperial power, which was declining, leaned thus one upon the other, and by this alliance accelerated their twofold destiny. Rome could not lose by it. An edict of Theodosius II and of Valerian III proclaimed the Roman bishop ‘rector of the whole church.’ Justinian published a similar decree.”

                But no decree of this nature could be carried into effect until the Arian horns which stood in its way were overthrown. The Vandals fell before the victorious arms of Belisarius in 534; and the Goths received a crushing blow in connection with their unsuccessful siege of Rome in 538. (Gibbon, chap.41.)

                Procopius relates that the African war was undertaken by Justinian for the relief of the Christians (Catholics) in that quarter; and that when he expressed his intention in this respect, the prefect of the palace came very near dissuading him from his purpose; but a dream appeared to him in which he was bidden “not to shrink from the execution of his design; for by assisting the Christians he would overthrow the power of the Vandals.”– Evagrius’ Eccl. Hist., book 4, chap. 16.

                Listen again to Mosheim: “It is true that the Greeks who had received the decrees of the Council of Nicaea [that is, the Catholics], persecuted and oppressed the Arians wherever their influence and authority could reach; but the Nicenians, in their turn, were not less rigorously treated by their adversaries [the Arians], particularly in Africa and Italy, where they felt, in a very severe manner, the weight of the Arian power, and the bitterness of hostile resentment. The triumphs of Arianism were, however, transitory, and its prosperous days were entirely eclipsed when the Vandals were driven out of Africa, and the Goths out of Italy, by the arms of Justinian.” –Mosheim’s Church History, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 3.

                Elliot, in his Horae Apocalypticae, makes two enumerations of the ten kingdoms which rose out of the Roman empire, varying the second list from the first according to the changes which had taken place at the later period to which the second list applies. His first list differs from that mentioned in remarks on chap.2:42, only in that he put the Alemanni in place of the Huns, and the Bavarians in place of the Lombards, a variation which can be easily accounted for. But out of this list the names the three that were plucked up before the papacy in these words: “I might cite three that were eradicated from before the pope out of the list first given; namely, the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths.”  – Vol. III, p. 152, note 1.  

                Although he prefers the second list, in which he puts the Lombards instead of the Heruli, the foregoing is good testimony that if we make the enumeration of the ten kingdoms while the Heruli were a ruling power, they were one of the horns which were plucked up.

                From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named: viz., the Heruli in A.D.493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553 [orig. 538].

                “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” Has the papacy done this? Look at such self-approved titles of the pope as “Vicegerent of the Son of God,” and “Lord God, the Pope.” –See gloss on the Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, title 14, ch. 4, “Declaramus.” Said Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael, “The pope can never be bound or loosed by the secular power, since it is plain that he was called God by the pious prince Constantine; . . . and it is manifest that God cannot be judged by man.” –Decreti Prima Pars. Distinctio XCVI, Caput 8. Is there need of bolder blasphemy than this? Note also the adulation the popes have received from their followers without rebuke. Lord Anthony Pucci, in the fifth Lateran, said to the pope, “The sight of thy divine majesty does not a little terrify me; for I am not ignorant that all power both in heaven and in earth is given unto you; that the prophetic saying is fulfilled in you, ‘All the kings of the earth shall worship him, and nations shall serve him.'” (See Oswald’s Kingdom Which Shall Not Be Destroyed, pp.97-99.) Again, Dr. Clarke, on verse 25, says: “‘He shall speak as if he were God.’ So St. Jerome quotes from Symmachus. To none can this apply so well or so fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belongs only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belongs only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings when such kings do not please them. And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies.”        (*The effective opposition of the Ostrogoths to the decree of Justinian, however, it is to be noted, ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538. XXII, title 14, ch.4.)

And shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” Has the papacy done this? For the mere information of any student of church history, no answer need here be given. All know that for long years the papal church has pursued its relentless work against the true followers of God. Chapter after chapter might be given, would our limited space permit. Wars, crusades, massacres, inquisitions, and persecutions of all kinds, – these were their weapons of extinction.

                Scott’s Church History says: “No computation can reach the numbers who have been put to death, in different ways, on account of their maintaining the profession of the gospel, and opposing the corruptions of the Church of Rome. A million of poor Waldenses perished in France; nine hundred thousand (900,000) orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted of having put to death in the Netherlands thirty-six thousand (36,000) by the hand of the common executioner during the space of a few years. The Inquisition destroyed, by various tortures, one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) within thirty years. These are a few specimens, and but a few, of those which history has recorded. But the total amount will never be known till the earth shall disclose her blood, and no more cover her slain.”

                Commenting on the prophecy that the little horn should “wear out the saints of the Most High,” Barnes, in his Notes on Dan.7:25, says: “Can anyone doubt that this is true of the papacy? The Inquisition, the persecutions of the Waldenses, the ravages of the Duke of Alva, the fires of Smithfield, the tortures of Goa, –indeed, the whole history of the papacy, may be appealed to in proof that this is applicable to that power. If anything could have worn out the saints of the Most High, –could have cut them off from the earth so that evangelical religion would have become extinct, –it would have been the persecutions of the papal power. In year 1208 a crusade was proclaimed by Pope Innocent III against the Waldenses and Albigenses, in which a million (1,000,000) men perished. From the beginning of the order of Jesuits in the year 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand (900,000) were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. In the Low Countries fifty thousand (50,000) persons were hanged, beheaded, burned, or buried alive, for the crime of heresy, within the space of thirty-eight years from the edict of Charles V against the Protestants to the peace of Chateau Cambresis in 1559. Eighteen thousand (18,000) suffered by the hand of the executioner in the space of five years and a half, during the administration of the Duke of Alva. Indeed, the slightest acquaintance with the history of the papacy will convince anyone that what is here said of ‘making war with the saints‘ (verse 21), and ‘wearing out the saints of the Most High‘ (verse 25), is strictly applicable to that power, and will accurately describe its history.” (See Buck’s Theological Dictionary, art., Persecutions: Oswald’s Kingdom, etc., pp. 107-133; Dowling’s History of Romanism; Fox’s Book of Martyrs: Charlotte Elizabeth’s Martyrology; The Wars of the Huguenots; The Great Red Dragon, by Anthony Gavin, formerly one of the Roman Catholic priests of Saragossa, Spain; Histories of the Reformation, etc.)

                To parry the force of this damaging testimony from all history, papists deny that the church has ever persecuted any one; it has been the secular power; the church has only passed decision upon the question of heresy, and then turned the offenders over to the civil power, to be dealt with according to the pleasure of the secular court. The impious hypocrisy of this claim is transparent enough to make it an absolute insult to common sense. In those days of persecution, what was the secular power? –Simply a tool in the hand of the church, and under its control, to do its bloody bidding. And when the church delivered its prisoners to the executioners to be destroyed, with fiendish mockery it made use of the following formula: “And we do leave thee to the secular arm, and to the power of the secular court; but at the same time do most earnestly beseech that court so to moderate its sentence as not to touch thy blood, nor to put thy life in any sort of danger.” And then, as intended, the unfortunate victims of popish hate were immediately executed. (Geddes’s Tracts on Popery; View of the Court of Inquisition in Portugal, p. 446; Limborch, Vol. II, p. 289.)

                But the false claims of papists in this respect have been flatly denied and disproved by one of their own standard writers, Cardinal Bellarmine, who was born in Tuscany in 1542, and who, after his death in 1621, came very near being placed in the calendar of saints on account of his great services in behalf of popery. This man, on one occasion, under the spur of controversy, betrayed himself into an admission of the real facts in the case. Luther having said that the church (meaning the true church) never burned heretics, Bellarmine, understanding it of the Romish Church, made answer: “This argument proves not the sentiment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther; for as almost an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant; or if he knew it, he was convicted of impudence and falsehood; for that heretics were often burned by the church, may be proved by adducing a few from many examples.”

                To show the relation of the secular power to the church, as held by Romanists, we quote the answer of the same writer to the argument that the only weapon committed to the church is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” To this he replied: “As the church has ecclesiastical and secular princes, who are her two arms, so she has two swords, the spiritual and material; and therefore when her right hand is unable to convert a heretic with the sword of the Spirit, she invokes the aid of the left hand, and coerces heretics with the material sword.” In answer to the argument that the apostles never invoked the secular arm against heretics, he says, “The apostles did it not, because there was no Christian prince whom they could call on for aid. But afterward, in Constantine’s time, . . . the church called in the aid of the secular arm.” – Dowling’s History of Romanism, pp. 547, 548.

                In corroboration of these facts, fifty million (50,000,000) martyrs – this is the lowest computation made by any historian– will rise up in the judgment as witnesses against that church’s bloody work.

                Pagan Rome persecuted relentlessly the Christian church, and it is estimated that three million (3,000,000) Christians perished in the first three centuries, yet it is said that the primitive Christians prayed for the continuance of imperial Rome; for they knew that when this form of government should cease, another far worse persecuting power would arise, which would literally, as this prophecy declares, “wear out the saints of the Most High.” Pagan Rome could slay the infants, but spare the mothers; but papal Rome slew both mothers and infants together. No age, no sex, no condition in life, was exempt from her relentless rage. “When Herod died,” says a forcible writer, “he went down to the grave with infamy; and earth had one murderer, one persecutor, less, and hell one victim more. O Rome! what will not be thy hell, and that of thy votaries, when thy judgment shall have come!” [*These are all unsubstantiated, exaggerated, & ridiculous figures & cases. It is rabid misinterpretation of history & facts. In the 19th century the knowledge of world history was still very inaccurate; the 20th & 21st centuries has altered many global ideas & views.*] [*The High Middle Ages was a period of tremendous expansion of population. The estimated population of Europe grew from 35 to 80 million between 1000 and 1347, although the exact causes remain unclear: improved agricultural techniques, the decline of slaveholding, a more clement climate and the lack of invasion have all been suggested.[Jordan Europe in the High Middle Ages pp. 5–12], [Backman Worlds of Medieval Europe p. 156] As much as 90 per cent of the European population remained rural peasants. Many were no longer settled in isolated farms but had gathered into small communities, usually known as manors or villages.[ibid] These peasants were often subject to noble overlords and owed them rents and other services, in a system known as manorialism. There remained a few free peasants throughout this period and beyond,[ibid, pp. 164-165] with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north. The practice of asserting, or bringing new lands into production by offering incentives to the peasants who settled them, also contributed to the expansion of population.[Epstein Economic and Social History pp. 52–53] (From Wikipedia ‘Middle Ages’.). mjm.*]

And shall “think to change times and laws.” What laws and whose? Not the laws of other earthly governments; for it was nothing marvelous or strange for one power to change the laws of another, whenever it could bring such power under its dominion. Not human laws of any kind; for the little horn had power to change these so far as its jurisdiction extended; but the times and laws in question were such as this power should only think to change, but not be able to change. They are the laws of the same Being to whom the saints belong who are worn out by this power; namely, the laws of the Most High. And has the papacy attempted this? –Yes, even this. It has, in its catechisms, expunged the second commandment of the decalogue to make way for its adoration of images. It has divided the tenth commandment to make up the number ten. And, more audacious than all! it has taken hold of the fourth commandment, torn from its place the sabbath of Jehovah, the only memorial of the great God ever given to man, and erected in its place a rival institution to serve another purpose. (*See Catholic catechism and the work entitled, “Who Changed the Sabbath?” and works on the Sabbath and Law published by the publishers of this book.)

“And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” The pronoun they embraces the saints, the times, and the laws just mentioned. How long a time were they to be given into the hands of this power? A time, as we have seen from the chapter 4:23, is one year; two times, the least that could be denoted by the plural, two years, and the dividing of time, or half a time (Sept.‘hēmisu) half a year. Gesenius also gives (pelag) Chald., a half. Dan.7:25,” We thus have three years and a half (3½ yrs) for the continuance of this power. the Hebrew, or rather the Chaldaic, word for time in the text before us, (‘iddan), iddan, which Gesenius defines thus: “Time. Spec. in prophetic language for a year. Dan.7:25, (‘ad-‘iddan we‘iddanin upelag ‘iddan) for a year, also two years and half a year, i.e., for three years and a half (3½ yrs); comp. Jos.B. J. 1. 1. 1.” We must now consider that we are in the midst of symbolic prophecy; hence in this measurement the time is not literal, but symbolic also. The inquiry then arises, How long a period is denoted by the three years and a half (3½ yrs) of prophetic time? The rule given us in the Bible is, that when a day is used as a symbol, it stands for a year. Eze.4:6; Num.14:34. Under the Hebrew word for day, (yom), Gesenius has this remark: “3. Sometimes (Yamim) marks a definite space of time; viz., a year; as also Syr. and Chald. (‘iddan) denotes both time and year; and as in English several words signifying time, weight, measure, are likewise used to denote certain specified times, weights, and measures.” The ordinary Jewish year, which must be used as the basis of reckoning, contained three hundred and sixty (360) days. Three years and a half (3½ yrs) contained twelve hundred and sixty (1260) days. As each day stands for a year, we have twelve hundred and sixty (1260) years for the continuation of the supremacy of this horn. Did the papacy possess dominion that length of time? The answer again is, Yes. The edict of the emperor Justinian, dated A.D.533, made the bishop of Rome the head of all the churches. But this edict could not go into effect until the Arian Ostrogoths, the last of the three horns that were plucked up to make room for the papacy, were driven from Rome; and this was not accomplished, as already shown, till A.D.538. The edict would have been of no effect had this latter event not been accomplished; hence from this latter year we are to reckon, as this was the earliest point where the saints were in reality in the hand of this power. From this point did the papacy hold supremacy for twelve hundred and sixty (1260) years? –Exactly. For 538 + 1260 = 1798; and in the year 1798, Berthier, with a French army, entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, took the pope prisoner, and for a time abolished the papacy. It has never since enjoyed the privileges and immunities which it possessed before. Thus again this power fulfils to the very letter the specifications of the prophecy, which proves beyond question that the application is correct.

                After describing the terrible career of the little horn, and stating that the saints should be given into his hand for 1260 years, bringing us down to 1798, verse 26 declares: “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” In verse 10 of the same chapter we have substantially the same expression relative to the judgment: “The judgment was set.” It would seem consistent to suppose that the same judgment is referred to in both instances. But the sublime scene described in verse 10 is the opening of the investigative Judgment in the sanctuary in heaven, as will appear in remarks on Dan.8:14 and 9:25-27. The opening of this judgment scene is located by the prophecy at the close of the great prophetic period of 2300 years, which terminated in 1844. (See under chapter 9:25-27.) Four years after this, in 1848, the great revolution which shook so many thrones in Europe, drove the pope also from his dominions. His restoration shortly after was through the force of foreign bayonets, by which alone he was upheld till his final loss of temporal power in 1870. The overthrow of the papacy in 1798 marked the conclusion of the prophetic period of 1260 years, and constituted the “deadly wound” prophesied in Rev.13:3, to come upon this power; but this deadly wound was to be “healed.” In 1800 another pope was elected; his palace and temporal dominion were restored, and every prerogative except, as Mr. Croly says, that of a systematic persecutor, was again under his control; and thus the wound was healed. But since 1870, he has enjoyed no prestige as a temporal prince, among the nations of the earth. [Convoluted & fictional.]

                7:27: After beholding the dark and desolate picture of papal oppression upon the church, the prophet is permitted once more to turn his eyes upon the glorious period of the saints’ rest, when they shall have the kingdom, free from all oppressive powers, in everlasting possession. How could the children of God keep heart in this present evil world, amid the misrule and oppression of the governments of earth, and the abominations that are done in the land, if they could not look forward to the kingdom of God and the return of their Lord, with full assurance that the promises concerning them both shall certainly be fulfilled, and that speedily?

                (*Note. –Some startling events relative to the papacy, filling up the prophecies uttered in this chapter concerning that power, have taken place within a few years of the present time. Commencing in 1798, where the first great blow fell upon the papacy, what have been the chief characteristics of its history? Answer: The rapid defection of its natural supporters, and greater assumptions on its own part. In 1844, the judgment of verse 10 began to sit; namely, the investigative judgment, in the heavenly sanctuary, preparatory to the coming of Christ. Dec.8, 1854, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was decreed by the pope. July 21, 1870, in the great Ecumenical Council assembled at Rome, it was deliberately decreed, by a vote of 538 against 2, that the pope was infallible. In the same year, France, by whose bayonets the pope was kept upon his throne, was crushed by Prussia, and the last prop was taken from under the papacy. Then Victor Emmanuel, seeing his opportunity to carry out the long-cherished dream of a united Italy, seized Rome to make it the capital of his kingdom. To his troops, under General Cadorna, Rome surrendered, Sept.20, 1870. The pope’s temporal power was thus wholly taken away, nevermore, said Victor Emmanuel, to be restored; and since that time, the popes, shutting themselves up in the Vatican, have styled themselves “prisoners.” Because of the great words which the horn uttered, Daniel saw the beast destroyed, and given to the burning flame. This destruction is to take place at the second coming of Christ and by means of that event; for the man of sin is to be consumed by the spirit of Christ’s mouth, and destroyed by the brightness of His coming. 2nd Thess. 2:8. What words could be more arrogant, presumptuous, blasphemous, or insulting to high Heaven, than the deliberate adoption of the dogma of infallibility, thus clothing a mortal man with a prerogative of the Deity? And this was accomplished by papal intrigue and influence, July 21, 1870. Following in swift succession, the last vestige of temporal power was wrenched from his grasp. It was because of these words, and as if in almost immediate connection with them, that the prophet saw this power given to the burning flame. His dominion was to be consumed unto the end, implying that when his power as a civil ruler should be wholly destroyed, the end would not be far off. And the prophet immediately adds: “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” All in this line of prophecy has now been fully accomplished except the closing scene. Next comes the last, crowning act in the drama, when the beast will be given to the burning flame, and the saints of the Most High will take the kingdom. We must be, now, upon the very threshold of this glorious event.*)

                8:9:   A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation which the angel gave to Daniel of these symbols, this one is not described in language so definite as that concerning Medo-Persia and Grecia. Hence a flood of wild conjecture is at once let loose. Had not the angel, in language which cannot be misunderstood, stated that Medo-Persia and Grecia were denoted by the ram and the he-goat, it is impossible to tell what applications men would have given us of those symbols. Probably they would have applied them to anything and everything but the right objects. Leave men a moment to their own judgment in the interpretation of prophecy, and we immediately have the most sublime exhibitions of human fancy.

                There are two leading applications of the symbol now under consideration, which are all that need be noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the “little horn” here introduced denotes the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes; the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test the claims of these two positions.

Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfil the specifications of the prophecy? If he does not fulfil them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power?

Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander’s empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was.

If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious, he was illustrious only in name; for nothing, says Prideaux on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool and others a madman, they changed his name of Epiphanes, “The Illustrious,” into Epimanes, “The Madman.”

Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was enabled to procure peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and the surrender of a portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged to give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans ever after maintained this ascendency.

The little horn waxed exceeding great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceeding great; on the contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews.

The little horn, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, was exceeding great. Persia is simply called great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven (127) provinces. Est. 1:1. Grecia, being more extensive still, is called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed exceeding great, must surpass them both. How absurd, then, to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of the Romans, to whom he paid enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious Encyclopedia gives us this item of his history: “Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tribute, and collect large sums which he had agreed to pay the Romans.” It cannot take long for anyone to decide the question which was the greater power, –the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that evacuation; the one which exacted tribute, or the one which was compelled to pay it.

The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan.9:25; Acts.3:15; Rev.1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfil the specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand.

It has been an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus. It will be just as easy to show that it does denote Rome.

The field of vision here is substantially the same as that covered by Nebuchadnezzar’s image of chapter 2, and Daniel’s vision of chapter 7. And in both these prophetic delineations we have found that the power which succeeded Grecia as the fourth great power, was Rome. The only natural inference would be that the little horn, the power which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an “exceeding great” power, is also Rome.

The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1st Maccabees 8; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II, p. 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat.

The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries.

The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65, and made it a province.

The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth.

The little horn waxed great even to the host of heaven. Rome did this also. The host of heaven, when used in a symbolic sense in reference to events transpiring upon the earth, must denote persons of illustrious character or exalted position. The great red dragon (Rev.12:4) is said to have cast down a third part of the stars of heaven to the ground. The dragon is there interpreted to symbolize pagan Rome, and the stars it cast to the ground were Jewish rulers. Evidently it is the same power and the same work that is here brought to view, which again makes it necessary to apply this growing horn to Rome.

The little horn magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. Rome alone did this. In the interpretation (verse 25) this is called standing up against the Prince of princes. How clear an allusion to the crucifixion of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans.

By the little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away. This little horn must be understood to symbolize Rome in its entire history including its two phases, pagan and papal. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the “daily” (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the “transgression of desolation;” the daily (desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal. (See on verse 13.) In the actions ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of, sometimes the other. “By him” (the papal form) “the daily” (the pagan form) “was taken away.” Pagan Rome was remodeled into papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of government was removed by Constantine in A.D. 330 to Constantinople. This same transaction is brought to view in Rev.13:2, where it is said that the dragon, pagan Rome, gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome.

A host was given him (the little horn) against the daily. The barbarians that subverted the Roman empire in the changes, attritions, and transformations of those times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the instruments of the dethronement of their former religion. Though conquering Rome politically, they were themselves vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became the perpetrators of the same empire in another phase. And this was brought about by reason of “transgression;” that is, by the working of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy is the most cunningly contrived, false ecclesiastical system ever devised; and it may be called a system of iniquity because it has committed its abominations and practiced its orgies of superstition in the garb, and under the pretense, of pure and undefiled religion.

The little horn cast the truth to the ground, and practiced and prospered. This describes, in few words, the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured; it is loaded with traditions; it is turned into mummery and superstition; it is cast down and obscured.

                And this antichristian power has “practiced,” –practiced its deceptions upon the people, practiced its schemes of cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own power.

                And it has “prospered.” It has made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. It has run its allotted career, and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the burning flame, and to perish in the consuming glories of the second appearing of our Lord.

                Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most strikingly and accurately fulfilled.

                8:13: …..The daily sacrifice. We have proof in verse 13 that sacrifice is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word daily. If the daily sacrifice of the Jewish service is here meant, or, in other words, the taking away of that sacrifice, as some suppose, which sacrifice was at a certain point of time taken away, there would be no propriety in the question, How long the vision concerning it? This question evidently implies that those agents or events to which the vision relates, occupy a long series of years. Continuance of time is the central idea. And the whole time of the vision is filled by what is here called the daily and the transgression of desolation. Hence the daily can not be the daily sacrifice of the Jews, the taking away of which, when the time came for it, occupied comparatively but an instant of time. It must denote something which occupies a series of years.

                The word here rendered daily occurs in the Old Testament, according to the Hebrew Concordance, one hundred and two times, and is, in the great majority of instances, rendered continual or continually. The idea of sacrifice does not attach to the word at all. Nor is there any word in the text which signifies sacrifice; that is wholly a supplied word, the translators putting in that word which their understanding of the text seemed to demand. But they evidently entertained an erroneous view, the sacrifices of the Jews not being referred to at all. It appears, therefore, more in accordance with both the construction and the context, to suppose that the word daily refers to a desolating power, like the “transgression of desolation,” with which it is connected. Then we have two desolating powers, which for a long period oppress, or desolate the church. Literally, the text may be rendered, “How long the vision [concerning] the continuance and the transgression of desolation?” –the word desolation being related to both continuance and transgression, as though it were expressed in full thus: “The continuance of desolation and the transgression of desolation.” By the “continuance of desolation,” or the perpetual desolation, we must understand that paganism, through all its long history, is meant; and when we consider the long ages through which paganism had been the chief agency of Satan’s opposition to the work of God in the earth, the propriety of the term continuance or perpetual, as applied to it, becomes apparent. By “the transgression of desolation” is meant the papacy. The phrase describing this latter power is stronger than that used to describe paganism. It is the transgression (or rebellion, as the word also means) of desolation as though under this period of the history of the church the desolating power had rebelled against all restraint previously imposed upon it.

                From a religious point of view, the world has presented only these two phases of opposition against the Lord’s work in the earth. Hence although three earthly governments are introduced in the prophecy as oppressors of the church, they are here ranged under two heads; “the daily” and the “transgression of desolation.” –Medo-Persia was pagan; Grecia was pagan; Rome in its first phase was pagan; these all were embraced in the “daily.” Then comes the papal form, –the “transgression of desolation” –a marvel of craft and cunning, an incarnation of fiendish blood-thirstiness and cruelty. No wonder the cry has gone up from suffering martyrs, from age to age, “How long, O Lord, how long?” And no wonder the Lord, in order that hope might not wholly die out of the hearts of his down-trodden, waiting people, has lifted before them the vail of futurity, showing them the consecutive future events of the world’s history, till all these persecuting powers shall meet an utter and everlasting destruction, and giving them glimpses beyond of the unfading glories of their eternal inheritance.

                The Lord’s eye is upon His people. The furnace will be heated no hotter than is necessary to consume the dross. It is through much tribulation we are to enter the kingdom; and the word tribulation is from tribulum, a threshing sledge. Blow after blow must be laid upon us, till all the wheat is beaten free from the chaff, and we are made fit for the heavenly garner. But not a kernel of wheat will be lost. Says the Lord to His people, “Ye are the light of the world,” “the salt of the earth.” In his eyes there is nothing else on the earth of consequence or importance. Hence the peculiar question here asked, How long the vision respecting the daily and the transgression of desolation? Concerning what? –the glory of earthly kingdoms? the skill of renowned warriors? the fame of mighty conquerors? the greatness of human empire? –No; but concerning the sanctuary and the host, the people and worship of the Most High. How long shall they be trodden under foot? Here is where all heaven’s interest and sympathy are enlisted. He who touches the people of God, touches not mere mortals, weak and helpless, but Omnipotence; he opens an account which must be settled at the bar of Heaven. And soon all these accounts will be adjusted, the iron heel of oppression will itself be crushed, and a people will be brought out of the furnace prepared to shine as the stars forever and ever. To be one who is an object of interest to heavenly beings, one whom the providence of God is engaged to preserve while here, and crown with immortality hereafter –what an exalted position! How much higher than that of any king, president, or potentate of earth? Reader, are you one of the number?

                Respecting the 2300 days, introduced for the first time in verse 14, there are no data in this chapter from which to determine their commencement and close, or tell what portion of the world’s history they cover. It is necessary, therefore, for the present, to pass them by. Let the reader be assured, however, that we are not left in any uncertainty concerning those days. The declaration respecting them is a part of a revelation which is given for the instruction of the people of God, and is consequently to be understood. They are spoken of in the midst of a prophecy which the angel Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand; and it may be safely assumed that Gabriel somewhere carried out this instruction. It will accordingly be found that the mystery which hangs over these days in this chapter, is dispelled in the next.

                The sanctuary. Connected with the 2300 days is another subject of equal importance, which now presents itself for consideration; namely, the sanctuary; and with this is also connected the subject of its cleansing. An examination of these subjects will reveal the importance of having an understanding of the commencement and termination of the 2300 days, that we may know when the great event called “the cleansing of the sanctuary” is to transpire; for all the inhabitants of the earth, as will in due time appear, have a personal interest in that solemn work.

                Several objects have been claimed by different ones as the sanctuary here mentioned: (1) The earth; (2) The land of Canaan; (3) The church; (4) The sanctuary, the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” which is “in the heavens,” and of which the Jewish tabernacle was a type, pattern, or figure. Heb.8:1,2; 9:23,24. These conflicting claims must be decided by the Scriptures; and fortunately the testimony is neither meager nor ambiguous.Is the earth the sanctuary? The word sanctuary occurs in the Old and New Testaments one hundred and forty-four (144) times, and from the definitions of lexicographers, and its use in the Bible, we learn that it is used to signify a holy or sacred place, a dwelling-place for the Most High. If, therefore, the earth is the sanctuary, it must answer to this definition; but what single characteristic pertaining to this earth is found which will satisfy the definition? It is neither a holy nor a sacred place, nor is it a dwelling-place for the Most High. It has no mark of distinction, except as being a revolted planet, marred by sin, scarred, and withered by the curse. Moreover, it is nowhere in all the Scriptures called the sanctuary. Only one text can be produced in favor of this view, and that only by an uncritical application. Isa. 60:13 says: “The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of My Sanctuary; and I will make the place of My Feet glorious.” This language undoubtedly refers to the new earth; but even that is not called the sanctuary, but only the “place” of the sanctuary, just as it is called ‘the place” of the Lord’s feet; an expression which probably denotes the continual presence of God with His people, as it was revealed to John when it was said, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God.” Rev.21:3. All that can be said of the earth, therefore, is, that when renewed, it will be the place where the sanctuary of God will be located. It can present not a shadow of a claim to being the sanctuary at the present time, or the sanctuary of the prophecy.

Is the land of Canaan the sanctuary? So far as we may be governed by the definition of the word, it can present no better claim than the earth to that distinction. If we inquire where in the Bible it is called the sanctuary, a few texts are brought forward which seem to be supposed by some to furnish the requisite testimony. The first of these is Ex.15:17. Moses, in his song of triumph and praise to God after the passage of the Red Sea, exclaimed: “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Thine Inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which Thou has made for Thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.” A writer who urges this text, says, “I ask the reader to pause, and examine and settle the question most distinctly before he goes further. What is the sanctuary here spoken of? But it would be far safer for the reader not to attempt to settle the question definitely from this one isolated text before comparing it with other scriptures. Moses here speaks in anticipation. His language is a prediction of what God would do for His People. Let us see how it was accomplished. If we find, in the fulfilment, that the land in which they were planted is called the sanctuary, it will greatly strengthen the claim that is based upon this text. If, on the other hand, we find a plain distinction drawn between the land and the sanctuary, then Ex.15:17 must be interpreted accordingly.

                We turn to David, who records as a matter of history what Moses uttered as a matter of prophecy. Ps.78:53,54. The subject of the psalmist here, is the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian servitude, and their establishment in the promised land; and he says: “And He [God] led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies. And He brought them to the border of His Sanctuary, even to this mountain, which His Right Hand had purchased.” The “mountain” here mentioned by David is the same as the “mountain of thine inheritance” spoken of by Moses, in which the people were to be planted; and this mountain David calls, not the sanctuary, but only the border of the sanctuary. What, then, was the sanctuary? Verse 69 of the same psalm informs us: “And He built His Sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which He hath established forever.” The same distinction between the sanctuary and the land is pointed out in the prayer of good king Jehoshaphat. 2nd Chron. 20:7,8: “Art not Thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of the land before Thy People Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham Thy Friend forever? And they dwelt therein, and have built Thee a sanctuary therein for Thy Name.” Taken alone, some try to draw an inference from Ex.15:17 that the mountain was the sanctuary; but when we take in connection with it the language of David, which is a record of the fulfilment of Moses’s prediction, and an inspired commentary upon his language, such an idea cannot be entertained; for David plainly says that the mountain was simply the “border” of the sanctuary; and that in that border, or land, the sanctuary was “built” like high palaces, reference being made to the beautiful temple of the Jews, the center and symbol of all their worship. But whoever will read carefully Ex.15:17 will see that not even an inference is necessary that Moses by the word sanctuary means the mountain of inheritance, much less the whole land of Palestine. In the freedom of poetic license, he employees elliptical expressions, and passes rapidly from one idea or object to another. First, the inheritance engages his attention, and he speaks of it; then the fact that the Lord was to dwell there; then the place he was to provide for His dwelling there; namely, the sanctuary which he would cause to be built. David thus associated Mount Zion and Judah together in Ps.78:68 because Zion was located in Judah.

                The three texts, Ex. 15:17; Ps. 78:54, 69, are the ones chiefly relied on to prove that the land of Canaan is the sanctuary; but, singularly enough, the two latter, in plain language, clear away the ambiguity of the first, and thereby disprove the claim that is based thereon. Having disposed of the main proof on this point, it would hardly seem worthwhile to spend time with those texts from which only inferences can be drawn. As there is, however, only one even of this class, we will refer to it, that no point may be left unnoticed. Isa. 63:18: “The people of Thy Holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down the sanctuary.” This language is as applicable to the temple as to the land! for when the land was overrun with the enemies of Israel, their temple was laid in ruins. This is plainly stated in verse 11 of the next chapter: “Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire.” The text therefore proves nothing for this view.

                Respecting the earth or the land of Canaan as the sanctuary, we offer one thought more. If either constitutes the sanctuary, it should not only be somewhere described as such, but the same idea should be carried through to the end, and the purification of the earth or of Palestine should be called the cleansing of the sanctuary. The earth is indeed defiled, and it is to be purified by fire; but fire, as we shall see, is not the agent which is used in the cleansing of the sanctuary; and this purification of the earth, or any part of it, is nowhere in the Bible called the cleansing of the sanctuary.

Is the church the sanctuary? The evident mistrust with which this idea is suggested, is a virtual surrender of the argument before it is presented. The one solitary text adduced in its support is Ps.114:1,2: “When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah was His Sanctuary, and Israel His Dominion.” Should we take this text in its most literal sense, what would it prove respecting the sanctuary? It would prove that the sanctuary was confined to one of the twelve tribes: and hence that a portion of the church only, not the whole of it, constitutes the sanctuary. But this, proving too little for the theory under consideration, proves nothing. Why Judah is called the sanctuary in the text quoted, need not be a matter of perplexity, when we remember that God chose Jerusalem, which was in Judah, as the place of His Sanctuary. “But chose,” says David, “the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved. And He built His Sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which He hath established forever.” This clearly shows the connection which existed between Judah and the sanctuary. That tribe itself was not the sanctuary; but it is once spoken of as such when Israel came forth from Egypt, because God purposed that in the midst of the territory of that tribe His Sanctuary should be located. But even if it could be shown that the church is anywhere called the sanctuary, it would be of no consequence to our present purpose, which is to determine what constitutes the sanctuary of Dan.8:13,14; for the church is there spoken of as another object: “To give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot.” That by the term host the church is here meant, none will dispute; the sanctuary is therefore another and a different object.

Is the temple in heaven the sanctuary? There now remains but this one claim to be examined; namely, that the sanctuary mentioned in the text is what Paul calls in Hebrews the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man,” to which he expressly gives the name of “the sanctuary,” and which he locates in “the heavens;” of which sanctuary, there existed, under the former dispensation, first in the tabernacle built by Moses, and afterward in the temple at Jerusalem, a pattern, type, or figure. And let it be particularly noticed, that on the view here suggested rests our only hope of ever understanding this question; for we have seen that all other positions are untenable. No other object which has ever been supposed by anyone to be the sanctuary –the earth, the land of Canaan, or the church –can for a moment support such a claim. If, therefore, we do not find it in the object before us, we may abandon the search in utter despair; we may discard so much of revelation as still unrevealed, and may cut out from the sacred page, as so much useless reading, the numerous passages which speak on this subject. All those, therefore, who, rather than that so important a subject should go by default, are willing to lay aside all preconceived opinions and cherished views, will approach the position before us with intense anxiety and unbounded interest. They will lay hold of any evidence that may here be given us as a man bewildered in a labyrinth of darkness would lay hold of the thread which was his only guide to lead him forth again to light.

                It will be safe for us to put ourselves in imagination in the place of Daniel, and view the subject from his standpoint. What would he understand by the term sanctuary as addressed to him? If we can ascertain this, it will not be difficult to arrive at correct conclusions on this subject. His mind would inevitably turn, on the mention of that word, to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and certainly he well knew where that was. His mind did turn to Jerusalem, the city of his fathers, which was then in ruins, and to their “beautiful house,” which, as Isaiah laments, was burned with fire. And so, as was his wont, with his face turned toward the place of their once venerated temple, he prayed God to cause his face to shine upon His Sanctuary, which was desolate. By the word sanctuary Daniel evidently understood their temple at Jerusalem.

                But Paul bears testimony which is most explicit on this point. Heb.9:1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” This is the very point which at present we are concerned to determine: What was the sanctuary of the first covenant? Paul proceeds to tell us. Hear him. Verses 2-5: “For there was a tabernacle made; the first [or first apartment], wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary [margin, the holy]. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid roundabout with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.”

                There is no mistaking the object to which Paul here has reference. It is the tabernacle erected by Moses according to the direction of the Lord (which was afterward merged into the temple at Jerusalem), with a holy and a most holy place, and various vessels of service, as here set forth. A full description of this building, with its various vessels and their uses, will be found in Exodus, chapter 25 and onward. If the reader is not familiar with this subject, he is requested to turn and closely examine the description of this building. This, Paul plainly says, was the sanctuary of the first covenant. And we wish the reader carefully to mark the logical value of this declaration. By telling us what did positively for a time constitute the sanctuary, Paul sets us on the right track of inquiry. He gives us a basis on which to work. For a time, the field is cleared of all doubt and all obstacles. During the time covered by the first covenant, which reached from Sinai to Christ, we have before us a distinct and plainly defined object, minutely described by Moses, and declared by Paul to be the sanctuary during that time.

                But Paul’s language has greater significance even than this. It forever annihilates the claims which are put forth on behalf of the earth, the land of Canaan, or the church, as the sanctuary; for the arguments which would prove them to be the sanctuary at any time, would prove them to be such under the old dispensation. If Canaan was at any time the sanctuary, it was such when Israel was planted in it. If the church was ever the sanctuary, it was such when Israel was led forth from Egypt. If the earth was ever the sanctuary, it was such during the period of which we speak. To this period the arguments urged in their favor apply as fully as to any other period; and if they were not the sanctuary during this time, then all the arguments are destroyed which would show that they ever were, or ever could be, the sanctuary. But were they the sanctuary during that time? This is a final question for these theories; and Paul decided it in the negative, by describing to us the tabernacle of Moses, and telling us that that –not the earth, nor Canaan, nor the church –was the sanctuary of that dispensation.

                And this building answers in every respect to the definition of the term, and the use for which the sanctuary was designed. It was the earthly dwelling-place of God. “Let them make Me a Sanctuary,” said He to Moses, “that I may dwell among them.” Ex.25:8. In this tabernacle, which they erected according to His instructions, He manifested His Presence. It was a holy, or sacred place, – “the holy sanctuary.” Lev.16:33.

In the word of God it is over and over again called the sanctuary. Of the one hundred and forty (140) instances in which the word is used in the Old Testament, it refers in almost every case to this building.

                The tabernacle was at first constructed in such a manner as to be adapted to the condition of the children of Israel at that time. They were just entering upon their forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, when this building was set up in their midst as the habitation of God and the center of their religious worship. Journeying was a necessity, and removals were frequent. It would be necessary that the tabernacle should often be moved from place to place. It was therefore so fashioned of movable parts, the sides being composed of upright boards, and the covering consisting of curtains of linen and dyed skins, that it could be readily taken down, conveniently transported, and easily erected at each successive stage of their journey. After entering the promised land, this temporary structure in time gave place to the magnificent temple of Solomon. In this more permanent form it existed, saving only the time it lay in ruins in Daniel’s day, till its final destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70.

                This is the only sanctuary connected with the earth concerning which the Bible gives us any instruction or history any record. But is there nowhere any other? This was the sanctuary of the first covenant; with that covenant it came to an end; is there no sanctuary which pertains to the second, or new covenant? There must be otherwise the analogy is lacking between these covenants; and in this case the first covenant had a system of worship, which, though minutely described, is unintelligible, and the second covenant has a system of worship which is indefinite and obscure. And Paul virtually asserts that the new covenant, in force since the death of Christ, the testator, has a sanctuary; for when, in contrasting the two covenants, as he does in the book of Hebrews, he says in chapter 9:1 that the first covenant “had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,” it is the same as saying that the new covenant has likewise its services and its sanctuary.

                Furthermore, in verse 8 of this chapter he speaks of the worldly sanctuary as the first tabernacle. If that was the first, there must be a second; and as the first tabernacle existed so long as the first covenant was in force, when that covenant came to an end, the second tabernacle must have taken the place of the first, and must be the sanctuary of the new covenant. There can be no evading this conclusion.

                Where, then, shall we look for the sanctuary of the new covenant? Paul, by the use of the word also in Heb.9:1, intimates that he had before spoken of this sanctuary. We turn back to the beginning of the previous chapter, and find him summing up his foregoing arguments as follows: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Can there be any doubt that we have in this text the sanctuary of the new covenant? A plain allusion is here made to the sanctuary of the first covenant. That was pitched by man, erected by Moses; this was pitched by the Lord, not by man. That was the place where the earthly priests performed their ministry; this is the place where Christ, the High Priest of the new covenant, performs His ministry. That was on earth; this is in heaven. That was therefore very properly called by Paul a “worldly sanctuary;” this is a “heavenly one.”

                This view is further sustained by the fact that the sanctuary built by Moses was not an original structure, but was built after a pattern. The great original existed somewhere else; what Moses constructed was but a type, or model. Listen to the directions the Lord gave him on this point: “According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.” Ex.25:9. “And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount.” Verse 40. (To the same end see Ex.26:30; 27:8; Acts.7:44.)

                Now of what was the earthly sanctuary a type, of figure? Answer: Of the sanctuary of the new covenant, the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” The relation which the first covenant sustains to the second throughout, is that of type to antitype. Its sacrifices were types of the greater sacrifice of this dispensation; its priests were types of our Lord, in his more perfect priesthood; their ministry was performed unto the shadow and example of the ministry of our High Priest above; and the sanctuary where they ministered, was a type, or figure, of the true sanctuary in heaven, where our Lord performs his ministry.

                All these facts are plainly stated by Paul in a few verses to the Hebrews. Chapter 8:4,5: “For if He [Christ] were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” This testimony shows that the ministry of the earthly priests was a shadow of Christ’s priesthood; and the evidence Paul brings forward to prove it, is the direction which God gave to Moses to make the tabernacle according to the pattern showed him in the mount. This clearly identifies the pattern showed to Moses in the mount with the sanctuary, or true tabernacle, in heaven, where our Lord ministers, mentioned three verses before.

                In chapter 9:8,9, Paul further says: “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all [Greek, holy places, plural] was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a figure for the time then present,” etc. While the first tabernacle stood, and the first covenant was in force, the ministration of the more perfect tabernacle was not, of course, carried forward. But when Christ came, a High Priest of good things to come, when the first tabernacle had served its purpose, and the first covenant had ceased, then Christ, raised to the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, as a minister of the true sanctuary entered by His own blood (verse 12) “into the holy place [where also the Greek has the plural, the holy places], having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Of these heavenly holy places, therefore, the first tabernacle was a figure for the time then present. If any further testimony is needed, he speaks, in verse 23, of the earthly tabernacle, with its apartments and instruments, as patterns of things in the heavens; and in verse 24, he calls the holy places made with hands, that is, the tabernacle in heaven.

                This view is still further corroborated by the testimony of John. Among the things which he was permitted to behold in heaven, he saw seven lamps of fire burning before the throne (Rev.4:5); he saw an altar of incense, and a golden censer (chapter 8:3); he saw the ark of God’s testament (chapter 11:19); and all this in connection with a “temple” in heaven. Rev. 11:19; 15:8. These objects every Bible reader must at once recognize as implements of the sanctuary. They owed their existence to the sanctuary, and were confined to it, to be employed in the ministration connected therewith. As without the sanctuary they had not existed, so wherever we find these, we may know that there is the sanctuary; and hence the fact that John saw these things in heaven in this dispensation, is proof that there is a sanctuary there, and that he was permitted to behold it.

                However reluctant a person may have been to acknowledge that there is a sanctuary in heaven, the testimony that has been presented is certainly sufficient to prove this fact. Paul says that the tabernacle of Moses was the sanctuary of the first covenant. Moses says that God showed him in the mount a pattern, according to which he was to make this tabernacle. Paul testifies again that Moses did make it according to the pattern, and that the pattern was the true tabernacle in heaven, which the Lord pitched, and not man; and that of this heavenly sanctuary the tabernacle erected with hands was a true figure, or representation. And finally, John, to corroborate the statement of Paul that this sanctuary is in heaven, bears testimony, as an eye-witness, that he beheld it there. What further testimony could be required? Nay, more, what further is conceivable?

                So far as the question as to what constitutes the sanctuary is concerned, we now have the subject before us in one harmonious whole. The sanctuary of the Bible –mark it all, dispute it who can– consists, first, of the typical tabernacle established with the Hebrews at the exodus from Egypt, which was the sanctuary of the first covenant; and, secondly, of the true tabernacle in heaven, of which the former was a type, or figure, which is the sanctuary of the new covenant. These are inseparably connected together as type and antitype. From the antitype we go back to the type, and from the type we are carried forward naturally and inevitably to the antitype.

                We have said that Daniel would at once understand by the word sanctuary the sanctuary of his people at Jerusalem; so would anyone under that dispensation. But does the declaration of Dan. 8:14 have reference to that sanctuary? That depends upon the time to which it applies. All the declarations respecting the sanctuary which apply under the old dispensation, have respect, of course, to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and all those declarations which apply in this dispensation, must have reference to the sanctuary in this dispensation. If the 2300 days, at the termination of which the sanctuary is to be cleansed, ended in the former dispensation, the sanctuary to be cleansed was the sanctuary of that time. If they reach over into this dispensation, the sanctuary to which reference is made is the sanctuary of this dispensation, –the new-covenant sanctuary in heaven. This is a point which can be determined only by a further argument on the 2300 days; and this will be found in remarks on Dan. 9:24, where the subject of time is resumed and explained.

                What we have thus far said respecting the sanctuary has been only incidental to the main question in the prophecy. That question has respect to its cleansing. “Unto two thousand and three hundred (2300) days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” But it was necessary first to determine what constituted the sanctuary before we could understandingly examine the question of its cleansing. For this we are now prepared.

                Having learned what constitutes the sanctuary, the question of its cleansing and how it is accomplished, is soon decided. It has been noticed that whatever constitutes the sanctuary of the Bible, must have some service connected with it which is called its cleansing. There is no account in the Bible of any work so named as pertaining to this earth, the land of Canaan, or the church; which is good evidence that none of these objects constitutes the sanctuary; there is such a service connected with the object which we have shown to be the sanctuary, and which, in reference to both the earthly building and the heavenly temple, is called its cleansing.

                Does the reader object to the idea of there being anything in heaven which is to be cleansed? Is this a barrier in the way of his receiving the view here presented? Then his controversy is not with this work, but with God’s Word, which positively affirms this fact. But before he decided against this view, we ask the objector to examine carefully in reference to the nature of this cleansing, as he is here undoubtedly laboring under an utter misapprehension. The following are the plain terms in which Paul affirms the cleansing of both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Heb. 9:22,23. In the light of foregoing arguments, this may be paraphrased thus: ‘It was therefore necessary that the tabernacle as erected by Moses, with its sacred vessels, which were patterns of the true sanctuary in heaven, should be purified, or cleansed, with the blood of calves and goats; but the heavenly things themselves, the sanctuary of this dispensation, the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man, must be cleansed with better sacrifices, even with the blood of Christ.’

                We now inquire, What is the nature of this cleansing, and how is it to be accomplished? According to the language of Paul, just quoted, it is performed by means of blood. The cleansing is not, therefore a cleansing from physical uncleanness or impurity; for blood is not the agent used in such a work. And this consideration should satisfy the objector’s mind in regard to the cleansing of the heavenly things. The fact that Paul speaks of heavenly things to be cleansed, does not prove that there is any physical impurity in heaven; for that is not the kind of cleansing to which he refers. The reason Paul assigns why this cleansing is performed with blood, is because without the shedding of blood there is no remission.

                Remission, then; that is, the putting away of sin, is the work to be done. The cleansing, therefore, is not physical cleansing, but a cleansing from sin. But how came sins connected with the sanctuary, either the earthly or the heavenly, that it should need to be cleansed from them? This question is answered by the ministration connected with the type, to which we now turn.

                The closing chapters of Exodus give us an account of the construction of the earthly sanctuary, and the arrangement of the service connected therewith. Leviticus opens with an account of the ministration which was there to be performed. All that it is our purpose to notice here, is one particular branch of the service, which was performed as follows: The person who had committed sin brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle. Upon the head of this victim he placed his hand for a moment, and, as we may reasonably infer, confessed over him his sin. By this expressive act he signified that he had sinned, and was worthy of death, but that in his stead he consecrated his victim, and transferred his guilt to it. With his own hand (and what must have been his emotions!) he then took the life of his victim on account of that guilt. The law demanded the life of the transgressor for his disobedience; the life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11,14); hence without the shedding of blood, there is no remission; with the shedding of blood, remission is possible; for the demand of life by the law is thus satisfied. The blood of the victim, representative of a forfeited life, and the vehicle of its guilt was then taken by the priest and ministered before the Lord.

                The sin of the individual was thus, by his confession, by the slaying of the victim, and by the ministry of the priest, transferred from himself to the sanctuary. Victim after victim was thus offered by the people. Day by day the work went forward; and thus the sanctuary continually became the receptacle of the sins of the congregation. But this was not the final disposition of these sins. The accumulated guilt was removed by a special service, which was called the cleansing of the sanctuary. This service, in the type, occupied one day in the year; and the tenth day of the seventh month, on which it was performed, was called the day of atonement. On this day, while all Israel refrained from work and afflicted their souls, the priest brought two goats, and presented them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. On these goats he cast lots; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat. The one upon which the Lord’s lot fell, was then slain, and his blood was carried by the priest into the most holy place of the sanctuary, and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat. And this was the only day on which he was permitted to enter into that apartment. Coming forth, he was then to lay both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, and, thus putting them upon his head (Lev.16:21), he was to send him away by the hand of a fit man into a land not inhabited, a land of separation, or forgetfulness, the goat never again to appear in the camp of Israel, and the sins of the people to be remembered against them no more. This service was for the purpose of cleansing the people from their sins, and cleansing the sanctuary and its sacred vessels. Lev.16:30,33. By this process, sin was removed, –but only in figure; for all that work was typical [& repeated continually yearly].

                The reader to whom these views are new will be ready here to inquire, perhaps with some astonishment, what this strange work could possibly be designed to typify; what there is in this dispensation which it was designed to prefigure. We answer, A similar work in the ministration of Christ, as Paul clearly teaches. After stating, in Hebrews 8, that Christ is the minister of the true tabernacle, the sanctuary in heaven, he states that the priests on earth served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. In other words, the work of the earthly priests was a shadow, an example, a correct representation, so far as it could be carried out by mortals, of the ministration of Christ above. These priests ministered in both apartments of the earthly tabernacle, Christ therefore ministers in both apartments of the heavenly temple; for that temple has two apartments, or it was not correctly represented by the earthly; and our Lord officiates in both, or the service of the priest on earth was not a correct shadow of his work. But Paul directly states that he ministers in both apartments; for he says that he has entered into the holy place (Greek, , the holy places) by his own blood. Heb.9:12. There is therefore a work performed by Christ in His ministry in the heavenly temple corresponding to that performed by the priests in both apartments of the earthly building. But the work in the second apartment, or most holy place, was a special work to close the yearly round of service and cleanse the sanctuary. Hence Christ’s ministration in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary must be a work of like nature, and constitute the close of his work as our great High Priest, and the cleansing of that sanctuary.

                As through the sacrifices of a former dispensation the sins of the people were transferred in figure by the priests to the earthly sanctuary, where those priests ministered, so ever since Christ ascended to be our intercessor in the presence of his Father, the sins of all those who sincerely seek pardon through him are transferred in fact to the heavenly sanctuary where He ministers. Whether Christ ministers for us in the heavenly holy places with His own blood literally, or only by virtue of its merits, we need not stop to inquire. Suffice it to say, that His blood has been shed, and through that blood remission of sins is secured in fact, which was obtained only in figure through the blood of the calves and goats of the former dispensation. But those sacrifices had real virtue in this respect: they signified faith in a real sacrifice to come; and thus those who employed  them have an equal interest in the work of Christ with those who in this dispensation come to him by faith, through the ordinances of the gospel.

                The continual transfer of sins to the heavenly sanctuary (and if they are not thus transferred, will anyone, in the light of the types, and in view of the language of Paul, explain the nature of the work of Christ in our behalf?) –this continual transfer, we say, of sins to the heavenly sanctuary, makes its cleansing necessary on the same ground that a like work was required in the earthly sanctuary.

                An important distinction between the two ministrations must here be noticed. In the earthly tabernacle, a complete round of service was accomplished every year. For three hundred and fifty-nine (359) days, in their ordinary year, the ministration went forward in the first apartment. One day’s work in the most holy completed the yearly round. The work then commenced again in the holy place, and went forward till another day of atonement completed the year’s work. And so on, year by year. This continual repetition of the work was necessary on account of the short lives of mortal priests. But no such necessity exists in the case of our divine Lord, whoever liveth to make intercession for us. (See Heb. 7:23-25.) Hence the work of the heavenly sanctuary, instead of being a yearly work, is performed once for all. Instead of being repeated year by year, one grand cycle is allotted to it, in which it is carried forward and finished, never to be repeated.

                One year’s round of service in the earthly sanctuary represented the entire work of the sanctuary above. In the type, the cleansing of the sanctuary was the brief closing work of the years’ service. In the antitype, the cleansing of the sanctuary must be the closing work of Christ, our great High Priest, in the tabernacle on high. In the type, to cleanse the sanctuary, the high priest entered into the most holy place to minister in the presence of God before the ark of His testament. In the antitype, when the time comes for the cleansing of the sanctuary, our High Priest, in like manner, enters into the most holy place to make a final end of his intercessory work on behalf of mankind. We confidently affirm that no other conclusion can be arrived at on this subject without doing despite to the unequivocal testimony of God’s word.

                Reader, do you now see the importance of this subject? Do you begin to perceive what an object of interest for all the world is the sanctuary of God? Do you see that the whole work of salvation centers there, and that when the work is done, probation is ended, and the cases of the saved and lost are eternally decided? Do you see that the cleansing of the sanctuary is a brief and special work, by which the great scheme is forever finished? Do you see that if it can be made known when this work of cleansing commences, it is a solemn announcement to the world that salvation’s last hour is reached, and is fast hastening to its close? And this is what the prophecy is designed to show. It is to make known the commencement of this momentous work. “Unto two thousand and three hundred (2300) days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

                In advance of any argument on the nature and application of these days, the position may be safely taken that they reach to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, for the earthly was to be cleansed each year; and we make the prophet utter nonsense, if we understand him as saying that at the end of 2300 days, a period of time over six years in length, even if we take the days literally, an event should take place which was to occur regularly every year. The heavenly sanctuary is the one in which the decision of all cases is to be rendered. The progress of the work there is what it especially concerns mankind to know. If people understood the bearing of these subjects on their eternal interest, with what earnestness and anxiety would they give them their most careful and prayerful study.

                See on chapter 9:20 and onward, an argument on the 2300 days, showing at what point they terminated, and when the solemn work of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary began.

                9:24: …..Such are the first words the angel utters to Daniel, toward imparting to him that instruction which he came to give. Why does he thus abruptly introduce a period of time? We must again refer to the vision of chapter 8. We have seen that Daniel, at the close of that chapter, says that he did not understand the vision. Some portions of that vision were at the time very clearly explained. It could not have been these portions which he did not understand. We therefore inquire what it was which Daniel did not understand, or, in other words, what part of the vision was there left unexplained. In that vision four prominent things are brought to view: (1) The Ram; (2) The He-goat; (3) The Little Horn; (4) The period of the 2300 days. The symbols of the ram, the he-goat, and the little horn were explained. Nothing, however, was said respecting the time. This must therefore have been the point which he did not understand; and as without this the other portions of the vision were of no avail, he could well say, while the application of this period was left in obscurity, that he did not understand the vision.

                If this view of the subject is correct, we should naturally expect, when the angel completed his explanation of the vision, that he would commence with the very point which had been omitted: namely, the time. And this we find to be true in fact. After citing Daniel’s attention back to the former vision in the most direct and emphatic manner, and assuring him that he had now come forth to give him understanding in the matter, he commences upon the very point there omitted, and says, “Seventy (70) weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city.”

                But how does this language show any connection with the 2300 days, or throw any light upon that period? We answer: The language cannot be intelligibly referred to anything else: for the word here rendered determined signifies “cut off;” and no period is given in the vision here referred to from which the seventy (70) weeks could be cut off but the 2300 days of the previous vision. How direct and natural, then, is the connection. Daniel’s attention is fixed upon the 2300 days, which he did not understand, by the angel’s directing him to the former vision; and he says, “Seventy (70) weeks are cut off.” Cut off from what? – The 2300 days, most assuredly.

                Proof may be called for that the word rendered determined signifies to ‘cut off‘. An abundance can be given. The Hebrew word thus translated is (nehhtak). This word Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, defines as follows: “Properly, to cut off; tropically, to divide; and so to determine, to decree.” In the Chaldee-Rabbinic Dictionary of Stockius, the word (nehhtak) is thus defined: “Scidit, abscidit, conscidit, inscidit, exscidit – to cut, to cut away, to cut to pieces, to cut or engrave, to cut off.” Mercerus in his Thesaurus furnishes a specimen of Rabbinical usage in the phrase, (hhatikah shel basar), “a piece of flesh,” or “a cut of flesh.” He translates the word as it occurs in Dan.9:24, by “praecisa est,” is cut off. In the literal version of Arias Montanus, it is translated ‘decisa est,” is cut off; in the marginal reading, which is grammatically correct, it is rendered by the plural, “decisae sunt,” are cut off. In the Latin version of Junius and Tremellius, (nehhtak) (the passive of chathak) is rendered “decisae sunt,” are cut off. Again, in Theodotion’s Greek version of Daniel (which is the version used in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, as being the most faithful), it is rendered by (sunetmethesan), were cut off; and in the Venetian copy by (tetmentai), have been cut. The idea of cutting off is preserved in the Vulgate, where the phrase is “abbreviatae sunt,” are shortened.

                “Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of cutting off, to this verb.”    “Hengstenberg, who enters into a critical examination of the original text, says, ‘But the very use of the word, which does not elsewhere occur, while others much more frequently used were at hand if Daniel had wished to express the idea of determination, and of which he has elsewhere, and even in this portion availed himself, seems to argue that the word stands from regard to its original meaning, and represents the seventy weeks in contrast with a determination of time (en platei) as a period cut off from subsequent duration, and accurately limited.'” –Christology of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 301. Washington, 1839.

                Why, then, it may be asked, did our translators render the word determined, when it so obviously means cut off? The answer is, They doubtless overlooked the connection between the eighth and ninth chapters, and considering it improper to render it cut off, when nothing was given from which the seventy weeks could be cut off, they gave the word its tropical instead of its literal meaning. But, as we have seen, the construction, the context, and the connection require the literal meaning, and render any other inadmissible.

                Seventy weeks, then, or 490 days of the 2300, were cut off upon, or allotted to, Jerusalem and the Jews; and the events which were to be consummated within that period are briefly stated. The transgression was to be finished; that is, the Jewish people were to fill up the cup of their iniquity, which they did in the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. An end of sins, or of sin- offerings, was to be made. This took place when the great offering was made on Calvary. Reconciliation for iniquity was to be provided. This was made by the sacrificial death of the Son of God. Everlasting righteousness was to be brought in; the righteousness which our Lord manifested in his sinless life. The vision and the prophecy were to be sealed up, or made sure. By the events given to transpire in the seventy weeks, the prophecy is tested. By this the application of the whole vision is determined. If the events of this period are accurately fulfilled, the prophecy is of God, and will all be accomplished; and if these seventy weeks are fulfilled as weeks of years, then the 2300 days, of which these are a part, are so many years. Thus the events of the seventy weeks furnish a key to the whole vision. And the “most holy” was to be anointed, the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. In the examination of the sanctuary, on chapter 8:14, we saw that a time came when the earthly sanctuary gave place to the heavenly, and the priestly ministration was transferred to that. Before the ministration in the sanctuary commenced, the sanctuary and all the holy vessels were to be anointed. Ex. 40:9,10. The last event, therefore, of the seventy weeks, here brought to view, is the anointing of the heavenly tabernacle, or the opening of the ministration there. Thus this first division of the 2300 days bring us to the commencement of the service in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, as the whole period brings us to the commencement of the service in the second apartment, or most holy place, of that sanctuary.

                The argument must now be considered conclusive that the ninth chapter of Daniel explains the eighth, and that the seventy weeks are a part of the 2300 days; and with a few extracts from the writings of others we will leave this point.

                The Advent Shield in 1844 said:–

                “We call attention to one fact which shows that there is a necessary ‘connection’ between the seventy (70) weeks of the ninth chapter, and something else which precedes or follows it, called ‘the vision.’ It is found in the 24th verse: ‘Seventy (70) weeks are determined [are cut off] upon thy people, . . . to seal up the vision,’ etc. Now there are but two significations to the phrase ‘seal up.’ They are, first, ‘to make secret,’ and second, ‘to make sure.’ We care not now in which of these significations the phrase is supposed to be used. That is not the point now before us. Let the signification be what it may, it shows that the prediction of the seventy (70) weeks necessarily relates to something else beyond itself, called ‘the vision,’ in reference to which it performs this work, ‘to seal up.’ To talk of its sealing up itself is as much of an absurdity as to suppose that Josephus was so much afraid of the Romans that he refrained from telling the world that he thought the fourth kingdom of Daniel was ‘the kingdom of the Greeks.’ It is no more proper to say that the ninth chapter of Daniel ‘is complete in itself,’ than it would be to say that a map which was designed to show the relation of Massachusetts to the United States, referred to nothing but Massachusetts. It is no more complete in itself than a bond given in security for a note, or some other document to which it refers, is complete in itself; and we doubt if there is a schoolboy of fourteen years in the land, of ordinary capacity, who would not, on reading the ninth chapter, with an understanding of the clause before us, decide that it referred to something distinct from itself, called ‘the vision.’ What vision it is, there is no difficulty in determining. It naturally and obviously refers to the vision which was not fully explained to Daniel, and to which Gabriel calls his attention in the preceding verse, –the vision of the eighth chapter. Daniel tells us that Gabriel was commanded to make him understand the vision (8:16). This was not fully done at that interview connected with the vision; he is therefore sent to give Daniel the needed ‘skill and understanding,’ –to explain its ‘meaning’ by communicating to him the prediction of the seventy (70) weeks.”

                “We claim that the ninth of Daniel is an appendix to the eighth, and that the seventy weeks and the 2300 days, or years, commence together. Our opponents deny this.” – Signs of the Times, 1843.

                “The grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Dan.8:14, is that the seventy (70) weeks of Dan.9:24 are the first 490 days of the 2300 of the eighth chapter.” – Advent Shield, p.49.

                “If the connection between the seventy (70) weeks of Daniel 9 and the 2300 days of Daniel 8 does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation; if it does exist, as we suppose, the system must stand.” –Harmony of the Prophetic Chronology, p.33. Says the learned Dr. Hales, in commenting upon the seventy (70) weeks, “This chronological prophecy was evidently designed to explain the foregoing vision, especially in its chronological part of the 2300 days.” –Chronology, Vol. II, P. 517.

                9:25: The angel now gives to Daniel the event which is to mark the commencement of the seventy (70) weeks. They were to date from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. And not only is the event given which was to determine the time of the commencement of this period, but those events also which were to transpire at its close. Thus a double test is provided by which to try the application of this prophecy. But more than this, the period of seventy (70) weeks is divided into three grand divisions, and one of these is again divided, and the intermediate events are given which were to mark the termination of each one of these divisions. If, now, we can find a date which will harmonize with all these events, we have, beyond a doubt, the true application; for none but that which is correct could meet and fulfil so many conditions. Let the reader take in at one view the points of harmony to be made, that he may be the better prepared to guard against a false application. First, we are to find, at the commencement of the period, a commandment going forth to restore and build Jerusalem. To this work or restoration seven weeks are allotted. As we reach the end of this first division, seven weeks from the commencement, we are to find, secondly, Jerusalem, in its material aspect restored, the work of building the street and the wall fully accomplished. From this point sixty-two (62) weeks are measured off; and as we reach the termination of this division, sixty-nine (69) weeks from the beginning, we are to see, thirdly, the manifestation before the world of the Messiah the Prince. One week more is given us, completing the seventy (70). Fourthly, in the midst of this week the Messiah is to be cut off, and to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; and, fifthly, when the last week of that period which was allotted to the Jews as the time during which they were to be the special people of God, expires, we naturally look for the going forth of the blessing and work of God to other people.

                We now inquire for the initial date which will harmonize with all these particulars. The command respecting Jerusalem was to include more than mere building. There was to be restoration; and by this we must understand all the forms and regulations of civil, political, and judicial society. When did such a command go forth? At the time these words were spoken to Daniel, Jerusalem lay in complete and utter desolation, and had thus been lying for seventy (70) years. The restoration, pointed to in the future, must be its restoration from this desolation. We then inquire, When and how was Jerusalem restored after the seventy (70) years’ captivity?

                There are but four events which can be taken as answering to the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. These are, (1) The decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the house of God, B.C. 536 (Ezra 1:1-4); (2) The decree of Darius for the prosecution of that work, which had been hindered, B.C. 519 (Ezra 6:1-12); (3) The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra, B.C. 457 (Ezra 7); and (4) The commission to Nehemiah from the same king in his twentieth year, B.C. 444, Nehemiah 2.

                Dating from the first two of these decrees, the seventy (70) weeks, being weeks of years, 490 years in all, would fall many years short of reaching even to the Christian era; besides, these decrees had reference principally to the restoration of the temple and the temple-worship of the Jews, and not to the restoration of their civil state and polity, all of which must be included in the expression, “To restore and to build Jerusalem.” (*The explanation of these prophetic periods is based on what is called the “year-day principle;” that is, making each day stand for a year, according to the Scriptural rule for the application of symbolic time. Eze.4:6; Num.14:34. That the time in these visions of Daniel 8 and 9 is symbolic is evident from the nature and scope of the prophecy. The question calling out the answers on this point was, “How long the vision?” The vision, reckoning from 538 B.C. to our own time, sweeps over a period more than 2400 years in length. But if the 2300 days of the vision are literal days, we have a period of only a little over six years and a half for the duration of the kingdoms and the transaction of the great events brought to view, which is absurd! The year-day principle numbers among its supporters such names as Augustine, Tichonius, Primasius, Andreas, the venerable Bede, Ambrosius, Ansbertus, Berengaud, and Bruno Astensis, besides the leading modern expositors. (See Elliott’s “Horae Apocalypticae,” Vol. III, p. 241; and “The Sanctuary and Its Cleansing,” pp. 45-52.) But what is more conclusive than all else is the fact that the prophecies have actually been fulfilled on this principle, –a demonstration of its correctness from which there is no appeal. This will be found in the prophecy of the seventy (70) weeks throughout, and all the prophetic periods of Daniel 7 and 12, and Revelation 9, 12, and 13.)

                These made a commencement of the work. They were preliminary to what was afterward accomplished. But of themselves they were altogether insufficient, both in their dates and in their nature, to meet the requirements of the prophecy; and thus failing in every respect, they cannot be brought into the controversy as marking the point from which the seventy (70) weeks are to date. The only question now lies between the decrees which were granted to Ezra and to Nehemiah, respectively.

                The facts between which we are to decide here are briefly these: In 457 B.C., a decree was granted to Ezra by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes Longimanus to go up to Jerusalem with as many of his people as were minded to go with him. The commission granted him an unlimited amount of treasure, to beautify the house of God, to procure offerings for its service, and to do whatever else might seem good unto him. It empowered him to ordain laws, set magistrates and judges, and execute punishment even unto death; in other words, to restore the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical, according to the law of God and the ancient customs of that people. Inspiration has seen fit to preserve this decree; and a full and accurate copy of it is given in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra. In the original, this decree is given, not in Hebrew, like the rest of the book of Ezra, but in the Chaldaic (or Eastern Aramaic), the language then used at Babylon; and thus we are furnished with the original document by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to restore and build Jerusalem.

                Thirteen years after this, in the twentieth (20th) year of the same king, B.C.444, Nehemiah sought and obtained permission to go up to Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2. Permission was granted him, but we have no evidence that it was anything more than verbal. It pertained to him individually, nothing being said about others going up with him. The king asked him how long a journey he wished to make, and when he would return. He received letters to the governors beyond the river to help him on his way to Judea, and an order to the keeper of the king’s forest for timber for beams, etc. When he arrived at Jerusalem, he found rulers and priests, nobles, and people, already engaged in the work of building Jerusalem. Neh. 2:16. These were, of course, acting under the decree given to Ezra thirteen years before. And finally, Nehemiah, having arrived at Jerusalem, finished the work he came to accomplish, in fifty-two (52) days. Neh. 6:15.

                Now which of these commissions, Ezra’s, or Nehemiah’s, constitutes the decree for the restoration of Jerusalem, from which the seventy (70) weeks are to be dated? It hardly seems that there can be any question on this point.

The grant to Nehemiah cannot be called a decree. It was necessary that a Persian decree should be put in writing, and signed by the king. Dan.6:8. Such was the document given to Ezra; but Nehemiah had nothing of the kind, his commission being only verbal. If it be said that the letters given him constitute the decree, then the decree was issued, not to Nehemiah, but to the governors beyond the river; besides, these would constitute a series of decrees, and not one decree, as the prophecy contemplates.

The occasion of Nehemiah’s petition to the king for permission to go up to Jerusalem was the report which certain ones, returning, had brought from thence, that those in the province were in great affliction and reproach, also that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire. Nehemiah 1. Whose work were these walls and gates that were broken down and burned with fire? –Evidently the work of Ezra and his associates; for it cannot for a moment be supposed that the utter destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar, one hundred and forty-four (144) years previous to that time, would have been reported to Nehemiah as a matter of news, nor that he would have considered it, as he evidently did, a fresh misfortune, calling for a fresh expression of grief. A decree, therefore, authorizing the building of these, had gone forth previous to the grant to Nehemiah.

If any should contend that Nehemiah’s commission must be a decree, because the object of his request was that he might build the city, it is sufficient to reply, as shown above, that gates and walls had been built previous to his going up; besides, the work of building which he went to perform was accomplished in fifty-two (52) days; whereas, the prophecy allows for the building of the city, seven weeks, or fifty-nine (? = 59 = 49)) years.

There was nothing granted to Nehemiah which was not embraced in the decree to Ezra; while the latter had all the forms and conditions of a decree, and was vastly more ample in its provisions.

It is evident from the prayer of Ezra, as recorded in chapter 9:9 of his book, that he considered himself fully empowered to proceed with the building of the city and the wall; and it is evident that he understood, further, that the conditional prophecies concerning his people were then fulfilled, from the closing words of that prayer, in which he says, “Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldst not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?”

Reckoning from the commission to Nehemiah, B.C. 444, the dates throughout are entirely disarranged; for from that point the troublesome times which were to attend the building of the street and wall did not last seven weeks, or forty-nine (49) years. Reckoning from that date, the sixty-nine (69) weeks, or 483 years, which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince, bring us to A.D. 40; but Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan, and the voice of the Father was heard from heaven declaring Him His Son, in A.D. 27, thirteen years before.(*For proof of the correctness of the dates for Christ’s baptism and crucifixion here given, see “Analysis of Sacred Chronology,” by S. Bliss; also “A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,” by Dr. Karl Wieseler, p.183.) According to this calculation, the midst of the last or seventieth (70th) week, which is marked by the crucifixion, is placed in A.D. 44, but the crucifixion took place in A.D. 31, thirteen years previous. And lastly, the seventy (70) weeks, or 490 years, dating from the twentieth (20th) of Artaxerxes, extend to A.D. 47, with absolutely nothing to mark their termination. Hence if that be the year, and the grant to Nehemiah the event, from which to reckon, the prophecy has proved a failure. As it is, it only proves that theory a failure which dates the seventy (70) weeks from Nehemiah’s commission in the twentieth (20th) year of Artaxerxes.

Will these dates harmonize if we reckon from the decree to Ezra? Let us see. In this case, 457 B.C. is our starting-point. Forty-nine years were allotted to the building of the city and the wall. On this point, Prideaux (Connexion, Vol. I, p.322) says: “In the fifteenth (15th) year of Darius Nothus ended the first seven weeks of Daniel’s prophecy. For then the restoration of the church and state of the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea was fully finished, in that last act of reformation which is recorded in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah, from the twenty-third verse to the end of the chapter, just forty-nine (49) years after it had been commenced by Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.” This was B.C. 408.

                So far we find harmony. Let us apply the measuring-rod of the prophecy still further. Sixty-nine (69) weeks, or 483 years, were to extend to Messiah the Prince. Dating from B.C. 457, they end in A.D.27. And what event then occurred? (*1. There is abundance of authority for A.D. 27 as the date of Christ’s baptism. See “Sacred Chronology,” by S. Bliss; “New International Encyclopedia.” art. “Jesus Christ;” “Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels,” by Dr. Karl Wieseler, p.183.) Luke thus informs us: “Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased.” Luke3:21,22. After this, Jesus came “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled.” Mark 1:14,15. The time here mentioned must have been some specific, definite, and predicted period; but no prophetic period can be found then terminating, except the sixty-nine (69) weeks of the prophecy of Daniel, which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince. The Messiah had now come; and with His own lips He announced the termination of that period which was to be marked by His manifestation.

                (*Luke declares that Jesus “began to be about thirty (30) years of age” at the time of                    His baptism (Luke 3:23); and almost immediately after this He entered upon His ministry. How, then, could His ministry commence in A.D.27, and He still be of the age named by Luke? The answer to this question is found in the fact that Christ was born between three and four years before the beginning of the Christian era, that is, before the year marked A.D.1. The mistake of dating the Christian era something over three years this side of the birth of Christ, instead of dating it from the year of his birth, as it was designed to be, arose on this wise: One of the most important of ancient eras was reckoned from the building of the city of Rome –ab urbe condita, expressed by the abbreviation A.U.C., or more briefly, U.C. In the year which is now numbered A.D. 532, Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman abbot, who flourished in the reign of Justinian, invented the Christian era. According to the best evidence at his command, he placed the birth of Christ U.C. 753. But Christ was born before the death of Herod; and it was afterward ascertained on the clearest evidence that the death of Herod occurred in April, U.C.750. Allowing a few months for the events recorded in Christ’s life before the time of Herod’s death, His birth is carried back to the latter part of U.C. 749, a little over three years before A.D. 1. Christ was therefore thirty years of age in A.D. 27. “The vulgar [common] era began to prevail in the West about the time of Charles Martel and Pope Gregory II, A.D. 730; but was not sanctioned by any public Acts or Rescripts till the first German Synod, in the time of Carolomannus, Duke of the Franks, which, in the preface, was said to be assembled ‘Anno ab incarnatione Dom. 742, 11 Calendus Maii.’ But it was not established till the time of Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431, who ordered this era to be used in the public Registers: according to Mariana and others.” –Hales’ Chronology, Vol. I, pp.83, 84. (See also “Life of Our Lord,” by S. J Andrews.*)

                The Christian era had become so well established before the mistake above referred to was discovered, that no change in the reckoning has been attempted. It makes no material difference, as it does not interfere at all with the calculation of dates. If the era commenced with the actual year of Christ’s birth, the number of years B.C. in any case would be four years less, and the years A.D. four years more. To illustrate: If we have a period of twenty years, one half before and the other half since the Christian era, we say that it commenced B.C.10 and ended A.D.10. But if we place the era back to the real point of Christ’s birth, there would be no change of either terminus of the period, but we should then say that it commenced B.C. 6 and ended A.D. 14; that is, four years would be taken from the figures B.C. and added to those of A.D. Some have so far misapprehended this subject as to claim that the current year should have four years added to it, to denote the real year of the Christian era. This would be true if the reckoning began from the actual date of Christ’s birth. But this is not the case; the starting-point is between three and four years later.

                Here, again, is indisputable harmony. But further, the Messiah was to confirm the covenant with many for one week. This would be the last week of the seventy (70), or the last seven years of the 490. In the midst of the week, the prophecy informs us, He should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. These Jewish ordinances, pointing to the death of Christ, could cease only at the cross; and there they did virtually come to an end, though the outward observance was kept up till the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. After threescore and two (62) weeks, according to the record, the Messiah was to be cut off. It is the same as if it had read: And after threescore and two (69) weeks, in the midst of the seventieth week, shall Messiah be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. Now, as the word midst here means middle, according to an abundance of authority which we might produce if necessary, the crucifixion is definitely located in the middle of the seventieth (70th) week.

                It now becomes an important point to determine in what year the crucifixion took place. The following evidence is sufficient to be considered absolutely decisive on this question.

                It is not to be questioned that our Saviour attended every Passover that occurred during His public ministry; and we have mention of only four such occasions previous to His crucifixion. These are found in the following passages: John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 13:1. At the last-mentioned Passover he was crucified. From facts already established, let us then see where this would locate the crucifixion. As He began His ministry in the autumn of A.D. 27, His first Passover would occur the following spring, A.D. 28; His second, A.D. 29; His third, A.D. 30; and his fourth and last, A.D. 31. This gives us three years and a half (3½) for His public ministry, and corresponds exactly to the prophecy that He should be cut off in the midst, or middle, of the seventieth (70) week. As that week of years commenced in the autumn of A.D. 27, the middle of the week would occur three and one half years (3½) later, in the spring of 31, where the crucifixion took place. Dr. Hales quotes Eusebius, A.D. 300, as saying: “It is recorded in history that the whole time of our Saviour’s teaching and working miracles was three years and a half (3½), which is the half of a week [of years]. This, John the evangelist will represent to those who critically attend to his Gospel.”

                Of the unnatural darkness which occurred at the crucifixion, Hales, Vol. I, pp.69,70, thus speaks: “Hence it appears that the darkness which ‘overspread the whole land of Judea‘ at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion was preternatural, ‘from the sixth until the ninth hour,’ or from noon till three in the afternoon, in its duration, and also in its time, about full moon, when the moon could not possibly eclipse the sun. The time it happened, and the fact itself, are recorded in a curious and valuable passage of a respectable Roman Consul, Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator, about A.D. 514: ‘In the consulate of Tiberius Caesar Aug. V and AElius Sejanus (U.C. 784, A.D. 31), our Lord Jesus Christ suffered, on the 8th of the calends of April (25th March), when there happened such an eclipse of the sun as was never before nor since.’

                “In this year, and in this day, agree also the Council of Cesarea, A.D.196 or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphanius, followed by Kepler, Bucher, Patinus, and Petavius, some reckoning it the 10th of the calends of April, others the 13th.” (See on chapter 11:22.)

                Here, then, are thirteen credible authorities locating the crucifixion of Christ in the spring of A.D. 31. We may therefore set this down as a fixed date, as the most cautious or the most skeptical could require nothing more conclusive. This being in the middle of the last week, we have simply to reckon backward three and a half (3½) years to find where sixty-nine (69) of the weeks ended, and forward from that point three and a half (3½) years, we find ourselves in the autumn of A.D.27, where, as we have seen, the sixty-nine (69) weeks ended, and Christ commenced His public ministry. And going from the crucifixion forward three and a half (3½) years, we are brought to the autumn of A.D. 34, as the grand terminating point of the whole period of the seventy (70) weeks. This date is marked by the martyrdom of Stephen, the formal rejection of the gospel of Christ by the Jewish Sanhedrin in the persecution of His disciples, and the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles. And these are just the events which one would expect to take place when that specified period which was cut off for the Jews, and allotted to them as a peculiar people, should fully expire.

                A word respecting the date of the seventh of Artaxerxes, when the decree for restoring Jerusalem was given to Ezra, and the array of evidence on this point is complete. Was the seventh of Artaxerxes B.C.457? For all those who can appreciate the force of facts, the following testimony will be sufficient here:-

                “The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus – a clearly ascertained date. From this period downward we have the undisputed canon of Ptolemy, and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. This date we cannot change from B.C.457, without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s canon. To do this it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guesswork. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A.D.34 unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion in A.D.31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated.” – Advent Herald.

                From the facts above set forth, we see that, reckoning the seventy weeks from the decree given to Ezra in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B.C.457, there is the most perfect harmony throughout. The important and definite events of the manifestation of the Messiah at the baptism, the commencement of his public ministry, the crucifixion, and the turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles, with the proclamation of the new covenant, all come in in their exact place, and like a bright galaxy of blazing orbs of light, cluster round to set their seal to the prophecy, and make it sure.

                It is thus evident that the decree of Ezra in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B.C.457, is the point from which to date the seventy weeks. That was the going forth of the decree in the sense of the prophecy. The two previous decrees were preparatory and preliminary to this; and indeed they are regarded by Ezra as parts of it, the three being taken as one great whole. For in Ezra 6:14, we read: “And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia.” It will be noticed that the decrees of these three kings are spoken of as one, – “the commandment [margin, “decree,” singular number] of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes,” showing that they are all reckoned as a unit, the different decrees being but the successive steps by which the work was accomplished. And this decree could not be said to have “gone forth,” as intended by the prophecy, till the last permission which the prophecy required was embodied in the decree, and clothed with the authority of the empire. This point was reached in the grant given to Ezra, but not before. Here the decree assumed the proportions, and covered the ground, demanded by the prophecy, and from this point its “going forth” must be dated.

                With the seventy weeks we are now done; but there remain a longer period and other important events to be considered. The seventy weeks are but the first 490 years of the 2300. Take 490 from 2300, and there remain 1810. The 490, as we have seen, ended in the autumn of A.D.34. If to this date we now add the remaining 1810 years, we shall have the termination of the whole period. Thus, to A.D.34, autumn, add 1810, and we have the autumn of A.D.1844. Thus speedily and surely do we find the termination of the 2300 days, when once the seventy weeks have been located.

                One other point should here be noticed. We have seen that the seventy weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300; that these days are prophetic, signifying literal years, according to the Bible rule, a day for a year (Num.14:34; Eze.4:6), as is proved by the fulfilment of the seventy weeks, and as all reliable expositors agree; that they commenced in 457 B.C. and ended in A.D. 1844, provided the number is right, and twenty-three hundred (2300) is the correct reading. With this point established, there would seem to be no room for further controversy. On this point Dr. Hales remarks:-

                “There is no number in the Bible whose genuineness is better ascertained than that of the 2300 days. It is found in all the printed Hebrew editions, in all the MSS. of Kenicott and De Rossi’s collations, and in all the ancient versions, except the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, which reads 2400, followed by Symmachus; and some copies noticed by Jerome, 2200, both evidently literal errors in excess and defect, which compensate each other and confirm the mean, 2300.” –Chronology, Vol. II, P. 512.

                The query may here arise how the days can be extended to the autumn of 1844 if they commence 457 B.C., as it requires only 1843 years, in addition to the 457, to make the whole number of 2300. Attention to one fact will clear this point of all difficulty; and that is, that it takes 457 full years before Christ, and 1843 full years after, to make 2300; so that if the period commenced with the very first day of 457, it would not terminate till the very last day of 1843. Now it will be evident to all that if any portion of the year 457 had passed away before the 2300 days commenced, just so much of the year 1844 must pass away before they would end. We therefore inquire, At what point in the year 457 are we to commence to reckon? From the fact that the first forty-nine (49) years were allotted to the building of the street and wall, we learn that the period is to be dated, not from the starting of Ezra from Babylon, but from the actual commencement of the work at Jerusalem; which it is not probable could be earlier than the seventh month (autumn) of 457, as he did not arrive at Jerusalem till the fifth month of that year. Ezra 7:9. The whole period would therefore extend to the seventh month, autumn, Jewish time, of 1844.

                Those who oppose this view of the prophetic periods, have been wont in years past to meet us with this objection: “The 2300 days have not ended, because the time has passed, and the Lord has not come. Why the time passed in 1844 without the consummation of our hopes, we acknowledge to be a mystery; but the passing of the time is proof that the 2300 days have not ended.”

                Time, however, is no respecter of persons nor of theories; and with the formidable scythe which he is represented as carrying, he sometimes demolishes in the most summary manner the grotesque and gossamer theories of men, however dear they may be to their authors and defenders. It is so here. Heedless of the wild contortions of those who would fain compel him to stop and fulfil their darling predictions, he has kept on the swift but even tenor of his way until –what? every limit is passed to which the 2300 days can be extended; and thus he has demonstrated that those days have passed. Let not this point be overlooked. Setting aside for a moment the arguments by which they are shown to have ended in 1844, and letting them date from any point where the least shadow of reason can be imagined for placing them, or from which the wildest dreamer could date them, it is still true that the utmost limit to which they could extend has gone by. They cannot possibly be dated at any point which would bring their termination so late as the present time. We therefore say again, with not a misgiving as to the truth of the assertion, nor a fear of its successful contradiction, Those days have ended!

                The momentous declaration made by the angel to Daniel, “Unto two thousand and three hundred (2300) days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” is now explained. In our search for the meaning of the sanctuary and its cleansing, and the application of the time, we have found not only that this subject can be easily understood; but lo! the event is even now in process of accomplishment, and is almost finished. And here we pause a brief moment to reflect upon the solemn position into which we are brought.

                We have seen that the sanctuary of this dispensation is the tabernacle of God in heaven, the house not made with hands, where our Lord ministers in behalf of penitent sinners, the place where between the great God and his Son Jesus Christ the “counsel of peace” prevails in the work of salvation for perishing men. Zech. 6:13; Ps. 85:10. We have seen that the cleansing of the sanctuary consists in the removing of the sins from the same, and is the closing act of the ministration performed therein; that the work of salvation now centers in the heavenly sanctuary; and when the sanctuary is cleansed, the work is done, and the plan is finished. Then the great scheme devised at the fall for the salvation of as many of the lost race as would avail themselves of its provisions, and carried forward for six thousand (6,000) years, is brought to its final termination. Mercy no longer pleads, and the great voice is heard from the throne in the temple in heaven, saying, “It is done.” Rev.16:17. And what then? –All the righteous are safe for everlasting life; all the wicked are doomed to everlasting death. No decision can be changed, no reward can be lost, and no destiny of despair can be averted, beyond that point.

                And we have seen (and this is what brings the solemnities of the Judgment to our own door) that that long prophetic period which was to mark the commencement of this final work in the heavenly sanctuary, has met its termination in our own generation. In 1844 the days ended. And since that time the final work for man’s salvation has been going forward. This work involves an examination of every man’s character; for it consists in the remission of the sins of those who shall be found worthy to have them remitted, and determines who among the dead shall be raised, and who among the living shall be changed, at the coming of the Lord, and who, of both dead and living, shall be left to have their part in the fearful scenes of the second death. And all can see that such a decision as this must be rendered before the Lord appears. Every man’s destiny is to be determined by the deeds done in the body, and each one is to be rewarded according to his works. 2nd Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:12. In the books of remembrance kept by the heavenly scribes above, every man’s deeds will be found recorded (Rev. 20:12); and in the closing sanctuary work these records are examined, and decision is rendered in accordance therewith. Dan. 7:9,10. It would be most natural to suppose that the work would commence with the first members of the human race; that their cases would be first examined, and decision rendered, and so on with all the dead, generation by generation, in chronological succession along the stream of time, till we reach the last generation, –the generation of the living, with whose cases the work would close. How long it will take to examine the cases of all the dead, how soon the work will reach the cases of the living, no man can know. And as above remarked since the year 1844 this solemn work has been going forward. The light of the types, and the very nature of the case, forbid that it should be of long continuance (?). John, in his sublime views of heavenly scenes, saw millions of attendants and assistants engaged with our Lord in his priestly work. Revelation 5. And so the ministration goes forward. It ceases not, it delays not, and it must soon be forever finished.

                And here we stand –the last, the greatest, and the most solemn crisis in the history of our race immediately impending; the great plan of salvation about finished; the last precious years of probation almost ended; the Lord about to come to save those who are ready and waiting, and to cut asunder the careless and unbelieving; and the world –alas! what shall we say of them! –deceived with error, crazed with cares and business, delirious with pleasure, and paralyzed with vice, they have not a moment to spare in listening to solemn truth, nor a thought to bestow upon their eternal interest. Let the people of God, with eternity right in view, be careful to escape the corruption that is in the world through lust, and prepare to pass the searching test, when their cases shall come up for examination at the great tribunal above.

                To the careful attention of every student of prophecy we commend the subject of the sanctuary. In the sanctuary is seen the ark of God’s testament, containing his holy law; and this suggests a reform in our obedience to that great standard of morality. The opening of this heavenly temple, or the commencement of the service in its second apartment, marks the commencement of the sounding of the seventh angel. Rev.11:15,19. The work performed therein is the foundation of the third message of Revelation 14, –the last message of mercy to a perishing world. This subject explains the great disappointment of the Adventists in 1844, by showing that they mistook the event to occur at the end of the 2300 days. It renders harmonious and clear past prophetic fulfilments, which are otherwise involved in impenetrable obscurity. It gives a definite idea of the position and work of our great High Priest, and brings out the plan of salvation in its distinctive and beautiful features. It reins us up, as no other subject does, to the realities of the Judgment, and shows the preparation we need to be able to stand in the coming day. It shows us that we are in the waiting time, and puts us upon our watch; for we know not how soon the work will be finished, and our Lord appear. Watch, lest coming suddenly, he find you sleeping.

                After stating the great events connected with our Lord’s mission here upon the earth, the prophet in the last part of verse 27 speaks of the soon-following destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman power; and finally of the destruction of that power itself, called in the margin “the desolator.”

                (*Note. –That the expression “to anoint the most holy” refers, according to remarks on verse 24 of this chapter, to the anointing of the heavenly sanctuary previous to the beginning of Christ’s ministry therein and not to any anointing of the Messiah himself, seems to be susceptible of the clearest proof. The words translated “most holy” are (qodesh qodashim) (kodesh kodashim), the “holy of holies,” an expression which, according to Gesenius, applies to the most holy place in the sanctuary, and which in no instance is applied to a person, unless this passage be an exception.

                The Advent Shield, No. 1, p.75, says: “And the last event of the seventy (70) weeks, as enumerated in verse 24, was the anointing of the ‘most holy.’ or ‘the holy of holies.’ or the ‘sanctum sanctorum;’ not that which was on earth, made with hands, but the true tabernacle, into which Christ, our High Priest, is for us entered. Christ was to do in the true tabernacle in heaven what Moses and Aaron did in its pattern, (See Hebrews, chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9; Ex.30:22-30; Lev.8:10-15.)”

                Dr. Barnes, in his notes on this passage, and particularly on the words “most holy,” says: “The phrase properly means ‘holy of holies,’ or most holy; it is applied often in the Scriptures to the inner sanctuary, or the portion of the tabernacle and temple containing the ark of the covenant, the two tables of stone, etc.” “It is not necessarily limited to the inner sanctuary of the temple, but may be applied to the whole house.” Others have supposed that this refers to the Messiah Himself, and that the meaning is that He who was most holy would then be consecrated, or anointed, as the Messiah. It is probable, as Hengstenberg (Christology, II, 321, 322) has shown, that the Greek translators thus understood it, but it is a sufficient objection to this that the phrase, though occurring many times in the Scriptures, is never applied to persons, unless this be an instance.” It seems to me, therefore, that the obvious and fair interpretation is, to refer it to the temple.”

                An understanding of the subject of the heavenly sanctuary would have relieved this scripture of the perplexity in which, in the minds of some expositors, it seems to be involved.)

Diagram: 70 Weeks: 2300 Days (Uriah Smith, 7th Day Adventist’s Chart)

                Dates Explained:

B.C. 457. Date of Commandment to Restore & Build Jerusalem. Dan. 9:25; Ezra 7:7. 2300 Days-Years Begin.

B.C. 408. End of 7 Weeks, or 49 Years.  Work of Building &  Restoring Completed.

A.D. 27. End of 62 plus 7 equals 69 Weeks, or 483 Years. Jesus Baptized & Begins Ministry.

A.D. 31. Midst or Middle of 70th Week. Christ Crucified. (3½ Years = 1st Half Week.)

A.D. 34. End of 70th Week, or 490 Years. Jews Rejected. Gospel Goes to Gentiles. (3½ Years = 2nd Half Week.)

A.D. 508. Overthrow of Pagan Romanism. Beginning of 1290 Years.

A.D. 538. Commencement of Papal Supremacy. Beginning of the 1260 Years.       

A.D. 1798. Close of the 1260 years. End of Papal Supremacy.

A.D. 1844. 2800 Days = Years Ends. Work of Atonement = Investigative Judgment Begin. 7th Trumpet Sounds: 3rd Woe Starts.

(7 Weeks = 49 Years.  62 Weeks 484 Years. 1 Week = 7 Years. Total = 70 Weeks = 490 Years. )

(Taking 457 B.C., Autumn, from 490, it is shown that the Period Extends to A.D. 34, Autumn.)

(2300 minus 490 = 1810. A.D. 34 + 1810 = 1844.)

Timeline I: (500 B.C. – 100 A.D. = 600 Years = 6 Centuries)

{|………|………|………|………|………|………|} = 1 Century = 10 Decades.  490 Years = 70 Weeks (7 + 62 + 1 = 70). (457 B.C. – 34 A.D.)

Timeline II: (100 A.D. – 700 A.D.) 321: Constantine’s Sunday Edict. 508: Paganism Taken Away. 538: Papacy Set Up.

Timeline III: (700 A.D. – 1300 A.D.) 1299: 1st Woe Begins.

Timeline IV: (1300 A.D. – 1900 A.D.) 1449: 2nd Woe Begins. 1517: Reformation Begins. 1780: Dark Day. 1798: Papal Supremacy Ends. 1833: Stars Fell. 1844: 2300 Days End. 3rd Woe Begins.

                11:1:  We now enter upon a prophecy of future events, clothed not in figures and symbols, as in the visions of chapter 2, 7, and 8, but given mostly in plain language. Many of the signal events of the world’s history, from the days of Daniel to the end of the world, are here brought to view. This prophecy, says Bishop Newton, may not improperly be said to be a comment and explanation of the vision of chapter 8; a statement showing how clearly he perceived the connection between that vision and the remainder of the book.

                The angel, after stating that he stood, in the first year of Darius, to confirm and strengthen him, turns his attention to the future. Three kings shall yet stand up in Persia. To stand up means to reign; three kings were to reign in Persia, referring, doubtless, to the immediate successors of Cyrus. These were, (1) Cambyses, son of Cyrus; (2) Smerdis, an imposter; (3) Darius Hystaspes.

                The fourth shall be far richer than they all. The fourth king from Cyrus was Xerxes, more famous for his riches than his generalship, and conspicuous in history for the magnificent campaign he organized against Grecia, and his utter failure in that enterprise. He was to stir up all against the realm of Grecia. Never before had there been such a levy of men for warlike purposes; never has there been since (?). His army, according to Herodotus, who lived in that age, consisted of five million two hundred and eighty-three thousand two hundred and twenty men (5,283,220). And not content with stirring up the East alone, he enlisted the Carthaginians of the West in his service, who took the field with an additional army of three hundred thousand (300,000) men, raising his entire force to the almost fabulous number of over five million and a half (5,500,000) . As Xerxes looked over that vast concourse, he is said to have wept at the thought that in a hundred years from that time not one of all those men would be left alive.

                11:3: The facts stated in these verses plainly point to Alexander, and the division of his empire. (See on chapter 8:8.) Xerxes was the last Persian king who invaded Grecia; and the prophecy passes over the nine successors of Xerxes in the Persian empire, and next introduces Alexander the Great. Having overthrown the Persian empire, Alexander “became absolute lord of that empire, in the utmost extent in which it was ever possessed by any of the Persian kings.” –Prideaux, Vol. I, p. 378. His dominion was great, including “the greater portion of the then known habitable world;” and he did according to his will. His will led him, B.C. 323, into a drunken debauch, as the result of which he died as the fool dieth; and his vainglorious and ambitious projects went into sudden, total, and everlasting eclipse. The kingdom was divided, but not for his posterity; it was plucked up for others besides those. Within a few years after his death, all his posterity had fallen victims to the jealousy and ambition of his leading generals. Not one of the race of Alexander was left to breathe upon the earth. So short is the transit from the highest pinnacle of earthly glory to the lowest depths of oblivion and death. The kingdom was rent into four divisions, and taken possession of by Alexander’s four ablest, or perhaps most ambitious and unprincipled generals,  –Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy.

                11:5: The king of the north and the king of the south are many times referred to in the remaining portion of this chapter. It therefore becomes essential to an understanding of the prophecy clearly to identify these powers. When Alexander’s empire was divided, the different portions lay toward the four winds of heaven, west, north, east, and south; these divisions of course to be reckoned from the standpoint of Palestine, the native land of the prophet. That division of the empire lying west of Palestine would thus constitute the kingdom of the west; that lying north, the kingdom of the north; that lying east, the kingdom of the east; and that lying south the kingdom of the south. The divisions of Alexander’s kingdom with respect to Palestine were situated as follows: Cassander had Greece and the adjacent countries, which lay to the west; Lysimachus had Thrace, which then included Asia Minor, and the countries lying on the Hellespont and Bosphorus, which lay to the north of Palestine; Seleucus had Syria and Babylon, which lay principally to the east; and Ptolemy had Egypt and the neighboring countries, which lay to the south.

                During the wars and revolutions which for long ages succeeded, these geographical boundaries were frequently changed or obliterated; old ones were wiped out, and new ones instituted. But whatever changes might occur, these first divisions of the empire must determine the names which these portions of territory should ever afterward bear, or we have no standard by which to test the application of the prophecy: that is, whatever power at any time should occupy the territory which at first constituted the kingdom of the north, that power, so long as it occupied that territory, would be the king of the north; and whatever power should occupy that which at first constituted the kingdom of the south, that power would so long be the king of the south. We speak of only these two, because they are the only ones afterward spoken of in the prophecy, and because, in fact, almost the whole of Alexander’s empire finally resolved itself into these two divisions.

                Cassander was very soon conquered by Lysimachus, and his kingdom, Greece and Macedon, annexed to Thrace. And Lysimachus was in turn conquered by Seleucus, and Macedon and Thrace annexed to Syria.

                These facts prepare the way for an application of the text before us. The king of the south, Egypt, shall be strong. Ptolemy annexed Cyprus, Phoenicia, Caria, Cyrene, and many islands and cities to Egypt. Thus was his kingdom made strong. But another of Alexander’s princes is introduced in the expression, “one of his princes.” The Septuagint translates the verse thus: “And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his [Alexander’s] princes shall be strong above him.” This must refer to Seleucus, who, as already stated, having annexed Macedon and Thrace to Syria, thus became possessor of three parts out of four of Alexander’s dominion, and established a more powerful kingdom than that of Egypt.

                11:6: There were frequent wars between the kings of Egypt and Syria. Especially was this the case with Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, and Antiochus Theos, third king of Syria. They at length agreed to make peace upon condition that Antiochus Theos should put away his former wife, Laodice, and her two sons, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Ptolemy accordingly brought his daughter to Antiochus, bestowing with her an immense dowry.

                “But she shall not retain the power of the arm;” that is, her interest and power with Antiochus. And so it proved; for some time shortly after, in a fit of love, Antiochus brought back his former wife, Laodice, and her children, to court again. Then says the prophecy, “Neither shall he [Antiochus] stand, nor his arm,” or seed. Laodice, being restored to favor and power, feared lest, in the fickleness of his temper, Antiochus should again disgrace her, and recall Berenice; and conceiving that nothing short of his death would be an effectual safeguard against such a contingency, she caused him to be poisoned shortly after. Neither did his seed by Berenice succeed him in the kingdom; for Laodice so managed affairs as to secure the throne for her eldest son, Seleucus Callinicus.

                “But she [Berenice] shall be given up.” Laodice, not content with poisoning her husband, Antiochus, caused Berenice to be murdered. “And they that brought her.” Her Egyptian women and attendants, in endeavoring to defend her, were many of them slain with her. “And he that begat her,” margin, “whom she brought forth;” that is, her son, who was murdered at the same time by order of Laodice. “And he that strengthened her in these times;” her husband Antiochus, as Jerome supposes, or those who took her part and defended her.

                But such wickedness could not long remain unpunished, as the prophecy further predicts, and further history proves.

                11:7: This branch out of the same root with Berenice was her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes. He had no sooner succeeded his father, Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the kingdom of Egypt, than, burning to avenge the death of his sister, Berenice, he raised an immense army, and invaded the territory of the king of the north, that is, of Seleucus Callinicus, who, with his mother, Laodice, reigned in Syria. And he prevailed against them, even to the conquering of Syria, Cilicia, the upper parts beyond the Euphrates, and almost all Asia. But hearing that a sedition was raised in Egypt requiring his return home, he plundered the kingdom of Seleucus, took forty thousand (40,000) talents of silver and precious vessels, and two thousand five hundred (2500) images of the gods. Among these were the images which Cambyses had formerly taken from Egypt and carried into Persia. The Egyptians, being wholly given to idolatry, bestowed upon Ptolemy the title of Euergetes, or the Benefactor, as a compliment for his having thus, after many years, restored their captive gods.

                This, according to Bishop Newton, is Jerome’s account, extracted from ancient historians [see Selection 1: Jerome, in this work on Daniel], but there are authors still extant, he says, who confirm several of the same particulars. Appian informs us that Laodice having killed Antiochus, and after him both Berenice and her child, Ptolemy, the son of Philadelphus, to revenge those murders, invaded Syria, slew Laodice, and proceeded as far as Babylon. From Polybius we learn that Ptolemy, surnamed Euergetes, being greatly incensed at the cruel treatment of his sister, Berenice, marched with an army into Syria, and took the city of Seleucia, which was kept for some years afterward by garrisons of the kings of Egypt. Thus did he enter into the fortress of the king of the north. Polyaenus affirms that Ptolemy made himself master of all the country from Mount Taurus as far as to India, without war or battle; but he ascribes it by mistake to the father instead of the son. Justin asserts that if Ptolemy had not been recalled into Egypt by a domestic sedition, he would have possessed the whole kingdom of Seleucus. The king of the south thus came into the dominion of the king of the north, and returned to his own land, as the prophet had foretold. And he also continued more years than the king of the north; for Seleucus Callinicus died in exile, of a fall from his horse; and Ptolemy Euergetes survived him for four or five years.

                11:10: The first part of this verse speaks of sons, in the plural; the last part, of one, in the singular. The sons of Seleucus Callinicus were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. These both entered with zeal upon the work of vindicating and avenging the cause of their father and their country. The elder of these, Seleucus, first took the throne. He assembled a great multitude to recover his father’s dominions; but being a weak and pusillanimous prince, both in body and estate, destitute of money, and unable to keep his army in obedience, he was poisoned by two of his generals after an inglorious reign of two or three years. His more capable brother, Antiochus Magnus, was thereupon proclaimed king, who, taking charge of the army, retook Seleucia and recovered Syria, making himself master of some places by treaty, and of others by force of arms. A truce followed, wherein both sides treated for peace, yet prepared for war; after which Antiochus returned and overcame in battle Nicolas, the Egyptian general, and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself. Here is the “one” who should certainly overflow and pass through.

                11:11: Ptolemy Philopater succeeded his father, Euergetes, in the kingdom of Egypt, being advanced to the crown not long after Antiochus Magnus had succeeded his brother in the government of Syria. He was a most luxurious and vicious prince, but was at length aroused at the prospect of an invasion of Egypt by Antiochus. He was indeed “moved with choler” for the losses he had sustained, and the danger which threatened him; and he came forth out of Egypt with a numerous army to check the progress of the Syrian king. The king of the north was also to set forth a great multitude. The army of Antiochus, according to Polybius amounted on this occasion to sixty-two thousand (62,000) foot, six thousand (6,000) horse, and one hundred and two (102) elephants. In the battle, Antiochus was defeated, and his army, according to prophecy, was given into the hands of the king of the south. Ten thousand (10,000) foot and three thousand (3,000) horse were slain, and over four thousand (4,000+) men were taken prisoners; while of Ptolemy’s army there were slain only seven hundred (700) horse, and about twice that number (1400) of infantry.

                11:12: Ptolemy lacked the prudence to make a good use of his victory. Had he followed up his success, he would probably have become master of the whole kingdom of Antiochus; but content with making only a few menaces and a few threats, he made peace that he might be able to give himself up to the uninterrupted and uncontrolled indulgence of his brutish passions. Thus, having conquered his enemies, he was overcome by his vices, and, forgetful of the great name which he might have established, he spent his time in feasting and lewdness.

                His heart was lifted up by his success, but he was far from being strengthened by it; for the inglorious use he made of it caused his own subjects to rebel against him. But the lifting up of his heart was more especially manifested in his transactions with the Jews. Coming to Jerusalem, he there offered sacrifices, and was very desirous of entering into the most holy place of the temple, contrary to the law and religion of that place; but being, though with great difficulty, restrained, he left the place burning with anger against the whole nation of the Jews, and immediately commenced against them a terrible and relentless persecution. In Alexandria, where the Jews had resided since the days of Alexander, and enjoyed the privileges of the most favored citizens, forty thousand (40,000) according to Eusebius, sixty thousand (60,000) according to Jerome, were slain in this persecution. The rebellion of the Egyptians, and the massacre of the Jews, certainly were not calculated to strengthen him in his kingdom, but were sufficient rather almost totally to ruin it.

                11:13: The events predicted in this verse were to occur “after certain years.” The peace concluded between Ptolemy Philopater and Antiochus lasted fourteen years. Meanwhile Ptolemy died from intemperance and debauchery, and was succeeded by his son, Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child then four or five years old. Antiochus, during the same time, having suppressed rebellion in his kingdom, and reduced and settled the eastern parts in their obedience, was at leisure for any enterprise when young Epiphanes came to the throne of Egypt; and thinking this too good an opportunity for enlarging his dominion to be let slip, he raised an immense army “greater than the former” (for he had collected many forces and acquired great riches in his eastern expedition), and set out against Egypt, expecting to have an easy victory over the infant king. How he succeeded we shall presently see; for here new complications enter into the affairs of these kingdoms, and new actors are introduced upon the stage of history.

                11:14: Antiochus was not the only one who rose up against the infant Ptolemy. Agathocles, his prime minister, having possession of the king’s person, and conducting the affairs of the kingdom in his stead, was so dissolute and proud in the exercise of his power that the provinces which before were subject to Egypt rebelled; Egypt itself was disturbed by seditions; and the Alexandrians, rising up against Agathocles, caused him, his sister, his mother, and their associates, to be put to death. At the same time, Philip, king of Macedon, entered into a league with Antiochus to divide the dominions of Ptolemy between them, each proposing to take the parts which lay nearest and most convenient to him. Here was a rising up against the king of the south sufficient to fulfil the prophecy, and the very events, beyond doubt, which the prophecy intended.

                A new power is now introduced, –”the robbers of thy people;” literally, says Bishop Newton, “the breakers of thy people.” Far away on the banks of the Tiber, a kingdom had been nourishing itself with ambitious projects and dark designs. Small and weak at first, it grew with marvelous rapidity in strength and vigor, reaching out cautiously here and there to try its prowess, and test the vigor of its warlike arm, till, conscious of its power, it boldly reared its head among the nations of the earth, and seized with invincible hand the helm of their affairs. Henceforth the name of Rome stands upon the historic page, destined for long ages to control the affairs of the world, and exert a mighty influence among the nations even to the end of time.

                Rome spoke; and Syria and Macedonia soon found a change coming over the aspect of their dream. The Romans interfered on behalf of the young king of Egypt, determined that he should be protected from the ruin devised by Antiochus and Philip. This was B.C. 200, and was one of the first important interferences of the Romans in the affairs of Syria and Egypt. Rollin furnishes the following succinct account of this matter: –

                “Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedonia, during the reign of Ptolemy Philopater, had discovered the strongest zeal for the interests of that monarch, and were ready to assist him on all occasions. Yet no sooner was he dead, leaving behind him an infant, whom the laws of humanity and justice enjoined them not to disturb in the possession of his father’s kingdom, than they immediately joined in a criminal alliance, and excited each other to shake off the lawful heir, and divide his dominions between them. Philip was to have Caria, Libya, Cyrenaica, and Egypt, and Antiochus, all the rest. With this view, the latter entered Coele-Syria and Palestine, and in less than two campaigns made an entire conquest of the two provinces, with all their cities and dependencies. Their guilt, says Polybius, would not have been quite so glaring, had they, like tyrants, endeavored to gloss over their crimes with some specious pretense; but, so far from doing this, their injustice and cruelty were so barefaced, that to them was applied what is generally said of fishes, that the larger ones, though of the same species, prey on the lesser. One would be tempted, continues the same author, at seeing the most sacred laws of society so openly violated, to accuse Providence of being indifferent and insensible to the most horrid crimes; but it fully justified its conduct by punishing those two kings according to their deserts; and made such an example of them as ought, in all succeeding ages, to deter others from following their example. For, while they were meditating to dispossess a weak and helpless infant of his kingdom by piecemeal, Providence raised up the Romans against them, who entirely subverted the kingdoms of Philip and Antiochus, and reduced their successors to almost as great calamities as those with which they intended to crush the infant king.” –Ancient History, Book 18, chap. 50.

                “To establish the vision.” The Romans being more prominently than any other people the subject of Daniel’s prophecy, their first interference in the affairs of these kingdoms is here referred to as being the establishment, or demonstration, of the truth of the vision which predicted the existence of such a power.

                “But they shall fall.” Some refer this to those mentioned in the first part of the verse, who should stand up against the king of the south; others, to the robbers of Daniel’s people, the Romans. It is true in either case. If those who combined against Ptolemy are referred to, all that need be said is that they did speedily fall; and if it applies to the Romans, the prophecy simply looked forward to the period of their overthrow.

                11:15: The tuition of the young king of Egypt was entrusted by the Roman Senate to M. Emilius Lepidus, who appointed Aristomenes, an old and experienced minister of that court, his guardian. His first act was to provide against the threatened invasion of the two confederated kings, Philip, and Antiochus.

                To this end he dispatched Scopas, a famous general of AEtolia, then in the service of the Egyptians, into his native country to raise reinforcements for the army. Having equipped an army, he marched into Palestine and Coele-Syria (Antiochus being engaged in a war with Attalus in Lesser Asia), and reduced all Judea into subjection to the authority of Egypt.

                Thus affairs were brought into a posture for the fulfillment of the verse before us. For Antiochus, desisting from his war with Attalus at the dictation of the Romans, took speedy steps for the recovery of Palestine and Coele-Syria from the hands of the Egyptians. Scopas was sent to oppose him. Near the sources of the Jordan, the two armies met. Scopas was defeated, pursued to Sidon, and there closely besieged. Three of the ablest generals of Egypt, with their best forces, were sent to raise the siege, but without success. At length Scopas meeting, in the gaunt and intangible specter of famine, a foe with whom he was unable to cope, was forced to surrender on the dishonorable terms of life only; whereupon he and his ten thousand men were suffered to depart, stripped and naked. Here was the taking of the most fenced cities by the king of the north; for Sidon was, both in its situation and its defenses, one of the strongest cities of those times. Here was the failure of the arms of the south to withstand, and the failure also of the people which the king of the south had chosen; namely, Scopas and his AEtolian forces.

                11:16: Although Egypt could not stand before Antiochus, the king of the north, Antiochus could not stand before the Romans, who now came against him. No kingdoms were longer able to resist this rising power. Syria was conquered, and added to the Roman empire, when Pompey, B.C. 65, deprived Antiochus Asiaticus of his possessions, and reduced Syria to a Roman province.

                The same power was also to stand in the Holy Land, and consume it. Rome became connected with the people of God, the Jews, by alliance, B.C. 162, from which date it holds a prominent place in the prophetic calendar. It did not, however, acquire jurisdiction over Judea by actual conquest till B.C. 63, and then in the following manner.

                On Pompey’s return from his expedition against Mithridates, king of Pontus, two competitors, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, were struggling for the crown of Judea. Their cause came before Pompey, who soon perceived the injustice of the claims of Aristobulus, but wished to defer decision in the matter till after his long-desired expedition into Arabia, promising then to return, and settle their affairs as should seem just and proper. Aristobulus, fathoming Pompey’s real sentiments, hastened back to Judea, armed his subjects, and prepared for a vigorous defense, determined, at all hazards, to keep the crown, which he foresaw would be adjudicated to another. Pompey closely followed the fugitive. As he approached Jerusalem, Aristobulus, beginning to repent of his course, came out to meet him, and endeavored to accommodate matters by promising entire submission and large sums of money. Pompey, accepting this offer, sent Gabinius, at the head of a detachment of soldiers, to receive the money. But when that lieutenant-general arrived at Jerusalem, he found the gates shut against him, and was told from the top of the walls that the city would not stand to the agreement.

                Pompey, not to be deceived in this way with impunity, put Aristobulus, whom he had retained with him, in irons, and immediately marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. The partisans of Aristobulus were for defending the place; those of Hyrcanus, for opening the gates. The latter being in the majority, and prevailing, Pompey was given free entrance into the city. Whereupon the adherents of Aristobulus retired to the mountain of the temple, as fully determined to defend that place as Pompey was to reduce it. At the end of three months a breach was made in the wall sufficient for an assault, and the place was carried at the point of the sword. In the terrible slaughter that ensued, twelve thousand (12,000) persons were slain. It was an affecting sight, observes the historian, to see the priests, engaged at the time in divine service, with calm hand and steady purpose pursue their accustomed work, apparently unconscious of the wild tumult, though all around them their friends were given to the slaughter, and though often their own blood mingled with that of their sacrifices.

                Having put an end to the war, Pompey demolished the walls of Jerusalem, transferred several cities from the jurisdiction of Judea to that of Syria, and imposed tribute on the Jews. Thus for the first (?) time was Jerusalem placed by conquest in the hands of that power which was to hold the “glorious land” in its iron grasp till it had utterly consumed it.

                11:17: Bishop Newton furnishes another reading for this verse, which seems more clearly to express the sense, as follows: “He shall also set his face to enter by force the whole kingdom.” Verse 16 brought us down to the conquest of Syria and Judea by the Romans. Rome had previously conquered Macedon and Thrace. Egypt was now all that remained of the “whole kingdom” of Alexander, not brought into subjection to the Roman power, which power now set its face to enter by force into that country.

                Ptolemy Auletes died B.C. 51. He left the crown and kingdom of Egypt to his eldest son and daughter, Ptolemy, and Cleopatra. It was provided in his will that they should marry together, and reign jointly; and because they were young, they were placed under the guardianship of the Romans. The Roman people accepted the charge, and appointed Pompey as guardian of the young heirs of Egypt.

                A quarrel having not long after broken out between Pompey and Caesar, the famous battle of Pharsalia was fought between the two generals. Pompey, being defeated, fled into Egypt. Caesar immediately followed him thither; but before his arrival, Pompey was basely murdered by Ptolemy, whose guardian he had been appointed. Caesar therefore assumed the appointment which had been given to Pompey, as guardian of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. He found Egypt in commotion from internal disturbances, Ptolemy and Cleopatra having become hostile to each other, and she being deprived of her share in the government. Notwithstanding this, he did not hesitate to land at Alexandria with his small force, 800 horse and 3200 foot, take cognizance of the quarrel, and undertake its settlement. The troubles daily increasing, Caesar found his small force insufficient to maintain his position, and being unable to leave Egypt on account of the north wind which blew at that season, he sent into Asia, ordering all the troops he had in that quarter to come to his assistance as soon as possible.

                In the most haughty manner he decreed that Ptolemy and Cleopatra should disband their armies, appear before him for a settlement of their differences, and abide by his decision. Egypt being an independent kingdom, this haughty decree was considered an affront to its royal dignity, at which the Egyptians, highly incensed, flew to arms. Caesar replied that he acted by virtue of the will of their father, Auletes, who had put his children under the guardianship of the senate and people of Rome, the whole authority of which was now vested in his person as consul; and that, as guardian, he had the right to arbitrate between them.

                The matter was finally brought before him, and advocates appointed to plead the cause of the respective parties. Cleopatra, aware of the foible of the great Roman conqueror, judged that the beauty of her presence would be more effectual in securing judgment in her favor than any advocate she could employ. To reach his presence undetected, she had recourse to the following stratagem: Laying herself at full length in a bundle of clothes, Apollodorus, her Sicilian servant, wrapped it up in a cloth, tied it with a thong, and raising it upon his Herculean shoulders, sought the apartments of Caesar. Claiming to have a present for the Roman general, he was admitted through the gate of the citadel, entered into the presence of Caesar, and deposited the burden at his feet. When Caesar had unbound this animated bundle, lo! the beautiful Cleopatra stood before him. He was far from being displeased with the stratagem, and being of a character described in 2nd Pet. 2:14, the first sight of so beautiful a person, says Rollin, had all the effect upon him she had desired.

                Caesar at length decreed that the brother and sister should occupy the throne jointly, according to the intent of the will. Pothinus, the chief minister of state, having been principally instrumental in expelling Cleopatra from the throne, feared the result of her restoration. He therefore began to excite jealousy and hostility against Caesar, by insinuating among the populace that he designed eventually to give Cleopatra the sole power. Open sedition soon followed. Achillas, at the head of 20,000 men, advanced to drive Caesar from Alexandria. Skillfully disposing his small body of men in the streets and alleys of the city, Caesar found no difficulty in repelling the attack. The Egyptians undertook to destroy his fleet. He retorted by burning theirs. Some of the burning vessels being driven near the quay, several of the buildings of the city took fire, and the famous Alexandrian library, containing nearly 400,000 volumes, was destroyed.

                The war growing more threatening, Caesar sent into all the neighboring countries for help. A large fleet came from Asia Minor to his assistance. Mithridates set out for Egypt with an army raised in Syria and Cilicia. Antipater the Idumean joined him with 3,000 Jews. The Jews, who held the passes into Egypt, permitted the army to pass on without interruption. Without this co-operation on their part, the whole plan must have failed. The arrival of this army decided the contest. A decisive battle was fought near the Nile, resulting in a complete victory for Caesar. Ptolemy, attempting to escape, was drowned in the river. Alexandria and all Egypt then submitted to the victor. Rome had now entered into and absorbed the whole of the original kingdom of Alexander.

                By the “upright ones” of the text are doubtless meant the Jews, who gave him the assistance already mentioned. Without this, he must have failed; with it, he completely subdued Egypt to his power, B.C. 47.

                “The daughter of women, corrupting her.” The passion which Caesar had conceived for Cleopatra, by whom he had one son is assigned by the historian as the sole reason of his undertaking so dangerous a campaign as the Egyptian war. This kept him much longer in Egypt than his affairs required, he spending whole nights in feasting and carousing with the dissolute queen. “But,” said the prophet, “she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.” Cleopatra afterward joined herself to Antony, the enemy of Augustus Caesar, and exerted her whole power against Rome.

                11:18: War with Pharnaces, king of Cimmerian Bosphorus, at length drew him away from Egypt. “On his arrival where the enemy was,” says Prideaux, “he, without giving any respite either to himself or them, immediately fell on, and gained an absolute victory over them; an account whereof he wrote to a friend of his in these three words: Veni, vidi, vici; I came, I saw, I conquered.” The latter part of this verse is involved in some obscurity, and there is difference of opinion in regard to its application. Some apply it further back in Caesar’s life, and think they find a fulfilment in his quarrel with Pompey. But preceding and subsequent events clearly defined in the prophecy, compel us to look for the fulfilment of this part of the prediction between the victory over Pharnaces, and Caesar’s death at Rome, as brought to view in the following verse. A more full history of this period might bring to light events which would render the application of this passage unembarrassed.

                11:19: After this conquest, Caesar defeated the last remaining fragments of Pompey’s party, Cato and Scipio in Africa and Labienus and Varus in Spain. Returning to Rome, the “fort of his own land,” he was made perpetual dictator; and such other powers and honors were granted him as rendered him in fact absolute sovereign of the whole empire. But the prophet had said that he should stumble and fall. The language implies that his overthrow would be sudden and unexpected, like a person accidentally stumbling in his walk. And so this man, who fought and won five hundred (500) battles, taken one thousand (1000) cities, and slain one million one hundred and ninety-two thousand (1,192,000) men, fell, not in the din of battle and the hour of strife, but when he thought his pathway was smooth and strewn with flowers, and when danger was supposed to be far away; for, taking his seat in the senate chamber upon his throne of gold, to receive at the hands of that body the title of king, the dagger of treachery suddenly struck him to the heart. Cassius, Brutus, and other conspirators rushed upon him, and he fell, pierced with twenty-three wounds. Thus he suddenly stumbled and fell, and was not found, B.C. 44.

                11:20:  Augustus Caesar succeeded his uncle, Julius, by whom he had been adopted as his successor. He publicly announced his adoption by his uncle, and took his name, to which he added that of Octavianus. Combining with Mark Antony and Lepidus to avenge the death of Caesar, they formed what is called the triumvirate form of government. Having subsequently firmly established himself in the empire, the senate conferred upon him the title of Augustus, and the other members of the triumvirate being now dead, he became supreme ruler.

                He was emphatically a raiser of taxes. Luke, in speaking of the events that transpired at the time when Christ was born, says: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled [for taxation].” Luke 2:1. That taxing which embraced all the world was an event worthy of notice; and the person who enforced it has certainly a claim to the title of “a raiser of taxes” above every other competitor.

                The St. Louis Globe Democrat, as quoted in Current Literature for July 1895, says: “Augustus Caesar was not the public benefactor he is represented. He was the most exacting tax collector the Roman world had up to that time ever seen.”

                And he stood up “in the glory of the kingdom.” Rome reached in his days the pinnacle of its greatness and power. The “Augustan Age” is an expression everywhere used to denote the golden age of Roman history. Rome never saw a brighter hour. Peace was promoted, justice maintained, luxury curbed, discipline established, and learning encouraged. In his reign, the temple of Janus was for the third time shut since the foundation of Rome, signifying that all the world was at peace; and at this auspicious hour our Lord was born in Bethlehem of Judea. In a little less than eighteen years after the taxing brought to view, seeming but a “few days” to the distant gaze of the prophet, Augustus died, not in anger nor in battle, but peacefully in his bed, at Nola, whither he had gone to seek repose and health, A.D. 14, in the seventy-sixth (66th) year of his age.

                11:21: And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” Tiberius Caesar next appeared after Augustus Caesar on the Roman throne. He was raised to the consulate in his twenty-eighth (28th) year. It is recorded that as Augustus was about to nominate his successor, his wife, Livia, besought him to nominate Tiberius (her son by a former husband); but the emperor said, “Your son is too vile to wear the purple of Rome;” and the nomination was given to Agrippa, a very virtuous and much-respected Roman citizen. But the prophecy had foreseen that a vile person should succeed Augustus. Agrippa died; and Augustus was again under the necessity of choosing a successor. Livia renewed her intercessions for Tiberius; and Augustus, weakened by age and sickness, was more easily flattered,, and finally consented to nominate, as his colleague and successor, that “vile” young man. But the citizens never gave him the love, respect, and “honor of the kingdom” due to an upright and faithful sovereign.

                How clear a fulfilment is this of the prediction that they should not give him the honor of the kingdom. But he was to come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. A paragraph from the Encyclopedia Americana shows how this was fulfilled:–

                “During the remainder of the life of Augustus, he [Tiberius] behaved with great prudence and ability, concluding a war with the Germans in such a manner as to merit a triumph. After the defeat of Varus and his legions, he was sent to check the progress of the victorious Germans, and acted in that war with equal spirit and prudence. On the death of Augustus, he succeeded, without opposition, to the sovereignty of the empire: which, however, with his characteristic dissimulation, he affected to decline, until repeatedly solicited by the servile senate.”

                Dissimulation on his part, flattery on the part of the servile senate, and a possession of the kingdom without opposition –such were the circumstances attending his accession to the throne, and such were the circumstances for which the prophecy called.

                The person brought to view in the text is called “a vile person.” Was such the character sustained by Tiberius? Let another paragraph from the Encyclopedia answer:–

                “Tacitus records the events of this reign, including the suspicious death of Germanicus, the detestable administration of Sejanus, the poisoning of Drusus, with all the extraordinary mixture of tyranny with occasional wisdom and good sense which distinguished the conduct of Tiberius, until his infamous and dissolute retirement, A.D. 26, to the isle of Capreae, in the bay of Naples, never to return to Rome. On the death of Livia, A.D. 29, the only restraint upon his actions and those of the detestable Sejanus, was removed, and the destruction of the widow and family of Germanicus followed. At length, the infamous favorite extended his views to the empire itself, and Tiberius, informed of his machinations, prepared to encounter him with his favorite weapon, dissimulation. Although fully resolved upon his destruction, he accumulated honors upon him, declared him his partner in the consulate, and, after long playing with his credulity, and that of the senate, who thought him in greater favor than ever, he artfully prepared for his arrest. Sejanus fell deservedly and unpitied; but many innocent persons shared in his destruction, in consequence of the suspicion and cruelty of Tiberius, which now exceeded all limits. The remainder of the reign of this tyrant is little more than a disgusting narrative of servility on the one hand, and of despotic ferocity on the other. That he himself endured as much misery as he inflicted, is evident from the following commencement of one of his letters to the senate: ‘What I shall write to you, conscript fathers, or what I shall not write, or why I should write at all, may the gods and goddesses plague me more than I feel daily that they are doing, if I can tell.’ ‘What mental torture,’ observes Tacitus, in reference to this passage, ‘which could extort such a confession!'”

                “Seneca remarks of Tiberius that he was never intoxicated but once in his life; for he continued in a state of perpetual intoxication from the time he gave himself to drinking, to the last moment of his life.”

                Tyranny, hypocrisy, debauchery, and uninterrupted intoxication –if these traits and practices show a man to be vile, Tiberius exhibited that character in disgusting perfection.

                11:22: Bishop Newton presents the following reading as agreeing better with the original: “And the arms of the overflower shall be overflown from before him, and shall be broken.” The expressions signify revolution and violence; and in fulfilment we should look for the arms of Tiberius, the overflower, to be overflown, or, in other words, for him to suffer a violent death. To show how this was accomplished, we again have recourse to the Encyclopedia Americana, art. Tiberius:-

                “Acting the hypocrite to the last, he disguised his increasing debility as much as he was able, even affecting to join in the sports and exercises of the soldiers of his guard. At length, leaving his favorite island, the scene of the most disgusting debaucheries, he stopped at a country house near the promontory of Micenum, where, on the 16th of March, 37, he sunk into a lethargy, in which he appeared dead; and Caligula was preparing with a numerous escort to take possession of the empire, when his sudden revival threw them into consternation. At this critical instant, Macro, the pretorian prefect, caused him to be suffocated with pillows. Thus expired the emperor Tiberius, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and twenty-third (23rd) of his reign, universally execrated.”

                “The prince of the covenant” unquestionably refers to Jesus Christ, “the Messiah the Prince,” who was to “confirm the covenant” one week with His people. Dan. 9:25-27. The prophet, having taken us down to the death of Tiberius, now mentions incidentally an event to transpire in his reign, so important that it should not be passed over; namely, the cutting off of the Prince of the covenant, or in other words, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. According to the prophecy, this took place in the reign of Tiberius. Luke informs us (3:1-3) that in the fifteenth (15th) year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, John the Baptist commenced his ministry. The reign of Tiberius is to be reckoned, according to Prideaux, Dr. Hales, Lardner, and others, from his elevation to the throne to reign jointly with Augustus, his step-father, in August, A.D. 12. His fifteenth (15th) year would therefore be from August, A.D. 26, to August, A.D. 27. Christ was six months younger than John, and is supposed to have commenced His ministry six months later, both, according to the law of the priesthood, entering upon their work when they were thirty (30) years of age. If John commenced in the spring, in the latter portion of Tiberius’s fifteenth (15th) year, it would bring the commencement of Christ’s ministry in the autumn of A.D. 27; and right here the best authorities place the baptism of Christ, it being the exact point where the 483 years from B.C. 457, which were to extend to the Messiah the Prince, terminated; and Christ went forth proclaiming that the time was fulfilled. From this point we go forward three years and a half (3½ yrs) to find the date of the crucifixion; for Christ attended but four Passovers, and was crucified at the last one. Three and a half years (3½ yrs) from the autumn of A.D. 27 bring us to the spring of A.D. 31. The death of Tiberius is placed but six years later, in A.D. 37. (See on chapter 9:25-27.)

                11:23: The “him” with whom the league here spoken of is made, must be the same power which has been the subject of the prophecy from the 14th verse; and that this is the Roman power is shown beyond controversy in the fulfilment of the prophecy in three individuals, as already noticed, who successively ruled over the Roman Empire; namely, Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius Caesar. The first, on returning to the fort of his own land in triumph, stumbled and fell, and was not found. Verse 19. The second was a raiser of taxes; and he reigned in the glory of the kingdom, and died neither in anger nor in battle, but peacefully in his own bed. Verse 20. The third was a dissembler, and one of the vilest of characters. He entered upon the kingdom peaceably, but both his reign and life were ended by violence. And in his reign the Prince of the covenant, Jesus of Nazareth, was put to death upon the cross. Verses 21,22. Christ can never be broken or put to death again; hence in no other government, and at no other time, can we find a fulfilment of these events. Some attempt to apply these verses to Antiochus, and make one of the Jewish high priests the prince of the covenant, though they are never called such. This is the same kind of reasoning which endeavors to make the reign of Antiochus a fulfilment of the little horn of Daniel 8; and it is offered for the same purpose; namely, to break the great chain of evidence by which it is shown that the Advent doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible, and that Christ is now at the door. But the evidence cannot be overthrown; the chain cannot be broken.

                Having taken us down through the secular events of the empire to the end of the seventy (70) weeks, the prophet, in verse 23, takes us back to the time when the Romans became directly connected with the people of God by the Jewish league, B.C. 161: from which point we are then taken down in a direct line of events to the final triumph of the church, and the setting up of God’s everlasting kingdom. The Jews, being grievously oppressed by the Syrian kings, sent an embassy to Rome, to solicit the aid of the Romans, and to join themselves in “a league of amity and confederacy with them.” 1st Mac. 8; Prideaux, II, 234; Josephus’s Antiquities, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6. The Romans listened to the request of the Jews, and granted them a decree, couched in these words:–

                “The decree of the senate concerning a league of assistance and friendship with the nation of the Jews. It shall not be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans, to make war with the nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending them corn, or ships, or money; and if any attack be made upon the Jews, the Romans shall assist them as far as they are able; and again, if any attack be made upon the Romans, the Jews shall assist them. And if the Jews have a mind to add to, or to take from, this league of assistance, that shall be done with the common consent of the Romans. And whatever addition shall thus be made, it shall be of force.” “This decree,” says Josephus, “was written by Eupolemus, the son of John, and by Jason, the son of Eleazer, when Judas was high priest of the nation, and Simon, his brother, was general of the army. And this was the first league that the Romans made with the Jews, and was managed after this manner.”

                At this time, the Romans were a small people, and began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. And from this point they rose by a steady and rapid ascent to the height of power which they afterward attained.

                11:24: The usual manner in which nations had, before the days of Rome, entered upon valuable provinces and rich territory, was by war and conquest. Rome was now to do what had not been done by the fathers or the fathers’ fathers; namely, receive these acquisitions through peaceful means. The custom, before unheard of, was now inaugurated, of kings’ leaving by legacy their kingdoms to the Romans. Rome came into possession of large provinces in this manner.

                And those who thus came under the dominion of Rome derived no small advantage therefrom. They were treated with kindness and leniency. It was like having the prey and spoil distributed among them. They were protected from their enemies, and rested in peace and safety under the aegis of the Roman power.

                To the latter portion of this verse, Bishop Newton gives the idea of forecasting devices from strongholds, instead of against them. This the Romans did from the strong fortress of their seven-hilled city. “Even for a time;” doubtless a prophetic time, 360 years. From what point are these years to be dated? Probably from the event brought to view in the following verse.

                11:25: By verses 23 and 24 we are brought down this side of the league between the Jews and the Romans, B.C. 161, to the time when Rome had acquired universal dominion. The verse now before us brings to view a vigorous campaign against the king of the south, Egypt, and the occurrence of a notable battle between great and mighty armies. Did such events as these transpire in the history of Rome about this time? – They did. This was the war between Egypt and Rome; and the battle was the battle of Actium. Let us take a brief view of the circumstances that led to this conflict.

                Mark Antony, Augustus Caesar, and Lepidus constituted the triumvirate which had sworn to avenge the death of Julius Caesar. This Antony became the brother-in-law of Augustus by marrying his sister, Octavia. Antony was sent into Egypt on government business, but fell a victim to the arts and charms of Cleopatra, Egypt’s dissolute queen. So strong was the passion he conceived for her, that he finally espoused the Egyptian interests, rejected his wife, Octavia, to please Cleopatra, bestowed province after province upon the latter to gratify her avarice, celebrated a triumph at Alexandria instead of Rome, and otherwise so affronted the Roman people that Augustus had no difficulty in leading them to engage heartily in a war against this enemy of their country. This war was ostensibly against Egypt and Cleopatra; but it was really against Antony, who now stood at the head of Egyptian affairs. And the true cause of their controversy was, says Prideaux, that neither of them could be content with only half of the Roman empire; for Lepidus having been deposed from the triumvirate, it now lay between them, and each being determined to possess the whole, they cast the die of war for its possession.

                Antony assembled his fleet at Samos. Five hundred ships of war, of extraordinary size and structure, having several decks one above another, with towers upon the head and stern, made an imposing and formidable array. These ships carried two hundred thousand (200,00) foot, and twelve thousand (12,000) horse. The kings of Libya, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Comagena, and Thrace, were there in person; and those of Pontus, Judea, Lycaonia, Galatia, and Media, had sent their troops. A more splendid and gorgeous military spectacle than this fleet of battle ships, as they spread their sails, and moved out upon the bosom of the sea, the world has rarely seen. Surpassing all in magnificence came the galley of Cleopatra, floating like a palace of gold beneath a cloud of purple sails. Its flags and streamers fluttered in the wind, and trumpets and other instruments of war made the heavens resound with notes of joy and triumph. Antony followed close after in a galley of almost equal magnificence. And the giddy queen, intoxicated with the sight of the warlike array, short-sighted and vainglorious, at the head of her infamous troop of eunuchs, foolishly threatened the Roman capital with approaching ruin.

                Caesar Augustus, on the other hand, displayed less pomp but more utility. He had but half as many ships as Antony, and only eighty thousand (80,000) foot. But all his troops were chosen men, and on board his fleet were none but experienced seamen; whereas Antony, not finding mariners sufficient, had been obliged to man his vessels with artisans of every class, men inexperienced, and better calculated to cause trouble than to do real service in time of battle. The season being far consumed in these preparations, Caesar made his rendezvous at Brundusium, and Antony at Corcyra, till the following year.

                As soon as the season permitted, both armies were put in motion on both land and sea. The fleets at length entered the Ambracian Gulf in Epirus, and the land forces were drawn up on either shore in plain view. Antony’s most experienced generals advised him not to hazard a battle by sea with his inexperienced mariners, but send Cleopatra back to Egypt, and hasten at once into Thrace or Macedonia, and trust the issue to his land forces, who were composed of veteran troops. But he, illustrating the old adage, Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat (whom God wishes to destroy, He first makes mad), infatuated by Cleopatra, seemed only desirous of pleasing her; and she, trusting to appearances only, deemed her fleet invincible, and advised immediate action.

                The battle was fought Sept.2, B.C. 31, at the mouth of the gulf of Ambracia, near the city of Actium. The world was the stake for which these stern warriors, Antony and Caesar, now played. The contest, long doubtful, was at length decided by the course which Cleopatra pursued; for she, frightened at the din of battle, took to flight when there was no danger, and drew after her the whole Egyptian fleet. Antony, beholding this movement, and lost to everything but his blind passion for her, precipitately followed, and yielded a victory to Caesar, which, had his Egyptian forces proved true to him, and had he proved true to his own manhood, he might have gained.

                This battle doubtless marks the commencement of the “time” mentioned in verse 24. And as during this “time” devices were to be forcast from the stronghold, or Rome, we should conclude that at the end of that period western supremacy would cease, or such a change take place in the empire that the city would no longer be considered the seat of government. From B.C. 31, a prophetic time, or 360 years, would bring us to A.D. 330. And it hence becomes a noteworthy fact that the seat of empire was removed from Rome to Constantinople by Constantine the Great in that very year. (See Encyclopedia Americana, art. Constantinople.)

                11:26: The cause of Antony’s overthrow was the desertion of his allies and friends, those that fed of the portion of his meat. First, Cleopatra, as already described, suddenly withdrew from the battle, taking sixty (60) ships of the line with her. Secondly, the land army, disgusted with the infatuation of Antony, went over to Caesar, who received them with open arms. Thirdly, when Antony arrived at Libya, he found that the forces which he had there left under Scarpus to guard the frontier, had declared for Caesar. Fourthly, being followed by Caesar into Egypt, he was betrayed by Cleopatra, and his forces surrendered to Caesar. Hereupon, in rage and despair, he took his own life.

                11:27: Antony and Caesar were formerly in alliance. Yet under the garb of friendship they were both aspiring and intriguing for universal dominion. Their protestations of deference to, and friendship for, each other, were the utterances of hypocrites. They spoke lies at one table. Octavia, the wife of Antony and sister of Caesar, declared to the people of Rome at the time Antony divorced her, that she had consented to marry him solely with the hope that it would prove a pledge of union between Caesar and Antony. But that counsel did not prosper. The rupture came; and in the conflict that ensued, Caesar came off entirely victorious.

                11:28. Two returnings from foreign conquest are here brought to view; the first, after the events narrated in verses 26, 27; and the second, after this power had had indignation against the holy covenant, and had performed exploits. The first was fulfilled in the return of Caesar after his expedition against Egypt and Antony. He returned to Rome with abundant honor and riches; for, says Prideaux (II, 556), “At this time such vast riches were brought to Rome from Egypt on the reducing of that country, and the return of Octavianus [Caesar] and his army from thence, that the value of money fell one half, and the prices of provisions and all vendible wares was doubled thereon.” Caesar celebrated his victories in a three-days’ triumph, – a triumph which Cleopatra herself would have graced, as one of the royal captives, had she not artfully caused herself to be bitten by the fatal asp.

                The next great enterprise of the Romans after the overthrow of Egypt, was the expedition against Judea, and the capture and destruction of Jerusalem. The holy covenant is doubtless the covenant which God has maintained with His people, under different forms, in different ages of the world, that is, with all believers in Him. The Jews rejected Christ; and, according to the prophecy that all who would not hear that prophet should be cut off, they were destroyed out of their own land, and scattered to every nation under heaven. And while Jews and Christians alike suffered under the oppressive hands of the Romans, it was doubtless in the reduction of Judea especially, that the exploits mentioned in the text were exhibited.

                Under Vespasian the Romans invaded Judea, and took the cities of Galilee, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, where Christ had been rejected. They destroyed the inhabitants, and left nothing but ruin and desolation. Titus besieged Jerusalem. He drew a trench around it, according to the prediction of the Saviour. A terrible famine ensued, the equal of which the world has, perhaps at no other time witnessed. Moses had predicted that in the terrible calamities to come upon the Jews if they departed from God, even the tender and delicate woman should eat her own children in the straightness of the siege wherewith their enemies should distress them. Under the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, a literal fulfilment of this prediction occurred; and he, hearing of the inhuman deed, but forgetting that he was the one who was driving them to such direful extremities, swore the eternal extirpation of the accursed city and people.

                Jerusalem fell in A.D.70. As an honor to himself, the Roman commander had determined to save the temple; but the Lord had said that there should not remain one stone upon another which should not be thrown down. A Roman soldier seized a brand of fire, and, climbing upon the shoulders of his comrades, thrust it into one of the windows of the beautiful structure. It was soon in the arms of the devouring element. The frantic efforts of the Jews to extinguish the flames were seconded by Titus himself, but all in vain. Seeing that the temple must perish, Titus rushed in, and bore away the golden candlestick, the table of show-bread, and the volume of the law, wrapped in golden tissue. The candlestick was afterward deposited in Vespasian’s Temple of Peace, and copied on the triumphal arch of Titus, where its mutilated image is yet to be seen.

                The siege of Jerusalem lasted five months. In that siege eleven hundred thousand (1,100,000) Jews perished, and ninety-seven thousand (97,000) were taken prisoners. The city was so amazingly strong that Titus exclaimed, when viewing the ruins, “We have fought with the assistance of God;” but it was completely leveled, and the foundations of the temple were plowed up by Tarentius Rufus. The duration of the whole war was seven years, and one million four hundred and sixty-two thousand (1,462,000) persons are said to have fallen victims to its awful horrors.

                Thus this power performed great exploits, and again returned to his own land.

                11:29: The time appointed is probably the prophetic time of verse 24, which has been previously mentioned. It closed, as already shown, in A.D. 330, at which time this power was to return and come again toward the south, but not as on the former occasion, when it went to Egypt, nor as the latter, when it went to Judea. Those were expeditions which resulted in conquest and glory. This one led to demoralization and ruin. The removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople was the signal for the downfall of the empire. Rome then lost its prestige. The western division was exposed to the incursions of foreign enemies. On the death of Constantine, the Roman empire was divided into three parts, between his three sons, Constantius, Constantine II, and Constans. Constantine II and Constans quarreled, and Constans, being victor, gained the supremacy of the whole West. He was soon slain by one of his commanders, who, in turn, was shortly after defeated by the surviving emperor, and in despair ended his own days, A.D.353. The barbarians of the North now began their incursions, and extended their conquests till the imperial power of the West expired in A.D. 476.

                This was indeed different from the two former movements brought to view in the prophecy; and to this the fatal step of removing the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople directly led.

                11:30: The prophetic narrative still has reference to the power which has been the subject of the prophecy from the sixteenth verse; namely, Rome. What were the ships of Chittim that came against this power, and when was this movement made? What country or power is meant by Chittim? Dr. A. Clarke, on Isa.23:1, has this note: “From the land of Chittim it is revealed to them. The news of the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar is said to be brought to them from Chittim, the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean; for the Tyrians, says Jerome, on verse 6, when they saw they had no other means of escape, fled in their ships, and took refuge in Carthage, and in the islands of the Ionian and AEgean Seas. So also Jochri on the same place.” Kitto gives the same locality to Chittim; namely, the coast and islands of the Mediterranean; and the mind is carried by the testimony of Jerome to a definite and celebrated city situated in that land; that is, Carthage.

                Was ever a naval warfare with Carthage as a base of operations, waged against the Roman empire? We have but to think of the terrible onslaught of the Vandals upon Rome under the fierce Genseric, to answer readily in the affirmative. Sallying every spring from the port of Carthage at the head of his numerous and well-disciplined naval forces, he spread consternation through all the maritime provinces of the empire. That this is the work brought to view is further evident when we consider that we are brought down in the prophecy to this very time. In verse 29, the transfer of empire to Constantinople we understood to be mentioned. Following in due course of time, as the next remarkable revolution, came the irruptions of the barbarians of the North, prominent among which was the Vandal war already mentioned. The years A.D. 428-468 mark the career of Genseric.

                “He shall be grieved and return.” This may have reference to the desperate efforts which were made to dispossess Genseric of the sovereignty of the seas, the first by Majorian, the second by Leo, both of which proved to be utter failures; and Rome was obliged to submit to the humiliation of seeing its provinces ravaged, and its “eternal city” pillaged by the enemy. (See on Rev.8:8.)

                “Indignation against the covenant;” that is, the Holy Scriptures, the book of the covenant. A revolution of this nature was accomplished in Rome. The Heruli, Goths, and Vandals, who conquered Rome, embraced the Arian faith, and became enemies of the Catholic Church. It was especially for the purpose of exterminating this heresy that Justinian decreed the pope to be the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The Bible soon came to be regarded as a dangerous book that should not be read by the common people, but all questions in dispute were to be submitted to the pope. Thus was indignity heaped upon God’s word. And the emperors of Rome, the eastern division of which still continued, had intelligence, or connived with the Church of Rome, which had forsaken the covenant, and constituted the great apostasy, for the purpose of putting down “heresy.” The man of sin was raised to his presumptuous throne by the defeat of the Arian Goths, who then held possession of Rome, in A.D. 538.

                11:31: The power of the empire was committed to the carrying on of the work before mentioned. “And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength,” or Rome. If this applies to the barbarians, it was literally fulfilled; for Rome was sacked by the Goths and Vandals, and the imperial power of the West ceased through the conquest of Rome by Odoacer. Or if it refers to those rulers of the empire who were working in behalf of the papacy against the pagan and all other opposing religions, it would signify the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople, which contributed its measure of influence to the downfall of Rome. The passage would then be parallel to Dan.8:11 and Rev.13:2.

                “And they shall take away the daily sacrifice.” It was shown, on Dan.8:13, that sacrifice is a word erroneously supplied; that it should be desolation; and that the expression denotes a desolating power, of which the abomination of desolation is but the counterpart, and to which it succeeds in point of time. The “daily” desolation was paganism, the “abomination of desolation” is the papacy. But it may be asked how this can be the papacy, since Christ spoke of it in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. And the answer is, Christ evidently referred to the ninth of Daniel, which is a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and not to this verse of chapter 11, which does not refer to that event. Daniel, in the ninth chapter, speaks of desolations and abominations, plural. More than one abomination, therefore, treads down the church; that is, so far as the church is concerned, both paganism and the papacy are abominations. But as distinguished from each other, the language is restricted, and one is the “daily” desolation, and the other is pre-eminently the transgression or “abomination” of desolation.

                How was the daily, or paganism, taken away? As this is spoken of in connection with the placing or setting up of the abomination of desolation, or the papacy, it must denote, not merely the nominal change of the religion of the empire from paganism to Christianity, as on the conversion, so-called, of Constantine, but such an eradication of paganism from all the elements of the empire, that the way would be all open for the papal abomination to arise and assert its arrogant claims. Such a revolution as this, plainly defined, was accomplished; but not for nearly two hundred years after the death of Constantine.

                As we approach the year A.D.508, we behold a grand crisis ripening between Catholicism and the pagan influences still existing in the empire. Up to the time of the conversion of Clovis, king of France, A.D. 496, the French and other nations of Western Rome were pagan; but subsequently to that event, the efforts to convert idolaters to Romanism were crowned with great success. The conversion of Clovis is said to have been the occasion of bestowing upon the French monarch the titles of “Most Christian Majesty” and “Eldest Son of the Church.” Between that time and A.D. 508, by alliances, capitulations and conquests, the Arborici, the Roman garrisons in the West, Brittany, the Burgundians, and the Visigoths, were brought into subjection.

                From the time when these successes were fully accomplished; namely, 508, the papacy was triumphant so far as paganism was concerned; for though the latter doubtless retarded the progress of the Catholic faith, yet it had not the power, if it had the disposition, to suppress the faith, and hinder the encroachments of the Roman pontiff. When the prominent powers of Europe gave up their attachment to paganism, it was only to perpetuate its abominations in another form; for Christianity, as exhibited in the Catholic Church, was, and is, only paganism baptized.

                In England, Arthur, the first Christian king, founded the Christian worship on the ruins of the pagan. Rapin (book. 2, p. 124), who claims to be exact in the chronology of events, states that he was elected monarch of Britain in 508.

                The condition of the See of Rome was also peculiar at this time. In 498, Symmachus ascended the pontifical throne as a recent convert from paganism. He reigned to A.D. 514. He found his way to the papal chair, says Du Pin, by striving with his competitor even unto blood. He received adulation as the successor of St. Peter, and struck the key-note of papal assumption by presuming to excommunicate the emperor Anastasius. The most servile flatterers of the pope now began to maintain that he was constituted judge in the place of God, and that he was the viceregent of the Most High.

                Such was the direction in which events were tending in the West. What posture did affairs at the same time assume in the East? A strong papal party now existed in all parts of the empire. The adherents of this cause in Constantinople, encouraged by the success of their brethren in the West, deemed it safe to commence open hostilities in behalf of their master at Rome. In 508 their partisan zeal culminated in a whirlwind of fanaticism and civil war, which swept in fire and blood through the streets of the eastern capital. Gibbon, under the years 508-518, speaking of the commotions in Constantinople, says:–

                “The statues of the emperor were broken, and his person was concealed in a suburb, till, at the end of three days, he dared to implore the mercy of his subjects. Without his diadem, and in the posture of a suppliant, Anastasius appeared on the throne of the circus. The Catholics, before his face, rehearsed their genuine Trisagion; they exulted in the offer which he proclaimed by the voice of a herald of abdicating the purple; they listened to the admonition that, since all could not reign, they should previously agree in the choice of a sovereign; and they accepted the blood of two unpopular ministers, whom their master, without hesitation, condemned to the lions. These furious but transient seditions were encouraged by the success of Vitalian, who, with an army of Huns and Bulgarians, for the most part idolaters, declared himself the champion of the Catholic faith. In this pious rebellion he depopulated Thrace, besieged Constantinople, exterminated sixty-five thousand (65,000) of his fellow Christians, till he obtained the recall of the bishops, the satisfaction of the pope, and the establishment of the Council of Chalcedon, an orthodox treaty, reluctantly signed by the dying Anastasius, and more faithfully performed by the uncle of Justinian. And such was the event of the first of the religious wars which have been waged in the name, and by the disciples, of the God of Peace.” –Decline and Fall, Vol. IV, p. 526.

                Let it be marked that in this year, 508, paganism had so far declined, and Catholicism had so far relatively increased in strength, that the Catholic Church for the first time waged a successful war against both the civil authority of the empire and the church of the East, which had for the most part embraced the Monophysite doctrine. The extermination of 65,000 heretics was the result.

                With the following extract, we close the testimony on this point:–

                ”We now invite our modern Gamaliels to take a position with us in the place of the sanctuary of paganism (since claimed as the ‘patrimony of St. Peter’) in 508. We look a few years into the past, and the rude paganism of the northern barbarians is pouring down upon the nominally Christian empire of Western Rome, triumphing everywhere, and its triumphs everywhere distinguished by the most savage cruelty …. The empire falls, and is broken into fragments. One by one the lords and rulers of these fragments abandon their paganism, and profess the Christian faith. In religion the conquerors are yielding to the conquered. But still paganism is triumphant. Among its supporters there is one stern and successful conqueror (Clovis); but soon he also bows before the power of the new faith, and becomes its champion. He is still triumphant, but, as a hero and conqueror, reaches the zenith at the point we occupy, A.D. 508.

                “In or near the same year, the last important subdivision of the fallen empire is publicly, and by the coronation of its triumphant ‘monarch,’ Christianized.

                “The pontiff for the period on which we stand, is a recently converted pagan. The bloody contest which placed him in the chair was decided by the interposition of an Arian king. He is bowed to and saluted as filling ‘the place of God on earth.’ The senate is so far under his power that on suspicion that the interests of the See of Rome demand it, they excommunicate the emperor. . . . In 508 the mine is sprung beneath the throne of the Eastern empire. The result of the confusion and strife it occasions is the humiliation of its rightful lord. Now the question is, At what time was paganism so far suppressed as to make room for its substitute and successor, the papal abomination?  When was this abomination placed in a position to start on its career of blasphemy and blood? Is there any other date for its beinq ‘placed,’ or ‘set up,’ in the room of paganism, but 508?   If the mysterious enchantress has not now brought all her victims within her power, she has taken her position, and some have yielded to the fascination. The others are at length subdued; ‘and kings, and peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues‘ are brought under the spell which prepares them, even while ‘drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,’ to ‘think they are doing God service,’ and to fancy themselves the exclusive favorites of Heaven while becoming an easier and richer prey for the damnation of hell.” – Second Advent Manual, pp. 79-81.

                Further evidence regarding the time is supplied by the prophecy of Dan.12:11, where it is stated that “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, . . . there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” As verses 4,6,7,8,9 of this chapter speak of the “time of the end,” we may reasonably conclude the same time is meant in verse 11. Reckoning back 1290 “days,” or years, from the “time of the end,” which began A.D.1798 (see p. 290), we are brought to the year A.D.508.

                From these evidences we think it clear that the daily, or paganism, was taken away in A.D.508. This was preparatory to the setting up, or establishment of the papacy, which was a separate and subsequent event. Of this the prophetic narrative now leads us to speak.

                “And they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” Having shown quite fully what constituted the taking away of the daily, or paganism, we now inquire, When was the abomination that maketh desolate, or the papacy, placed, or set up? The little horn that had eyes like the eyes of man was not slow to see when the way was open for his advancement and elevation. From the year 508 his progress toward universal supremacy was without a parallel.

                When Justinian was about to commence the Vandal war, A.D.533, an enterprise of no small magnitude and difficulty, he wished to secure the influence of the bishop of Rome, who had then attained a position in which his opinion had great weight throughout a large portion of Christendom. Justinian therefore took it upon himself to decide the contest which had long existed between the sees of Rome and Constantinople as to which should have the precedence, by giving the preference to Rome, and declaring, in the fullest and most unequivocal terms, that the bishop of that city should be chief of the whole ecclesiastical body of the empire. A work on the Apocalypse, by Rev. George Croly, of England, published in 1827, presents a detailed account of the events by which the supremacy of the pope of Rome was secured. He gives the following as the terms in which the letter of Justinian was expressed:–

                “Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant, emperor, consul, etc., to John, the most holy archbishop of our city of Rome, and patriarch.

                “Rendering honor to the apostolic chair and to your holiness, as has been always, and is, our wish, and honoring your blessedness as a father, we have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your holiness all matters relating to the state of the churches; it having been at all times our great desire to preserve the unity of your apostolic chair, and the constitution of the holy churches of God, which has obtained hitherto, and still obtains.

                “Therefore, we have made no delay in subjecting and uniting to your holiness all the priests of the whole East. . . . We cannot suffer that anything which relates to the state of the church, however manifest and unquestionable, should be moved without the knowledge of your holiness, who is The Head of All the Holy Churches; for in all things, as we have already declared, we are anxious to increase the honor and authority of your apostolic chair.” –Croly, pp.114,115.

                “The emperor’s letter,” continues Mr. Croly, “must have been sent before the 25th of March, 533; for in his letter of that date to Epiphanius, he speaks of its having been already dispatched, and repeats his decision that all affairs touching the church shall be referred to the pope, ‘head of all bishops, and the true and effective corrector of heretics.'”

                The pope, in his answer, returned the same month of the following year, 534, observes that among the virtues of Justinian, “one shines as a star, –his reverence for the apostolic chair, to which he has subjected and united all the churches, it being truly the head of all.”

              The “Novellae” of the Justinian code give unanswerable proof of the authenticity of the title. The preamble of the 9th states that “as the elder Rome was the founder of the laws, so was it not to be questioned that in her was the supremacy of the Pontificate.” The 131st, on the ecclesiastical titles and privileges, chapter 2, states: “We therefore decree that the most holy pope of the elder Rome is the first of all the priesthood, and that the most blessed archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold the second rank after the holy apostolic chair of the elder Rome.”

                Toward the close of the sixth century, John of Constantinople denied the Roman supremacy, and assumed for himself the title of universal bishop; whereupon Gregory the great, indignant at the usurpation, denounced John, and declared, with unconscious truth, that he who would assume the title of universal bishop was Antichrist. Phocas, in 606, suppressed the claim of the bishop of Constantinople, and vindicated that of the bishop of Rome. But Phocas was not the founder of papal supremacy. Says Croly, “That Phocas repressed the claim of the bishop of Constantinople is beyond a doubt. But the highest authorities among the civilians and analysts of Rome, spurn the idea that Phocas was the founder of the supremacy of Rome; they ascend to Justinian as the only legitimate source, and rightly date the title from the memorable year 533.” Again he says: “On reference to Baronius, the established authority among the Roman Catholic analysts, I found the whole detail of Justinian’s grants of supremacy to the pope formally given. The entire transaction was of the most authentic and regular kind, and suitable to the importance of the transfer.”– Apocalypse, p.8.

                Such were the circumstances attending the decree of Justinian. But the provisions of this decree could not at once be carried into effect; for Rome and Italy were held by the Ostrogoths, who were Arians in faith, and strongly opposed to the religion of Justinian and the pope. It was therefore evident that the Ostrogoths must be rooted out of Rome before the pope could exercise the power with which he had been clothed. To accomplish this object, the Italian war was commenced in 534. The management of the campaign was entrusted to Belisarius. On his approach toward Rome, several cities forsook Vitijes, their Gothic and heretical sovereign, and joined the armies of the Catholic emperor. The Goths, deciding to delay offensive operations till spring, allowed Belisarius to enter Rome without opposition. “The deputies of the pope and clergy, of the senate and people, invited the lieutenant of Justinian to accept their voluntary allegiance.”

                Belisarius entered Rome Dec.10, 536. But this was not an end of the struggle; for the Goths, rallying their forces, resolved to dispute his possession of the city by a regular siege. They commenced in March, 537. Belisarius feared despair and treachery on the part of the people. Several senators, and Pope Sylverius, on proof or suspicion of treason, were sent into exile. The emperor commanded the clergy to elect a new bishop. After solemnly invoking the Holy Ghost, says Gibbon, they elected the deacon Vigilius, who, by a bribe of two hundred (200) pounds of gold, had purchased the honor.

                The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the siege of Rome; but success did not attend their efforts. Their hosts melted away in frequent and bloody combats under the city walls; and the year and nine days during which the siege lasted, witnessed almost the entire consumption of the whole nation. In the month of March, 538, dangers beginning to threaten them from other quarters, they raised the siege, burned their tents, and retired in tumult and confusion from the city, with numbers scarcely sufficient to preserve their existence as a nation or their identity as a people.

                Thus the Gothic horn, the last of the three, was plucked up before the little horn of Daniel 7. Nothing now stood in the way of the pope to prevent his exercising the power conferred upon him by Justinian five years before. The saints, times, and laws were now in his hands, not in purpose only, but in fact. And this must therefore be taken as the year when this abomination was placed, or set up, and as the point from which to date the predicted 1260 years of its supremacy.

                11:32: Those that forsake the covenant, the Holy Scriptures, and think more of the decrees of popes and the decisions of councils than they do of the word of God, –these shall he, the pope, corrupt by flatteries; that is, lead them on in their partisan zeal for himself by the bestowment of wealth, position, and honors.

                At the same time, a people shall exist who know their God; and these shall be strong, and do exploits. These were those who kept pure religion alive in the earth during the dark ages of papal tyranny, and performed marvelous acts of self-sacrifice and religious heroism in behalf of their faith. Prominent among these stand the Waldenses, Albigenses, Huguenots, etc.

                11:33: The long period of papal persecution against those who were struggling to maintain the truth and instruct their fellow men in ways of righteousness, is here brought to view. The number of the days during which they were thus to fall is given in Dan.7:25; 12:7; Rev.12:6,14; 13:5. The period is called, “a time, times, and the dividing of time;” “a time, times and a half;” “a thousand two hundred and three-score (1260) days;” and “forty and two (42) months.” It is the 1260 years of papal supremacy.

                11:34: In Revelation 12, where this same papal persecution is brought to view, we read that the earth helped the woman by opening her mouth, and swallowing up the flood which the dragon cast out after her. The great Reformation by Luther and his co-workers furnished the help here foretold. The German states espoused the Protestant cause, protected the reformers, and restrained the work of persecution so furiously carried on by the papal church. But when they should be helped, and the cause begin to become popular, many were to cleave unto them with flatteries, or embrace the cause from unworthy motives, be insincere, hollow-hearted, and speak smooth and friendly words through a policy of self-interest.

                11:35: Though restrained, the spirit of persecution was not destroyed. It broke out whenever there was opportunity. Especially was this the case in England. The religious state of that kingdom was fluctuating, it being sometimes under Protestant, and sometimes papal jurisdiction, according to the religion of the ruling house. The bloody Queen Mary was a mortal enemy to the Protestant cause, and multitudes fell victims to her relentless persecutions. And this condition of affairs was to last more or less to the time of the end. The natural conclusion would be that when the time of the end should come, this power which the Church of Rome had possessed to punish heretics, which had been the cause of so much persecution, and which for a time had been restrained, would now be taken entirely away; and the conclusion would be equally evident that this taking away of the papal supremacy would mark the commencement of the period here called the “time of the end.” If this application is correct, the time of the end commenced in 1798; for there, as already noticed, the papacy was overthrown by the French, and has never since been able to wield the power it before possessed. That the oppression of the church by the papacy is what is here referred to, is evident, because that is the only one, with the possible exception of Rev.2:10, connected with a “time appointed,” or a prophetic period.

                11:36: The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed; namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.

                Take a declaration in the next verse: “Nor regard any ‘god’.” This has never been true of the papacy. God and Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been professedly set aside and rejected from that system of religion. The only difficulty in applying it to a new power lies in the definite article the; for, it is urged, the expression “the king” would identify this as one last spoken of. If it could be properly translated a king, there would be no difficulty; and it is said that some of the best Biblical critics give it this rendering, Mede, Wintle, Boothroyd, and others translating the passage, “A certain king shall do according to his will,” thus clearly introducing a new power upon the stage of action.

                Three peculiar features must appear in the power which fulfills this prophecy: (1) It must assume the character here delineated near the commencement of the time of the end, to which we were brought down in the preceding verse; (2) it must be a willful power; (3) it must be an atheistical power; or perhaps the two latter specifications might be united by saying that its wilfulness would be manifested in the direction of atheism. A revolution exactly answering to this description did take place in France at the time indicated in the prophecy. Voltaire had sowed the seeds which bore their legitimate and baleful fruit. That boastful infidel, in his pompous but impotent self-conceit, had said, “I am weary of hearing people repeat that twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man may suffice to overthrow it.” Associating with himself such men as Rousseau, D’Alembert, Diderot, and other, he undertook the work. They sowed to the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Their efforts culminated in the “reign of terror” of 1793, when the Bible was discarded, and the existence of the Deity denied, as the voice of the nation.

                The historian thus describes this great religious change: – “It was not enough, they said, for a regenerate nation to have dethroned earthly kings, unless she stretched out the arm of defiance toward those powers which superstition had represented as reigning over boundless space.” –Scott’s Napoleon, Vol. I, p.172.

                Again he says: –“The constitutional bishop of Paris was brought forward to play the principal part in the most impudent and scandalous farce ever enacted in the face of a national representation . . . He was brought forward in full procession, to declare to the convention that the religion which he had taught so many years was, in every respect a piece of ‘Priestcraft’, which had no foundation either in history or sacred truth. He disowned, in solemn and explicit terms, the ‘Existence of the Deity’, to whose worship he had been consecrated, and devoted himself in future to the homage of Liberty, Equality, Virtue and Morality. He then laid on the table his episcopal decoration, and received a fraternal embrace from the president of the convention. Several apostate priests followed the example of this prelate. . . . The world, for the First time heard an assembly of men, born and educated in civilization, and assuming the right to govern one of the finest of the European nations, uplift their united voice to Deny the most solemn truth which man’s soul receives, and Renounce  Unanimously the Belief & Worship of Deity.”  –Id., Vol. I, p 173.

                A writer in Blackwood’s Magazine, November 1870, said: –“France is the only nation in the world concerning which the authentic record survives, that as a nation she lifted her hand in open rebellion against the Author of the universe. Plenty of blasphemers, plenty of infidels, there have been, and still continue to be, in England, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere; but France stands apart in the world’s history as the single state which, by the decree of her legislative assembly, pronounced that there was no God, and of which the entire population of the capital, and a vast majority elsewhere, women as well as men, danced and sang with joy in accepting the announcement.”

                But there are other and still more striking specifications which were fulfilled in this power.

                11:37: The Hebrew word for woman is also translated wife; and Bishop Newton observes that this passage would be more properly rendered “the desire of wives.” This would seem to indicate that this government, at the same time it declared that God did not exist, would trample under foot the law which God had given to regulate the marriage institution. And we find that the historian has, unconsciously perhaps, and if so all the more significantly, coupled together the atheism and licentiousness of this government in the same order in which they are presented in the prophecy. He says:-

                “Intimately connected with these laws affecting religion was that which reduced the union of marriage –the most sacred engagements which human beings can form, and the permanence of which leads most strongly to the consolidation of society– to the state of a mere civil contract of a transitory character, which any two persons might engage in and cast loose at pleasure, when their taste was changed or their appetite gratified. If fiends had set themselves at work to discover a mode most effectually destroying whatever is venerable, graceful, or permanent in domestic life, and obtaining at the same time an assurance that the mischief which it was their object to create should be perpetuated from one generation to another, they could not have invented a more effectual plan than the degradation of marriage into a state of mere occasional cohabitation or licensed concubinage. Sophie Arnoult, an actress famous for the witty things she said, described the republican marriage as the sacrament of adultery. These anti-religious and anti-social regulations did not answer the purpose of the frantic and inconsiderate zealots by whom they had been urged forward.” –    Scott’s Napoleon, Vol. I, p. 173.

                “Nor regard any god.” In addition to the testimony already presented to show the utter atheism of the nation at this time, the following fearful language of madness and presumption is to be recorded:  “The fear of God is so far from being the beginning of wisdom that it is the beginning of folly. Modesty is only the invention of refined voluptuousness. The Supreme King, the God of the Jews, and the Christians, is but a phantom. Jesus Christ is an impostor.”

                Another writer says: –”Aug. 26, 1792, an open confession of atheism was made by the National Convention; and corresponding societies and atheistical clubs were everywhere fearlessly held in the French nation. Massacres and the reign of terror became the most horrid.”  –Smith’s Key to Revelation, p. 323.

                “Hebert, Chaumette, and their associates appeared at the bar, and declared that God did not exist.” –Alison, Vol. I, p. 150.

                At this juncture all religious worship was prohibited except that of liberty and the country. The gold and silver plate of the churches was seized upon and desecrated. The churches were closed. The bells were broken and cast into cannon. The Bible was publicly burned. The sacramental vessels were paraded through the streets on an ass, in token of contempt. A week of ten days instead of seven was established, and death was declared, in conspicuous letters posted over their burial places, to be an eternal sleep. But the crowning blasphemy, if these orgies of hell admit of degrees, remained to be performed by the comedian Monvel, who, as a priest of Illuminism, said; –”God, if you exist, avenge your injured name. I bid you defiance! You remain silent. You dare not launch your thunders! Who, after this, will believe in your existence? The whole ecclesiastical establishment was destroyed.” –Scott’s Napoleon, Vol. I, p. 173.

                Behold what man is when left to himself, and what infidelity is when the restraints of law are thrown off, and it has the power in its own hands! Can it be doubted that these scenes are what the omniscient One foresaw, and noted on the sacred page, when he pointed out a kingdom to arise which should exalt itself above every god, and disregard them all?

                11:38: We meet a seeming contradiction in this verse. How can a nation disregard every god, and yet honor the god of forces? It could not at one and the same time hold both these positions; but it might for a time disregard all gods, and then subsequently introduce another worship and regard the god of forces. Did such a change occur in France at this time?  It did. –The attempt to make France a godless nation produced such anarchy that the rulers feared the power would pass entirely out of their hands, and therefore perceived that, as a political necessity, some kind of worship must be introduced; but they did not intend to introduce any movement which would increase devotion, or develop any true spiritual character among the people, but only such as would keep themselves in power, and give them control of the national forces. A few extracts from history will show this. Liberty and country were at first the objects of adoration. “Liberty, equality, virtue, and morality,” the very opposites of anything they possessed in fact or exhibited in practice, were words which they set forth as describing the deity of the nation. In 1793 the worship of the Goddess of Reason was introduced, and is thus described by the historian: – 

                “One of the ceremonies of this insane time stands unrivaled for absurdity combined with impiety. The doors of the convention were thrown open to a band of musicians, preceded by whom, the members of the municipal body entered in solemn procession, singing a hymn in praise of liberty, and escorting, as the object of their future worship, a veiled female whom they termed the Goddess of Reason. Being brought within the bar, she was unveiled with great form, and placed on the right hand of the president, when she was generally recognized as a dancing girl of the opera, with whose charms most of the persons present were acquainted from her appearance on the stage, while the experience of individuals was further extended. To this person, as the fittest representative of that reason whom they worshiped, the National Convention of France rendered public homage. This impious and ridiculous mummery had a certain fashion; and the installation of the Goddess of Reason was renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in such places where the inhabitants desired to show themselves equal to all the heights of the Revolution.”  –Scott’s Napoleon, Vol.1, Ch.17.

                In introducing the worship of Reason, in 1794, Chaumette said:–  ….”‘Legislative fanaticism has lost its hold; it has given place to reason. We have left its temples; they are regenerated. Today an immense multitude are assembled under its Gothic roofs, which, for the first time, will re-echo the voice of truth. There the French will celebrate their true worship –that of Liberty and Reason. There we will form new vows for the prosperity of the armies of the Republic; there we will abandon the worship of inanimate idols for that of Reason –this animated image, the masterpiece of creation.”

                “A veiled female, arrayed in blue drapery, was brought into the convention; and Chaumette, taking her by the hand, –”‘Mortals,’ said he, ‘cease to tremble before the powerless thunders of a God whom your fears have created. Henceforth acknowledge No Divinity but Reason. I offer you its noblest and purest image; if you must have idols, sacrifice only to such as this. . . . Fall before the august Senate of Freedom, Vail of Reason.”               “At the same time the goddess appeared, personified by a celebrated beauty, Madame Millard, of the opera, known in more than one character to most of the convention. The goddess, after being embraced by the president, was mounted on a magnificent car, and conducted, amidst an immense crowd, to the cathedral of Notre Dame, to take the place of the Deity. There she was elevated on the high altar, and received the adoration of all present.       “On the 11th of November, the popular society of the museum entered the hall of the municipality, exclaiming, ‘Vive la Raison!’ and carrying on the top of a pole the half-burned remains of several books, among others the breviaries and the Old and New Testaments, which ‘expiated in a great fire,’ said the president, ‘all the fooleries which they have made the human race commit.’   “The most sacred relations of life were at the same period placed on a new footing suited to the extravagant ideas of the times. Marriage was declared a civil contract, binding only during the pleasure of the contracting parties. Mademoiselle Arnoult, a celebrated comedian, expressed the public feeling when she called ‘marriage the sacrament of adultery.'” –Id.

                Truly this was a strange god, whom the fathers of that generation knew not. No such deity had ever before been set up as an object of adoration. And well might it be called the god of forces; for the object of the movement was to cause the people to renew their covenant and repeat their vows for the prosperity of the armies of France. Read again a few lines from the extract already given; –“We have left its temples; they are regenerated. To-day an immense multitude is assembled under its Gothic roofs, which for the first time, will re-echo the voice of truth. There the French will celebrate their true worship, –that of Liberty and Reason. There we will form new vows for the prosperity of the armies of the Republic.” (*During the time while the fantastic worship of reason was the national craze, the leaders of the revolution are known to history as “the atheists.” But it was soon perceived that a religion with more powerful sanctions than the one then in vogue must be instituted to hold the people. A form of worship therefore followed in which the object of adoration was the “Supreme Being.” It was equally hollow so far as any reformation of life and vital godliness were concerned, but it took hold upon the supernatural. And while the Goddess of Reason was indeed a “strange god,” the statement in regard to honoring the “God of forces,” may perhaps more appropriately be referred to this latter phase. See Thier’s “French Revolution.”)

                11:39: The system of paganism which had been introduced into France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people, continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as expressed in this verse.

                But that which serves to identify the application of this prophecy to France, perhaps as clearly as any other particular, is the statement made in the last clause of the verse; namely, that they should “divide the land for gain.” Previous to the Revolution, the landed property of France was owned by a few landlords in immense estates. These estates were required by the law to remain undivided, so that no heirs or creditors could partition them. But revolution knows no law; and in the anarchy that now reigned, as noted also in the eleventh of Revelation, the titles of the nobility were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer. The government was in need of funds, and these large landed estates were confiscated, and sold at auction in parcels to suit purchasers. The historian thus records this unique transaction:–

                “The confiscation of two thirds of the landed property of the kingdom, which arose from the decrees of the convention against the emigrants, clergy, and persons convicted at the Revolutionary Tribunals, . . . placed funds worth above £ 700,000,000 sterling at the disposal of the government.”  – Alison, Vol. IV, p. 151.

                When did ever an event transpire, and in what country, fulfilling a prophecy more completely than this? As the nation began to come to itself, a more rational religion was demanded, and the heathen ritual was abolished. The historian thus describes that event:– 

                A third and bolder measure was the discarding of the heathen ritual and re-opening the churches for Christian worship; and of this the credit was wholly Napoleon’s, who had to contend with the philosophic prejudices of almost all his colleagues. He, in his conversation with them, made no attempts to represent himself a believer in Christianity, but stood only on the necessity of providing the people with the regular means of worship wherever it is meant to have a state of tranquility. The priests who chose to take the oath of fidelity to the government were readmitted to their functions; and this wise measure was followed by the adherence of not less than 20,000 of these ministers of religion, who had hitherto languished in the prisons of France.” –Lockhart’s Life of Napoleon, Vol. I, p. 154.

                Thus terminated the Reign of Terror and the Infidel Revolution. Out of the ruins rose Bonaparte, to guide the tumult to his own elevation, place himself at the head of the French government, and strike terror to the hearts of nations.

                11:40: After a long interval, the king of the south and the king of the north again appear on the stage of action. We have met with nothing to indicate that we are to look to any localities for these powers other than those which, shortly after the death of Alexander, constituted respectively the southern and northern divisions of his empire. The king of the south was at that time Egypt, and the king of the north was Syria, including Thrace and Asia Minor. Egypt is still, by common agreement, the king of the south, while the territory which at first constituted the king of the north, has been for the past four hundred years wholly included within the dominions of the sultan of Turkey. To Egypt and Turkey, then, in connection with the power last under consideration, we must look for a fulfilment of the verse before us.

                This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict to spring up between Egypt and France, and Turkey and France, in 1798, which year, as we have seen, marked the beginning of the time of the end; and if history testifies that such a triangular war did break out in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the application.

                We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time of the end, Egypt did “push,” or make a comparatively feeble resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless “whirlwind,” against “him,” that is, the government of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the end commenced in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in that very year a state of open hostility between France and Egypt was inaugurated.

                To what extent this conflict owed its origin to the dreams of glory deliriously cherished in the ambitious brain of Napoleon Bonaparte, the historian will form his own opinion; but the French, or Napoleon at least, contrived to make Egypt the aggressor. Thus, when in the invasion of that country he had secured his first foothold in Alexandria, he declared that “he had not come to ravage the country or to wrest it from the Grand Seignior, but merely to deliver it from the domination of the Mamelukes, and to revenge the outrages which they had committed against France.” –Thier’s French Revolution, Vol. IV, p. 268         Again the historian says: “Besides, he [Bonaparte] had strong reasons to urge against them [the Mamelukes]; for they had never ceased to ill-treat the French.” –Id., p. 273.

                The beginning of the year 1798 found France indulging in immense projects against the English. The Directory desired Bonaparte to undertake at once a descent upon England; but he saw that no direct operations of that kind could be judiciously undertaken before the fall, and he was unwilling to hazard his growing reputation by spending the summer in idleness. “But,” says the historian, “he saw a far-off land, where a glory was to be won which would gain a new charm in the eyes of his countrymen by the romance and mystery which hung upon the scene. Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies, would be a noble field for new triumphs.”  –White’s History of France, p.469.

                But while still broader visions of glory opened before the eyes of Bonaparte in those Eastern historic lands, covering not Egypt only, but Syria, Persia, Hindustan, even to the Ganges itself, he had no difficulty in persuading the Directory that Egypt was the vulnerable point through which to strike at England by intercepting her Eastern trade. Hence on the pretext above mentioned, the Egyptian campaign was undertaken.

                The downfall of the papacy, which marked the termination of the 1260 years, and according to verse 35 showed the commencement of the time of the end, occurred on the 10th of February 1798, when Rome fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory relative to the expedition against Egypt. He left Paris May 3, and set sail from Toulon the 29th, with a large naval armament consisting of 500 sail, carrying 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 sailors. July 5, Alexandria was taken, and immediately fortified. On the 23d the decisive battle of the pyramids was fought, in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation, but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3,000 men. The loss of the French was comparatively slight. On the 24th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the Nile to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt, whither he had retired with his shattered cavalry, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the king of the south was able to make a feeble resistance.

                At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel of communication with France, was destroyed by the English under Nelson at Aboukir; and on September 2 of this same year, 1798, the sultan of Turkey, under feelings of jealousy against France, artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman empire, should be transformed into a French province, declared war against France. Thus the king of the north (Turkey) came against him (France) in the same year that the king of the south (Egypt) “pushed,” and both “at the time of the end:” which is another conclusive proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period; and all of which is a demonstration that this application of the prophecy is correct; for so many events meeting so accurately the specifications of the prophecy could not take place together, and not constitute a fulfilment of the prophecy.

                Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey, like a whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had crushed the armies of Egypt; he assayed to do the same thing with the armies of the sultan, who were menacing an attack from the side of Asia. Feb.27, 1799, with 18,000 men, he commenced his march from Cairo to Syria. He first took the fort of El-Arish, in the desert, then Jaffa (the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naplous at Zeta, and was again victorious at Jafet. Meanwhile, a strong body of Turks had intrenched themselves at St. Jean d’Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the French when they should besiege Acre. Sir Sidney Smith at the same time appeared before St. Jean d’Acre with two English ships, reinforced the Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege, which Napoleon had sent across by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet soon appeared in the offing, which, with the Russian and English vessels then co-operating with them, constituted the “many ships” of the king of the north.

                On the 18th of March, the siege commenced. Napoleon was twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the hands of the Mussulman hordes that filled the country. Twice also a breach was made in the wall of the city; but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison, that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege, sounded, for the first time in his career, the note of retreat, and on the 21st of May 1799, commenced to retrace his steps to Egypt.

                “And he shall overflow and pass over.” We have found events which furnish a very striking fulfilment of the pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of the north against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general agreement in the application of the prophecy. We now reach a point where the views of the expositors begin to diverge. To whom do the words he “shall overflow and pass over,” refer? – to France or to the king of the north? The application of the remainder of this chapter depends upon the answer to this question. From this point two lines of interpretation are maintained. Some apply the words to France, and endeavor to find a fulfilment in the career of Napoleon. Others apply them to the king of the north, and accordingly point for a fulfilment to events in the history of Turkey. We speak of these two positions only, as the attempt which some make to bring in the papacy here is so evidently wide of the mark that its consideration need not detain us. If neither of these positions is free from difficulty, as we presume no one will claim that it is, absolutely, it only remains that we take that one which has the weight of evidence in its favor. And we shall find one in favor of which the evidence does so greatly preponderate, to the exclusion of all others as scarcely to leave any room for doubt in regard to the view here mentioned.

                Respecting the application of this portion of the prophecy to Napoleon or to France under his leadership, so far as we are acquainted with his history, we do not find events which we can urge with any degree of assurance as the fulfilment of the remaining portion of this chapter, and hence do not see how it can be thus applied. It must, then, be fulfilled by Turkey, unless it can be shown (1) that the expression “king of the north” does not apply to Turkey, or (2) that there is some other power besides either France or the king of the north which fulfilled this part of the prediction. But if Turkey, now occupying the territory which constituted the northern division of Alexander’s empire, is not the king of the north of this prophecy, then we are left without any principle to guide us in the interpretation; and we presume all will agree that there is no room for the introduction of any other power here. The French king, and the king of the north, are the only ones to whom the prediction can apply. The fulfilment must lie between them.

                Some considerations certainly favor the idea that there is, in the latter part of verse 40, a transfer of the burden of the prophecy from the French power to the king of the north. The king of the north is introduced just before, as coming forth like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and many ships. The collision between this power and the French we have already noticed. The king of the north, with the aid of his allies, gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the more natural application to refer the “overflowing and passing over” to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle; and that power was Turkey. We will only add that one who is familiar with the Hebrew assures us that the construction of this passage is such as to make it necessary to refer the overflowing and passing over to the king of the north, these words expressing the result of that movement which is just before likened to the fury of the whirlwind.

                11:41. The facts just stated relative to the campaign of the French against Turkey, and the repulse of the former at St. Jean d’Acre, were drawn chiefly from the Encyclopedia Americana. From the same source we gather further particulars respecting the retreat of the French into Egypt, and the additional reverses which compelled them to evacuate that country.

                Abandoning a campaign in which one third of the army had fallen victims to war and the plague, the French retired from St. Jean d’Acre, and after a fatiguing march of twenty-six days re-entered Cairo in Egypt. They thus abandoned all the conquests they had made in Judea; and the “glorious land,” Palestine, with all its provinces, here called “countries,” fell back again under the oppressive rule of the Turk. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, lying outside the limits of Palestine, south and east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan, were out of the line of march of the Turks from Syria to Egypt, and so escaped the ravages of that campaign. On this passage, Adam Clarke has the following note: “These and other Arabians, they [the Turks] have never been able to subdue. They still occupy the deserts, and receive a yearly pension of forty thousand crowns of gold from the Ottoman emperors to permit the caravans with the pilgrims for Mecca to have a free passage.”

                11:42. On the retreat of the French to Egypt, a Turkish fleet landed 18,000 men at Aboukir. Napoleon immediately attacked the place, completely routing the Turks, and re-establishing his authority in Egypt. But at this point, severe reverses to the French arms in Europe called Napoleon home to look after the interests of his own country. The command of the troops in Egypt was left with General Kleber, who, after a period of untiring activity for the benefit of the army, was murdered by a Turk in Cairo, and the command was left with Abdallah Manou. With an army which could not be recruited, every loss was serious.

                Meanwhile, the English government, as the ally of the Turks, had resolved to wrest Egypt from the French. March 13, 1800, an English fleet disembarked a body of troops at Aboukir. The French gave battle the next day, but were forced to retire. On the 18th Aboukir surrendered. On the 28th reinforcements were brought by a Turkish fleet, and the grand vizier approached from Syria with a large army. The 19th, Rosetta surrendered to the combined forces of the English and Turks. At Ramanieh a French corps of 4,000 men was defeated by 8,000 English and 6,000 Turks. At Elmenayer 5,000 French were obliged to retreat, May 16, by the vizier, who was pressing forward to Cairo with 20,000 men. The whole French army was now shut up in Cairo and Alexandria. Cairo capitulated June 27, and Alexandria, September 2. Four weeks after, Oct.1, 1801, the preliminaries of peace were signed at London.

                “Egypt shall not escape” were the words of the prophecy. This language seems to imply that Egypt would be brought into subjection to some power from whose dominion it would desire to be released. As between the French and Turks, how did this question stand with the Egyptians? –They preferred French rule. In R.R. Madden’s Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Turkey, and Palestine in the years 1824-1827, published in London in 1829, it is stated that the French were much regretted by the Egyptians, and extolled as benefactors; that “for the short period they remained, they left traces of amelioration;” and that, if they could have established their power, Egypt would now be comparatively civilized. In view of this testimony, the language would not be appropriate if applied to the French; the Egyptians did not desire to escape out of their hands. They did desire to escape from the hands of the Turks, but could not.

                11:43: In illustration of this verse we quote the following from Historic Echoes of the Voice of God, p. 49: –”History gives the following facts: When the French were driven out of Egypt, and the Turks took possession, the sultan permitted the Egyptians to reorganize their government as it was before the French invasion. He asked of the Egyptians neither soldiers, guns, nor fortifications, but left them to manage their own affairs independently, with the important exception of putting the nation under tribute to himself. In the articles of agreement between the sultan and the pasha of Egypt, it was stipulated that the Egyptians should pay annually to the Turkish government a certain amount of gold and silver, and ‘six hundred thousand (600,000) measures of corn, and four hundred thousand (400,000) of barley.'”

                “The Libyans and the Ethiopians,” “the Cushim,” says Dr. Clarke, “the unconquered Arabs,” who have sought the friendship of the Turks, and many of whom are tributary to them at the present time.

                11:44: On this verse Dr. Clarke has a note which is worthy of mention. He says: “This part of the prophecy is allowed to be yet unfulfilled.” His note was printed in 1825. In another portion of his comment, he says: “If the Turkish power be understood, as in the preceding verses, it may mean that the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north, will at some time greatly embarrass the Ottoman government.”

                Between this conjecture of Dr. Clarke’s, written in 1825, and the Crimean War of 1853-1856, there is certainly a striking coincidence, inasmuch as the very powers he mentions, the Persians on the east and the Russians on the north, were the ones which instigated that conflict. Tidings from these powers troubled him (Turkey). Their attitude and movements incited the sultan to anger and revenge. Russia, being the more aggressive party, was the object of attack. Turkey declared war on her powerful northern neighbor in 1853. The world looked on in amazement to see a government which had long been called “the Sick Man of the East,” a government whose army was dispirited and demoralized, whose treasuries were empty, whose rulers were vile and imbecile, and whose subjects were rebellious and threatening secession, rush with such impetuosity into the conflict. The prophecy said that they should go forth with “great fury;” and when they thus went forth in the war aforesaid, they were described, in the profane vernacular of an American writer, as “fighting like devils.” England and France, it is true, soon came to the help of Turkey; but she went forth in the manner described, and as is reported, gained important victories before receiving the assistance of these powers.

                11:45: We have now traced the prophecy of the 11th of Daniel down, step by step, and have thus far found events to fulfil all its predictions. It has all been wrought out into history except this last verse. The predictions of the preceding verse having been fulfilled within the memory of the generation now living, we are carried by this one past our own day into the future; for no power has yet performed the acts here described. But it is to be fulfilled; and its fulfilment must be accomplished by that power which has been continuously the subject of the prophecy from the 40th verse down to this 45th verse. If the application to which we have given the preference in passing over these verses, is correct, we must look to Turkey to make the move here indicated.

                And let it be noted how readily this could be done. Palestine, which contains the “glorious holy mountain,” the mountain on which Jerusalem stands, “between the seas,” the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, is a Turkish province; and if the Turk should be obliged to retire hastily from Europe, he could easily go to any point within his own dominions to establish his temporary headquarters, here appropriately described as the tabernacles, movable dwellings, of his palace; but he could not go beyond them. The most notable point within the limit of Turkey in Asia, is Jerusalem.

                And mark, also, how applicable the language to that power: “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” This expression plainly implies that this power has previously received help. And what are the facts? –In the war against France in 1798-1801, England and Russia assisted the sultan. In the war between Turkey and Egypt in 1838-1840, England, Russia, Austria and Prussia intervened in behalf of Turkey. In the Crimean War in 1853-1856, England, France, and Sardinia supported the Turks. And in the last Russo-Turkish War, the great powers of Europe interfered to arrest the progress of Russia. And without the help received in all these instances, Turkey would probably have failed to maintain her position. And it is a notorious fact that since the fall of the Ottoman supremacy in 1840, the empire has existed only through the sufferance of the great powers of Europe. Without their pledged support, she would not be long able to maintain even a nominal existence; and when that is withdrawn, she must come to the ground. So the prophecy says the king comes to his end and none help him; and he comes to his end, as we may naturally infer, because none help him, – because the support previously rendered is withdrawn.

                Have we any indications that this part of the prophecy is soon to be fulfilled? As we raise this inquiry, we look, not to dim and distant ages in the past, whose events, so long ago transferred to the page of history, now interest only the few, but to the present living, moving world. Are the nations which are now on the stage of action, with their disciplined armies and their multiplied weapons of war, making any movement looking to this end?

                All eyes are now turned with interest toward Turkey; and the unanimous opinion of statesmen is, that the Turk is destined soon to be driven from Europe. Some years since, a correspondent of the New York Tribune, writing from the East, said: ”Russia is arming to the teeth . . . to be avenged on Turkey . . . Two campaigns of the Russian army will drive the Turks out of Europe.” Carleton, formerly a correspondent of the Boston Journal, writing from Paris under the head of ”The Eastern Question,” said: –”The theme of conversation during the last week has not been concerning the Exposition, but the ‘Eastern Question.’ To what will it grow? Will there be war! What is Russia going to do? What position are the Western powers going to take? These are questions discussed not only in the cafes and restaurants, but in the Corps Legislatif. Perhaps I cannot render better service at the present time than to group together some facts in regard to this question, which, according to present indications, are to engage the immediate attention of the world. What is the ‘Eastern Question’? It is not easy to give a definition; for to Russia it may mean one thing, to France another, and to Austria still another; but sifted of every side issue, it may be reduced to this, –the Driving of the Turk into Asia, and a scramble for his territory.”       Again he says: –-“Surely the indications are that the sultan is destined soon to see the western border of his dominions break off, piece by piece. But what will follow? Are Roumania, Servia, Bosnia, and Albania to set up as an independent sovereignty together, and take position among the nations? or is there to be a grand rush for the estate of the Ottoman? But that is of the future, a future not far distant.”

                Shortly after the foregoing extracts were written, an astonishing revolution took place in Europe. France, one of the parties, if not the chief one, in the alliance to uphold the Ottoman throne, was crushed by Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. Prussia, another party, was too much in sympathy with Russia to interfere with her movements against the Turk. England, a third, in an embarrassed condition financially could not think of entering into any contest in behalf of Turkey without the alliance of France. Austria had not recovered from the blow she received in her preceding war with Prussia; and Italy was busy with the matter of stripping the pope of his temporal power, and making Rome the capital of the nation. A writer in the New York Tribune remarked that if Turkey should become involved in difficulty with Russia, she could count on the prompt “assistance of Austria, France, and England.” But none of these powers, nor any others who would be likely to assist Turkey, were at the time referred to in any condition to do so, owing principally to the sudden and unexpected humiliation of the French nation, as stated above.

                Russia then saw that her opportunity had come. She accordingly startled all the powers of Europe in the fall of the same memorable year, 1870, by stepping forth and deliberately announcing that she designed to regard no longer the stipulations of the treaty of 1856. This treaty, concluded at the termination of the Crimean war, restricted the warlike operations of Russia in the Black Sea. But Russia must have the privilege of using those waters for military purposes if she would carry out her designs against Turkey; hence her determination to disregard that treaty just at the time when none of the powers were in a condition to enforce it.

                The ostensible reason urged by Russia for her movements in this direction, was, that she might have a sea front and harbors in a warmer climate than the shores of the Baltic; but the real design was against Turkey. Thus the Churchman, of Hartford, Conn., in an able article on the present “European Medley,” states that Russia in her encroachments upon Turkey, ”is not merely seeking a sea frontier, and harbors lying on the great highways of commerce, unclosed by arctic winters, but that, with a feeling akin to that which inspired the Crusades, she is actuated by an intense desire to drive the Crescent from the soil of Europe.”

                This desire on the part of Russia has been cherished as a sacred legacy since the days of Peter the Great. That famous prince, becoming sole emperor of Russia in 1688, at the age of sixteen, enjoyed a prosperous reign of thirty-seven years, to 1725, and left to his successors a celebrated “last will and testament,” imparting certain important instructions for their constant observance. The 9th article of that “will” enjoined the following policy: –”To take every possible means of gaining Constantinople and the Indies (for he who rules there will be the true sovereign of the world); excite war continually in Turkey and Persia; establish fortresses in the Black Sea; get control of the sea by degrees, and also of the Baltic, which is a double point, necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian Gulf; re-establish, if possible, by the way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depot of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England.”

                The eleventh article reads: ”Interest the House of Austria in the expulsion of the Turks from Europe, and quiet their dissensions at the moment of the conquest of Constantinople (having excited war among the old states of Europe), by giving to Austria a portion of the conquest, which afterward will or can be reclaimed.”

                The following facts in Russian history will show how persistently this line of policy has been followed: –”In 1696, Peter the Great wrested the Sea of Azov from the Turks, and kept it. Next, Catharine the Great won the Crimea. In 1812, by the peace of Bucharest, Alexander I obtained Moldavia, and the prettily-named province of Bessarabia, with its apples, peaches, and cherries. Then came the great Nicholas, who won the right of the free navigation of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Danube, but whose inordinate greed led him into the Crimean war, by which he lost Moldavia, and the right of navigating the Danube, and the unrestricted navigation of the Black Sea. This was no doubt a severe repulse to Russia, but it did not extinguish the designs upon the Ottoman power, nor did it contribute in any essential degree to the stability of the Ottoman empire. Patiently biding her time, Russia has been watching and waiting, and in 1870, when all the Western nations were watching the Franco-Prussian war, she announced to the powers that she would be no Ionger bound by the treaty of 1856, which restricted her use of the Black Sea; and since that time that sea has been, as it was one thousand (1,000) years ago, to all intents and purposes, a mare Russicum. –San Francisco Chronicle.

                Napoleon Bonaparte well understood the designs of Russia, and the importance of her contemplated movements. While a prisoner on the island of St. Helena, in conversation with his governor, Sir Hudson Lowe, he gave utterance to the following opinion: –”In the course of a few years, Russia will have Constantinople, part of Turkey, and all of Greece. This I hold to be as certain as if it had already taken place. All the cajolery and flattery that Alexander practiced upon me was to gain my consent to effect that object. I would not give it, foreseeing that the equilibrium of Europe would be destroyed. Once mistress of Constantinople, Russia gets all the commerce of the Mediterranean, becomes a naval power, and then God knows what may happen. The object of my invasion of Russia was to prevent this, by the interposition between her and Turkey of a new state, which I meant to call into existence as a barrier to her Eastern encroachments.

                Kossuth, also, took the same view of the political board when he said, “in Turkey will be decided the fate of the world.”

                The words of Bonaparte, quoted above, in reference to the destruction of “the equilibrium of Europe,” reveal the motive which has induced the great powers to tolerate so long the existence on the Continent of a nation which is alien in religion, and whose history has been marked by many inhuman atrocities. Constantinople is regarded, by general consent, as the grand strategic point of Europe; and the powers have each sagacity or jealousy enough to see, or think they see, the fact that if any one of the European powers gains permanent possession of that point, as Russia desires to do, that power will be able to dictate terms to the rest of Europe. This position no one of the powers is willing that any other power should possess; and the only apparent way to prevent it is for them all to combine, by tacit or express agreement, to keep each other out, and suffer the Turk to maintain his existence on the soil of Europe. This is preserving that “balance of power” over which they are all so sensitive. But this cannot always continue. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” The sick man seems determined to reduce himself most speedily to Ruch a dl’gree of offensiveness that Europe will be obliged to drive him into Asia, as a matter of safety to its own civilization.

                When Russia, in 1870, announced her intention to disregard the treaty of 1S56, the other powers, though incapable of doing anything, nevertheless, as was becoming their ideas of their own importance, made quite a show of offended dignity. A congress of nations was demanded, and the demand was granted. The congress was held, and proved, as everybody expected it would prove, simply a farce so far as restraining Russia was concerned. The San Francisco Chronicle of March, 1871, had this paragraph touching ”The Eastern-Question Congress:” –”It is quite evident that, as far as directing or controlling the action of the Muscovite government is concerned, the congress is little better than a farce. England originated the idea of the congress, simply because it afforded her an opportunity of abandoning, without actual dishonor, a position she had assumed rather too hastily, and Russia was complacent enough to join in the ‘little game,’ feeling satisfied that she would lose nothing by her courtesy. Turkey is the only aggrieved party in this dextrous arrangement. She is left face to face with her hereditary and implacable enemy; for the nations that previously assisted her, ostensibly through friendship and love of justice, but really through motives of self-interest, have evaded the challenge so openly flung into the arena by the Northern Colossus. It is easy to foresee the end of this conference. Russia will get all she requires, another step will be taken toward the realization of Peter the Great’s will, and the sultan will receive a foretaste of his apparently inevitable doome –expulsion from Europe.”

                From that point the smoldering fires of the ”Eastern Question” continued to agitate and alarm the nations of Europe, till in 1877 the flames burst forth anew. On the 24th of April in that year, Russia declared war against Turkey, ostensibly to defend the Christians against the inhuman barbarity of the Turks, really to make another trial to carry out her long-cherished determination to drive the Turk from Europe, The events and the results of that war of 1877-1878, are of such recent date that the general reader can easily recall them. It was evident from the first that Turkey was overmatched. Russia pushed her approaches till the very outposts of Constantinople were occupied by her forces. But diplomacy on the part of the alarmed nations of Europe again stepped in to suspend for a while the contest. The Berlin Congress was held Jan. 25, 1878. Turkey agreed to sign conditions of peace. The conditions were that the straits of the Dardanelles should be open to Russian ships; that Russians should occupy Batoum, Kars, and Erzerourn; that Turkey should pay Russia £20,000,000 sterling (nearly $100,000, 000), as a war indemnity; and that the treaty should be signed at Constantinople. In making this announcement, the Allgemeine Zeitung added: ”The eventual entry of the Russians into Constantinople cannot longer be regarded as impracticable.”

                The Detroit Evening News of Feb 20, 1878, said: –”According to the latest version of the peace conditions, Turkey –besides her territorial losses, the surrender of a few ironclads, the repairs of the mouth of the Danube, the reimbursement of Russian capital invested in Turkish securities, the indemnity to Russian subjects in Constantinople for war losses, and the maintenance of about 100,000 prisoners of war –will have to pay to Russia, in round figures, a sum equivalent to about $552,000,000 in our money. The unestimated items will easily increase this to six hundred million (600,000,000). With her taxable territory reduced almost to poverty-stricken Asia Minor, and with her finances at present in a condition of absolute chaos, it is difficult to see where she is going to get the money, however ready her present rulers may be to sign the contract.

                “The proposition amounts to giving the czar a permanent mortgage on the whole empire, and contains an implied threat that he may foreclose at any time, by the seizure of the remainder of European Turkey. In this last aspect, all Europe has a vital interest in the matter, and particularly England, oven if the conditions were not in themselves calculated to drive English creditors crazy, by destroying their last hope of ever getting a cent of their large investments in Turkish bonds. It makes Russia a preferred creditor of the bankrupt Porte, with the additional advantage of being assignee in possession, leaving creditors with prior claims out in the cold.”

                The following paragraph taken from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 1878, sets forth an instructive and very suggestive exhibit of the recent shrinkage of Turkish territory; –”Anyone who will take the trouble to look at a map of Turkey in Europe dating back about sixty (60) years, and compare that with the new map sketched by the treaty of San Stefano as modified by the Berlin Congress, will be able to form a judgment of the march of progress that is pressing the Ottoman power out of Europe. Then, the northern boundary of Turkey extended to the Carpathian Mountains, and eastward of the River Sereth it embraced Moldavia as far north nearly as the 47th degree of north latitude. The map embraced also what is now the kingdom of Greece. It covered all of Servia and Bosnia. But by the year 1830 the northern frontier of Turkey was driven back from the Carpathians to the south bank of the Danube, the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia being emancipated from Turkish dominion, and subject only to the payment of an annual tribute in money to the Porte. South of the Danube, the Servians had won a similar emancipation for their country. Greece also had been enabled to establish her independence. Then, as recently, the Turk was truculent and obstinate. Russia and Great Britain proposed to make Greece a tributary state, retaining the sovereignty of the Porte. This was refused, and the result was the utter destruction of the powerful Turkish fleet at Navarino, and the erection of the independent kingdom of Greece. Thus Turkey in Europe was pressed back on all sides. Now, the northern boundary, which was so recently at the Danube, has been driven south to the Balkans. Roumania and Servia have ceased even to be tributary, and have taken their place among independent states. Bosnia has gone under the protection of Austria, as Roumania did under that of Russia in 1829. ‘Rectified’ boundaries give Turkish territory to Servia, Montenegro, and Greece. Bulgaria takes the place of Roumania as a self-governing principality, having no dependence on the Porte, and paying only an annual tribute. Even south of the Balkans the power of the Turk is crippled, for Roumelia is to have ‘home rule’ under a Christian governor. And so again the frontier of Turkey in Europe is pressed back on all sides, until the territory left is but the shadow of what it was sixty (60) years ago. To produce this result has been the policy and the battle of Russia for more than half a century; for nearly that space of time it has been the struggle of some of the other ‘powers’ to maintain the ‘integrity’ of the Turkish empire. Which policy has succeeded, and which failed, a comparison of maps at intervals of twenty-five (25) years will show. Turkey in Europe has been shriveled up in the last half century (50 yrs). It is shrinking back and back toward Asia, and, though all the ‘powers’ but Russia should unite their forces to maintain the Ottoman system in Europe, there is a manifest destiny visible in the history of the last fifty (50) years that must defeat them.”

                Ever since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has cherished the idea of driving the Crescent from the soil of Europe. That famous prince, becoming sole emperor of Russia in 1688, at the age of sixteen, enjoyed a prosperous reign of thirty-seven years, to 1725, and left to his successors a celebrated “last will and testament,” imparting certain important instructions for their constant observance. The 9th article of that “will” enjoined the following policy: –“To take every possible means of gaining Constantinople and the Indies (for he who rules there will be the true sovereign of the world); excite war continually in Turkey and Persia; establish fortresses in the Black Sea; get control of the sea by degrees, and also of the Baltic, which is a double point, necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian Gulf; re-establish, if possible, by the way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depot of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England.”

                The eleventh article reads: “Interest the House of Austria in the expulsion of the Turks from Europe, and quiet their dissensions at the moment of the conquest of Constantinople (having excited war among the old states of Europe), by giving to Austria a portion of the conquest, which afterward will or can be reclaimed.”

                The following facts in Russian history will show how persistently this line of policy has been followed: –”In 1696, Peter the Great wrested the Sea of Azov from the Turks, and kept it. Next, Catherine the Great won the Crimea. In 1812, by the peace of Bucharest, Alexander I obtained Moldavia, and the prettily-named province of Bessarabia, with its apples, peaches, and cherries. Then came the Great Nicholas, who won the right of the free navigation of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, and the Danube, but whose inordinate greed led him into the Crimean war, by which he lost Moldavia, and the right of navigating the Danube, and the unrestricted navigation of the Black Sea. This was no doubt a severe repulse to Russia, but it did not extinguish the designs upon the Ottoman Power, nor did it contribute in any essential degree to the stability of the Ottoman empire. Patiently biding her time, Russia has been watching and waiting, and in 1870, when all the Western nations were watching the Franco-Prussian war, she announced to the powers that she would be no longer bound by the treaty of 1856, which restricted her use of the Black Sea; and since that time that sea has been, as it was one thousand years ago, to all intents and purposes, a mare Russicum.” –San Francisco Chronicle.

                Napoleon Bonaparte well understood the designs of Russia, and the importance of her contemplated movements. While a prisoner on the island of St. Helena, in conversation with his governor, Sir Hudson Lowe, he gave utterance to the following opinion: –“In the course of a few years, Russia will have Constantinople, part of Turkey, and all of Greece. This I hold to be as certain as if it had already taken place. All the cajolery and flattery that Alexander practiced upon me was to gain my consent to effect that object. I would not give it, foreseeing that the equilibrium of Europe would be destroyed. Once mistress of Constantinople, Russia gets all the commerce of the Mediterranean, becomes a naval power, and then God knows what may happen. The object of my invasion of Russia was to prevent this, by the interposition between her and Turkey of a new state, which I meant to call into existence as a barrier to her Eastern encroachments. Kossuth, also, took the same view of the political board when he said, “in Turkey will be decided the fate of the world.”

                The words of Bonaparte, quoted above, in reference to the destruction of “the equilibrium of Europe,” reveal the motive which has induced the great powers to tolerate so long the existence on the Continent of a nation which is alien in religion, and whose history has been marked by many inhuman atrocities. Constantinople is regarded, by general consent, as the grand strategic point of Europe; and the powers have each sagacity or jealousy enough to see, or think they see, the fact that if any one of the European powers gains permanent possession of that point, as Russia desires to do, that power will be able to dictate terms to the rest of Europe. This position no one of the powers is willing that any other power should possess; and the only apparent way to prevent it is for them all to combine, by tacit or express agreement, to keep each other out, and suffer the Turk to maintain his existence on the soil of Europe. This is preserving that “balance of power” over which they are all so sensitive. But this cannot always continue. “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

                The following paragraph taken from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, August 1878, sets forth an instructive and very suggestive exhibit of the recent shrinkage of Turkish territory; –”Anyone who will take the trouble to look at a map of Turkey in Europe dating back about sixty years, and compare that with the new map sketched by the treaty of San Stefano as modified by the Berlin Congress, will be able to form a judgment of the march of progress that is pressing the Ottoman power out of Europe. Then, the northern boundary of Turkey extended to the Carpathian Mountains, and eastward of the River Sereth it embraced Moldavia as far north nearly as the 47th degree of north latitude. The map embraced also what is now the kingdom of Greece. It covered all of Servia and Bosnia. But by the year 1830 the northern frontier of Turkey was driven back from the Carpathians to the south bank of the Danube, the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia being emancipated from Turkish dominion, and subject only to the payment of an annual tribute in money to the Porte. South of the Danube, the Servians had won a similar emancipation for their country. Greece also had been enabled to establish her independence. Then, as recently, the Turk was truculent and obstinate. Russia and Great Britain proposed to make Greece a tributary state, retaining the sovereignty of the Porte. This was refused, and the result was the utter destruction of the powerful Turkish fleet at Navarino, and the erection of the independent kingdom of Greece. Thus Turkey in Europe was pressed back on all sides. Now, the northern boundary, which was so recently at the Danube, has been driven south to the Balkans. Roumania and Servia have ceased even to be tributary, and have taken their place among independent states. Bosnia has gone under the protection of Austria, as Roumania did under that of Russia in 1829. ‘Rectified’ boundaries give Turkish territory to Servia, Montenegro, and Greece. Bulgaria takes the place of Roumania as a self-governing principality, having no dependence on the Porte, and paying only an annual tribute. Even south of the Balkans the power of the Turk is crippled, for Roumelia is to have ‘home rule’ under a Christian governor. And so again the frontier of Turkey in Europe is pressed back on all sides, until the territory left is but the shadow of what it was sixty years ago. To produce this result has been the policy and the battle of Russia for more than half a century; for nearly that space of time it has been the struggle of some of the other ‘powers’ to maintain the ‘integrity’ of the Turkish empire. Which policy has succeeded, and which failed, a comparison of maps at intervals of twenty-five years will show. Turkey in Europe has been shriveled up in the last half century. It is shrinking back and back toward Asia, and, though all the ‘powers’ but Russia should unite their forces to maintain the Ottoman system in Europe, there is a manifest destiny visible in the history of the last fifty years that must defeat them.”

                A correspondent of the Christian Union, writing from Constantinople under date of Oct. 8, 1878, said: –”When we consider the difficulties which now beset this feeble and tottering government, the only wonder is that it can stand for a day. Aside from the funded debt of $1,000,000,000 (1 billion) upon which it pays no interest, it has an enormous floating debt representing all the expenses of the war; its employees are unpaid; its army has not been disbanded or even reduced; and its paper money has become almost worthless. The people have lost heart, and expect every day some new revolution or a renewal of the war. The government does not know which to distrust most, its friends or its enemies.”

                Since 1878 the tendency of all movements in the East has been in the same direction, foreboding greater pressure upon the Turkish government in the direction of its expulsion from the soil of Europe. The occupation of Egypt by the English, which took place in 1883, is another step toward the inevitable result, and furnishes a movement which the Independent, of New York, ventures to call “the beginning of the end.”

                In 1895 the world was startled by the report of the terrible atrocities inflicted by the Turks and Kurds upon the Armenians. Reliable reports show that many thousands (1000s+) have been slaughtered, with every circumstance of fiendish cruelty. The nations through their ambassadors protest and threaten; the sultan promises, but does nothing. He evidently has not the disposition, if he has the power to stay the tide of blood. Fanatical Moslems seem seized with a frenzy to destroy all the Armenian men and take their wives and children to slavery or a more lamentable fate. At this writing (January 1897) thousands (1000s+) of widows and orphans are said to be wandering in the mountains of Armenia, perishing of cold and hunger; and they stretch out despairing hands to England and America to save them from total destruction. A thrill of horror has run through Christendom, and a cry is rising from all lands, Let the Turk be driven out, and come to his end! And yet the selfishness of the nations, and their jealousy of each other, restrain their hands from arresting this carnival of slaughter and ruin, by unseating the terrible Turk. How long, O Lord, how long?

                The latest step was taken in October 1908, when Bulgaria, including Eastern Roumelia, became an independent state, and Bosnia and Herzegovina were annexed by Austria. Meanwhile, the Turkish government has experienced a sudden and surprising transformation, and has taken its place among the constitutional governments of Europe. In July, 1908, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, under pressure from the revolutionary, or “Young Turk,” party, which had won over most of the army to its support, announced that the constitution of 1876 was restored; and a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, provided for by this constitution, was called for. A reactionary movement, instigated by the sultan, and marked by terrible massacres of Armenians in nearby Asiatic provinces followed, but was quickly suppressed by the loyal troops; the sultan was deposed and placed in confinement; and his brother, who takes the title of Mohammed V, was placed upon the throne. Under the constitutional government thus provided, Turkish citizens of all classes and religions are guaranteed individual liberty and equality before the law, and there is freedom of the press and of education. In practice, however, these constitutional guarantees have not been strictly maintained.

                Thus all evidence goes to show that the Turk must soon leave Europe.

                This much desired change in Turkish governmental conditions, however, cannot prevent the inevitable. The Turk must depart from Europe. Where will he then plant the tabernacles of his palace? In Jerusalem? That certainly is the most probable point. Newton on the Prophecies, p. 318, says: “Between the seas in the glorious holy mountain must denote, as we have shown, some part of the Holy Land. There the Turk shall encamp with all his powers; yet he ‘shall come to his end, and none shall help him,’ –shall help him effectually, or deliver him.”

                Time will soon determine this matter. And when this takes place, what follows?– events of the most momentous interest to all the inhabitants of this world, as the next chapter immediately shows.

                (*Note.  –Since the foregoing was written, the situation in Turkey has grown continually worse. Armenian massacres have continued, and between January and September, 1896, rebellion against the Turk broke out in Crete and Macedonia. Besides this, fanatical Moslems themselves show signs of dissatisfaction with the sultan, and threaten revolution. Serious disturbance has just taken place (September, 1896) in Constantinople, resulting in the slaughter of some two thousand (2,000) Armenians. The crown-heads of Europe are now in consultation in regard to the disposition of the affairs of Turkey, with the prospect that some determination will be reached, and thus the only obstacle in the way of the dissolution of the Turkish empire be removed.)

                12:1:  A definite time is introduced in this verse, not a time revealed in names or figures which specify any particular year or month or day, but a time made definite by the occurrence of a certain event with which it stands connected. “At that time.” What time? –The time to which we are brought by the closing verse of the preceding chapter, –the time when the king of the north shall plant the tabernacles of his palace in the glorious holy mountain; or, in other words, when the Turk, driven from Europe, shall hastily make Jerusalem his temporary seat of government. We noticed, in remarks upon the latter portion of the preceding chapter, some of the agencies already in operation for the accomplishment of this end, and some of the indications that the Turk will soon be obliged to make this move. And when this event takes place, he is to come to his end; and then, according to this verse, we look for the standing up of Michael, the great prince. This movement on the part of Turkey is the signal for the standing up of Michael; that is, it marks this event as next in order. And to guard against all misunderstanding, let the reader note that the position is not here taken that the next movement against the Turks will drive them from Europe, or that when they shall establish their capital at Jerusalem, Christ begins His reign without the lapse of a day or an hour of time. But here are the events, to come, as we believe, in the following order: (1) Further pressure brought to bear in some way upon the Turk: (2) His retirement from Europe; (3 His final stand at Jerusalem; (4) The standing up of Michael, or the beginning of the reign of Christ, and His coming in the clouds of heaven. And it is not reasonable to suppose that any great amount of time will elapse between these events.

                Who, then, is Michael? and what is His standing up? –Michael is called, in Jude 9, the “archangel.” This means the chief angel, or the head over the angels. There is but one. Who is he? –He is the one whose voice is heard from heaven when the dead are raised. 1st Thess. 4:16. And whose voice is heard in connection with that event? –The voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. John 5:28. Tracing back the evidence with this fact as a basis, we reach the following conclusions: The voice of the Son of God is the voice of the archangel; the archangel, then, is the Son of God, but the archangel is Michael; hence also Michael is the Son of God. The expression of Daniel, “The great prince which standeth for the children of thy people,” is alone sufficient to identify the one here spoken of as the Saviour of men. He is the Prince of life (Acts3:15); and God hath exalted him to be a “Prince and a Saviour.” Acts 5:31. He is the great Prince. There is no one greater, save the sovereign Father.

                And He “standeth for the children of thy people.” He condescends to take the servants of God in this poor mortal state, and redeem them for the subjects of His future kingdom. He stands for us. His people are essential to His future purposes, an inseparable part of the purchased inheritance; and they are to be the chief agents of that joy in view of which Christ endured all the sacrifice and suffering which have marked His intervention in behalf of the fallen race. Amazing honor! Be everlasting gratitude repaid Him for His condescension and mercy unto us! Be His the kingdom, power, and glory, forever and ever!

                We now come to the second question, What is the standing up of Michael? The key to the interpretation of this expression is furnished us in verses 2 and 3 of chapter 11: “There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia;” “A mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion.” There can be no doubt as to the meaning of these expressions in these instances. They signify to take the kingdom, to reign. The same expression in the verse under consideration must mean the same. At that time, Michael shall stand up, shall take the kingdom, shall commence to reign.

                But is not Christ reigning now? –Yes, associated with His Father on the throne of universal dominion. Eph. 1:20-22; Rev. 3:21. But this throne, or kingdom,  He gives up at the end of this dispensation (1st Cor. 15.24); and then He commences His reign brought to view in the text, when He stands up, or takes His own kingdom, the long-promised throne of His father David, and establishes a dominion of which there shall be no end. Luke 1:32,33.

                An examination of all the events that constitute, or are inseparably connected with, this change in the position of our Lord, does not come within the scope of this work. Suffice it to say that then the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom “of our Lord and of his Christ.” His priestly robes are laid aside for royal vesture. The work of mercy is done, and the probation of our race is ended. Then he that is filthy is beyond hope of recovery; and he that is holy is beyond the danger of falling. All cases are decided. And from that time on, till the terrified nations behold the majestic form of their insulted King in the clouds of heaven, the nations are broken as with a rod of iron, and dashed in pieces like a potter’s vessel, by a time of trouble such as never was, a series of judgments unparalleled in the world’s history, culminating in the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven in flaming fire, to take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel. 2Thess.1:7,8; Rev.11:15; 22:11,12.

                Thus momentous are the events introduced by the standing up of Michael. And he thus stands up, or takes the kingdom, marking the introduction of this decisive period in human history, for some length of time before he returns personally to this earth. How important, then, that we have a knowledge of his position, that we may be able to trace the progress of his work, and understand when that thrilling moment, draws near which ends his intercession in behalf of mankind, and fixes the destiny of all forever.

                But how are we to know this? How are we to determine what is transpiring in the far-off heaven of heavens, in the sanctuary above? – God has been so good as to place the means of knowing this in our hands. When certain great events take place on earth, he has told us what events synchronizing with them occur in heaven. By things which are seen, we thus learn of things that are unseen. As we “look through nature up to nature’s God,” so through terrestrial phenomena and events we trace great movements in the heavenly world. When the king of the north plants the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain, a movement for which we already behold the initial steps, when Michael, our Lord, stands up, or receives from his Father the kingdom, preparatory to his return to this earth. Or it might have been expressed in words like these: Then our Lord ceases his work as our great High Priest, and the probation of the world is finished. The great prophecy of the 2300 days gives us definitely the commencement of the final division of the work in the sanctuary in heaven. The verse before us gives us data whereby we can discover approximately the time of its close.

                In connection with the standing up of Michael, there occurs a time of trouble such as never was. In Matt.24:21 we read of a period of tribulation such as never was before it, nor should be after it. This tribulation, fulfilled in the oppression and slaughter of the church by the papal power, is already past; while the time of trouble of Dan.12:1, is, according to the view we take, still future. How can there be two times of trouble, many years apart, each of them greater than any that had been before it, or should be after it? To avoid difficulty here, let this distinction be carefully noticed: The tribulation spoken of in Matthew is tribulation upon the church. Christ is there speaking to His disciples, and of His disciples in coming time. They were the ones involved, and for their sake the days of tribulation were to be shortened. Verse 22. Whereas, the time of trouble mentioned in Daniel is not a time of religious persecution, but of national calamity. There has been nothing like it since there was –not a church, but –a nation. This comes upon the world. This is the last trouble to come upon the world in its present state. In Matthew there is reference made to time beyond that tribulation; for after that was past, there was never to be any like it upon the people of God. But there is no reference here in Daniel to future time after the trouble here mentioned; for this closes up this world’s history. It includes the seven last plagues of Revelation 16, and culminates in the revelation of the Lord Jesus, coming upon His pathway of clouds in flaming fire, to visit destruction upon His enemies who would not have Him to reign over them. But out of this tribulation everyone shall be delivered who shall be found written in the book– the book of life; “for in Mount Zion . . . shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” Joel2:32.

                12:2: This verse also shows how momentous a period is introduced by the standing up of Michael, or the commencement of the reign of Christ, as set forth in the first verse of this chapter; for the event here described in explicit terms is a resurrection of the dead. Is this the general resurrection which takes place at the second coming of Christ? or is there to intervene between Christ’s reception of the kingdom and His revelation to earth in all His advent glory (Luke 21:27) a special resurrection answering to the description here given? One of these it must be for every declaration of Scripture will be fulfilled.

                Why may it not be the former, or the resurrection which occurs at the last trump? Answer: Because only the righteous, to the exclusion of all the wicked, have part in the resurrection. Those who sleep in Christ then come forth; but they only, for the rest of the dead live not again for a thousand years. Rev. 20:5. So, then, the general resurrection of the whole race is comprised in two grand divisions, first, of the righteous exclusively, at the coming of Christ; secondly, of the wicked exclusively, a thousand years thereafter. The general resurrection is not a mixed resurrection. The righteous and the wicked do not come up promiscuously at the same time. But each of these two classes is set off by itself, and the time which elapses between their respective resurrections is plainly stated to be a thousand years.

                But in the resurrection brought to view in the verse before us, many of both righteous and wicked come up together. It cannot therefore be the first resurrection, which includes the righteous only, nor the second resurrection, which is as distinctly confined to the wicked. If the text read, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake to everlasting life, then the “many” might be interpreted as including all the righteous, and the resurrection be that of the just at the second coming of Christ. But the fact that some of the many are wicked, and rise to shame and everlasting contempt, bars the way to such an application.

                It may be objected that this text does not affirm the awakening of any but the righteous, according to the translation of Bush and Whiting; namely, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these to everlasting life, and those to shame and everlasting contempt.” It will be noticed, first of all, that this translation (which is not by any means above criticism) proves nothing till the evident ellipsis is supplied. This ellipsis some therefore undertake to supply as follows: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these [the awakened ones] to everlasting life, and those [the unawakened ones] to shame and everlasting contempt.” It will be noticed, again, that this does not supply the ellipses, but only adds a comment, which is a very different thing. To supply the ellipsis is simply to insert those words which are necessary to complete the sentence. “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” is a complete sentence. The subject and predicate are both expressed. The next member, “Some [or these] to everlasting life,” is not complete. What is wanted to complete it? Not a comment, giving some one’s opinion as to who are intended by “these,” but a verb of which these shall be the subject. What verb shall it be? This must be determined by the preceding portion of the sentence, which is complete, where the verb shall awake is used. This, then is the predicate to be supplied: “Some [or these] shall awake to everlasting life.” Applying the same rule to the next member, “Some [or those] to shame and everlasting contempt,” which is not in itself a complete sentence, we find ourselves obliged to supply the same words, and read it, “Some [or those] shall awake to shame and everlasting contempt.” Anything less than this will not complete the sense, and anything different will pervert the text; for a predicate to be supplied cannot go beyond one already expressed. The affirmation made in the text pertains only to the many who awake. Nothing is affirmed of the rest who do not then awake. And to say that the expression “to shame and everlasting contempt” applies to them, when nothing is affirmed of them, is not only to outrage the sense of the passage, but the laws of language as well. And of the many who awake, some come forth to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, which further proves a resurrection to consciousness for these also; for while contempt may be felt and manifested by others toward those who are guilty, shame can be felt and manifested only by the guilty parties themselves. This resurrection, therefore, as already shown, comprises some of both righteous and wicked, and cannot be the general resurrection at the last day.

                Is there, then, any place for a special or limited resurrection, or elsewhere any intimation of such an event before the Lord appears? The resurrection here predicted takes place when God’s people are delivered from the great time of trouble with which the history of this world terminates; and it seems from Rev. 22:11 that this deliverance is given before the Lord appears. The awful moment arrives when he that is filthy and unjust is pronounced unjust still, and he that is righteous and holy is pronounced holy still. Then the cases of all are forever decided. And when this sentence is pronounced upon the righteous, it must be deliverance to them; for then they are placed beyond all reach of danger or fear of evil. But the Lord has not at that time made his appearance; for he immediately adds, “And, behold, I come quickly.” The utterance of this solemn fiat which seals the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to eternal death, is supposed to be synchronous with the great voice which is heard from the throne in the temple of heaven, saying, “It is done!” Rev. 16:17