cleansing of the sanctuary by Judas, in A. C. 164, to something done by Antiochus against the Jews or their religion. What was this? Is there any thing to correspond?

In the early part of Antiochus' reign, Onias (a young brother of the high priest Jason) who took the Greek name of Menelaus, and publicly abjured the Jewish religion, obtained the office of high priest, by bribing Antiochus with the promise of large sums of money in the way of tribute. In order to raise this money, he took the sacred vessels of the temple, and sold them to the Syrians. In the year 170 A. C., Antiochus invaded Egypt, and returning to Palestine for winter quarters, the Sanhedrim of the Jews sent deputies to him, while he was at Tyre, in order to accuse Menelaus of sacrilege, so that he might be removed from office. The accusation was fully substantiated; but Antiochus, from pecuniary motives, acquitted Menelaus, and put to death the three deputies of the Sanhedrim who came to accuse him. This was "casting down some of the host and stamping upon them." The word host (in vs. 10-13) evidently means the same as holy people in v. 24, viz., such as were zealous for the honour of God and the purity of his worship; not unlike the meaning which the evangelical poet gives it, when he speaks of "the sacramental host of God's elect."

Counting now from the year 164 A. C. in which the sanctuary was cleansed, to the year 170 A. C. in which this atrocious cruelty took place against the pious Jews, we have 6 years. As to the 14 days, we have no certain date in history to reckon them; but if the years are correct, we may well suppose the days to be so. It will be remembered, in making out the computation, that it was near the end of the year 164 A. C. when the sanctuary was cleansed by Judas; and it was also near the end of the year 170 A. C. when Antiochus retired to Palestine for winter quarters.

Three times after this, did Antiochus pass through Palestine in order to invade Egypt; never without vexations and exactions. The heavy tribute imposed upon Menelaus was kept up; and Menelaus himself, a sworn heathen as to religion, was kept in the office of high priest; who, when Antiochus (soon after the events related above) took forcible possession of the city of Jerusalem, 169 A. C. (a short time after the massacre above related, conducted him into the temple, joined him in his blasphemies there, and gave to him all the gold and silver

furniture which was found therein. On this occasion, Antiochus is said (according to Jahn) to have massacred 80,000 persons, to have taken 40,000 prisoners and to have sent as many more into slavery. Be it that the numbers are overrated, still the ravages must have been dreadful. Well might the angel, and Daniel after him, name this terrible enemy of the Jews, the destroyer, .

Renewed and awful desolations, made by this same destroyer, took place again in 167 A. C., as has already been stated above. There is no want of facts then, to shew that the terminus a quo may well begin with the massacre of the three deputies of the Sanhedrim late in 170 A. C.; and of course that the six years and fourteen days may end in the latter part of the year 164 A. C., when Judas cleansed the sanctuary.

Whether this period has been distinctly recognized by interpreters, I know not. I have inquired simply for facts. These are as has been stated; if the labours of Prideaux and Jahn are worthy of credit.

Thus far then all speak in favour of a literal interpretation of the designations of time in Daniel. One more passage of the like tenor with those examined, still remains; which has given occasion to as many different opinions, as the one that we have just considered.

In Dan. 7: 23-25, the fourth beast symbolizes a kingdom, qut of which ten horns [kings] are to arise; and after these, another horn [king] diverse from them, who shall subdue three kings; who shall blaspheme God, and persecute the saints, and change times [appointed feast-days] and laws; and these [the saints and laws] are to be given into his hands, for a time and times and the dividing [ i. e. half] of time; 7:25. Are we to find Antiochus Epiphanes here? Or is this a designation different from all which we have yet considered?

These questions have been answered in different ways; as any one acquainted with the history of commentary would naturally suppose. According to Jahn, Dereser, De Wette, Bleek, and Rosenmueller, the four kings designated by the four beasts, in chap. vII., are the Chaldee, Median, Persian, and Macedonian empires; the latter empire including the four monarchies which sprang out of it. Bertholdt and some others have represented these kingdoms as being the Babylonian, the MedoPersian, that of Alexander, and the composite one of his sucOthers, and the great majority of expositors, repre

cessors.

sent the four monarchies as those of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedon, and Rome.

In favour of this last view, Hengstenberg has said some striking things in his Authentie des Daniel, p. 199 seq.; and Havernick also, in an Excursus at the close of his work on the same prophet. Those who wish for particulars may consult these works, and others on the prophecies of Daniel. In such general descriptions as those of this prophet in chap. VII., there is room enough for conjecture to those who are fond of indulging it; and not a little may be said in favour of several different theories of interpretation.

It is not necessary for our present purpose to determine the question, which scheme of interpretation as mentioned above is in the right. Be it that the Roman empire, or the Macedonian, is meant, still the "other horn" which arises after the ten horns (v. 24), is plainly an individual king, who is a blasphemer and a cruel and unrelenting persecutor of the pious. This king is to continue his persecutions for "a time and times and the dividing of time," i. e. three and a half years.* Now if we make this, (as Mr. Faber and others make all such designations of time), to mean 1260 years, what possible congru

* That the Hebrew and Chaldee do thus employ the words which signify time, may be easily shewn. For such a Chaldee use, the reader may consult Dan. 4: 16, 23, 25, 32, (in the original Chaldee it is 4: 13, 20, 22, 29), where 779, (tempus statutum et definitum, season, appointed time), is employed, in connection with the numeral (seven), to designate the number of years during which Nebuchadnezzar should be exiled from his throne and affected with madness. The same word (Chaldee 779) is again employed in the passage (Dan. 7: 25), on which the text above comments. The corresponding Hebrew word in, of the same signification, is used for the same purpose, i. e. to designate years, in Dan. 12:7. In like manner the Hebrew word (in the plural only) is used to designate years; see in Lev. 25: 27. Judg. 17: 10. 1 Sam. 2: 19. Ex. 3: 10. Is. 32: 10, comp. 29: 1. 2 Chron. 21: 19, al. It seems to be plain, that the Hebrews and Chaldeans employed the words in and 779 in the same way that we do the word season, which usually means a regularly recurring or appointed time. When we say, 'The next season I intend to build a house,' we mean, that we intend to build one the next year, although the idea of an appropriate part of the year for such a purpose, is also designated by the word season. But in the case specified above, 179 and in do most plainly mean year.

ity or probability can there be in such an interpretation? One king to live and reign and persecute the churches 1260 years! The thing needs no refutation. And that one king is meant, I appeal to the natural and obvious meaning of the text and context, as apprehended by every candid, intelligent, and unprejudiced reader.

On the subject of the empire designated here by the fourth beast, I merely remark in passing, that the principal arguments in favour of the Roman empire appear to be, that the kingdom of the Messiah seems to be placed in immediate succession to it (vs. 9-14, comp. vs. 26, 27); and that the ten horns, and the other horn springing up and breaking three of the ten (7: 8), can no where be found in the history of the Macedonian empire, i. e. of Alexander the great and his successors. But Bertholdt and Rosenmueller think that they plainly and undoubtedly find the correspondents to these symbols, in the ten kings of Egypt and Syria, who had possession of Palestine before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, viz., Antigonus, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Ptolemy Lagi, Ptolemy Philadelphus, Ptolemy Euergetes, Ptolemy Philopator, Ptolemy Epiphanes, Ptolemy Philometer, Antiochus Magnus, and Seleucus Philopator. That these Egyptian and Syrian kings did in fact hold Palestine in their possession, seems to be plainly testified by Justin (Lib. xv.), and others. That such empires or kings as have relation to Palestine or the Jewish people, are the usual and special object of prophetic designation, nay in a measure the exclusive objects of it, there can be no rational ground of doubt. The fact lies upon the face of the sacred record.

Then as to the apparent proximity of the Messianic dominion to that of the fourth beast, it may be truly said, that nothing is more common than for the prophets, when threatening evil immediately or at some future period to the Jews, to annex to their threatenings a disclosure of Messianic peace and prosperity. So Isaiah continually joins the latter day of glory in close contact, (so far as his words are concerned), with deliverance from the Babylonish exile; Joel unites the deliverance of the plague of the locusts in his time, with the description of Messianic plenty and peace. The prophets seem every where to overlook all intervals of time, which must exist between the Messianic period and the period of events joyful or sorrowful, which constitute the main subject-matter of their predictions. The annexing of a Messianic prediction, then, to a description

of the fourth beast (Dan. 7: 23-27), cannot be considered as sufficient or satisfactory evidence that the Roman empire is designated by this beast.

On the other hand, inasmuch as the dominion of the fourth beast seems to be described as coming to an end before the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom (v. 26), it is difficult to make this agree with the history of the Roman empire, which lasted, at least in its great eastern branch, for more than 1000 years after the introduction of Christianity.

I regard with much respect and approbation the efforts and talents which Hengstenberg and Havernick have exhibited, in endeavouring to show that the fourth beast designates the Roman empire, and especially the antichristian power of that empire. But my main difficulty in acceding to their views, and those of others who defend the same exegesis, lies in this, viz., that a comparison of Dan. 7: 7, 8 with 8: 9-12. 11: 28, 30-36, 41 -45, and 12: 10, 11, seems almost of necessity to compel one who follows the simple leading of exegesis without any reference to particular schemes of interpretation, to believe, that the same king is described in all these passages. The characteristics of the oppressor are the same; "the time and times and half a time" is the same; the succession of a Messianic time (if chap. XII, 1-3 be interpreted as relating to the time of the Messiah) is the same; in a word, the descriptions tally with so much exactness, that it is difficult to make them speak a different language.

But I must return from this digression. It matters not to my present purpose, which of these schemes of interpretation is true. Some one particular persecutor and oppressor seems as plainly to be designated in one of these places as in the other; and since in chapters VIII. XI. and XII., as is now generally admitted by the best interpreters, Antiochus Epiphanes is designated, so it would seem not to be improbable, or rather, it would seem nearly certain, that an individual is designated in chap. vII. 24, 25. If so, then is it clear, that "a time and times and the dividing of times" is to be literally understood, and not as meaning 1260 years.

We come now to a different class of texts, and the only ones which can afford any analogy to justify the usual method of construing the designations of time in the Apocalypse, i. e. one day as meaning a year.