viz., the so-called seventy weeks in Dan. 9: 24-27. It would occupy too great a portion of the present disquisition, to go into a minute investigation of this passage. Indeed, it would require a volume of considerable magnitude, even to give a history of the ever varying and contradictory opinions of critics respecting this locus vexatissimus; and perhaps a still larger one, to establish an exegesis which would stand. I am fully of opinion, that no interpretation as yet published will stand the test of thorough grammatico-historical criticism; and that a candid and searching and thorough critique here is still a desideratum. May some expositor fully adequate to the task, speedily appear! In the mean while it may be truly said, that the time specified here is wholly unlike to any thing in the Apocalypse, and therefore it can have no distinct bearing upon the present discussion. All that is necessary to be said now concerning this passage, has already been said in the preceding pages (p. 82 seq.); and to these I must refer the reader.

Before we take leave, however, of the book of Daniel, to which appeal is so often and confidently made by interpreters who make 1260 days in the Apocalypse to stand for so many years, we must advert to the references made to the prophet in two of the Gospels, by which, it is said, an occult or secondary sense is attributed to some passages of his writings, which have already been explained above as having reference only to Antiochus Epiphanes.

The passages in question are in Matt. 24: 15 and Mark 13:14. The first runs thus: "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, (let him who readeth consider!) then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, etc." The second is of the like tenor: "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, [spoken of by Daniel the prophet], standing where it ought not, (let him

who readeth consider!) then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, etc." In this last passage from Mark, the clause included in brackets is marked as of a suspicious character by Knapp, and is given up in the main by most recent critics. Even Hengstenberg, in his efforts to show that the prophecy of Daniel is applied in a direct way, by the Saviour, to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, still gives up the suspected clause in Mark ; pp. 258, 267, of his Aechtheit des Daniel. But with me, the omission of the suspected clause in Mark makes no important difference. All the copies of Matthew exhibit the reading in question; and the testimony of one Evangelist should be enough, for any one who believes in the divine inspiration of the Gospels.

The simple question before us is: Whether the Saviour has applied the prediction in Daniel respecting the app (abomination of desolation) to the Romans, and thus shown that we are not to apply it, or at least not to apply it exclusively, to Antiochus Epiphanes ?

There are three passages in Daniel, where the phraseology in question, or nearly the same, is employed. These are Dan. 11: 31. 12: 11, and 9: 27. Hengstenburg himself gives up the two former, as being applicable, and as always having been applied in ancient times, to Antiochus. Indeed the case is so plain, that no one can safely venture on denying it. He strives however, with much earnestness, to show that the phrase in Dan. 9: 27 is that which the Saviour quotes and applies to the Romans. But of this many doubts might be raised. The form of the Hebrew here serves of itself to excite some doubt. It runs thus: p by, which in the Septuagint is rendered (and also by Theodotion): Επὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, evidently showing a different reading of the ancient Hebrew text, or else a palpable mistake of

the translator. It can hardly be supposed that Matthew and Mark, or that the Saviour, borrowed the simple expression βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως from such an almost senseless version as that of the Seventy which is given above. In the Hebrew just quoted, p is not in regimen or the construct state; nor does assume the article, which, as being specific, it would naturally do here if it were in the Genitive. Every thing which respects the form, manner, and (as I must believe) object, of the Hebrew phrase here, forbids us to suppose that Matt. 24: 15 and Mark 13: 14 are built upon it. Indeed if they are, the original application of Dan. 9: 27 to the Romans might still be called in question. The contents of the verse seem almost irresistibly to remind us of Antiochus, as described in Dan. 7 : 25. 8:9—12. 11:31, 45. 12: 11. I must conclude, therefore, that the ẞdélvyμa éonμáσews in Matthew and Mark refers to Dan. 11: 31 or 12: 11; in either of which cases the original must have designated Antiochus.

Thus much I feel compelled to acknowledge, on the simple grounds of criticism; although the admission apparently makes against the cause which I am now advocating, or at least it seems to concede a vлóvоια or occult sense in the passages last referred to. Does it necessarily imply one?

The general principle of exegesis on such ground has been discussed above, and need not be here renewed. It is enough for the present to say, that the application of the phraseology in question (so far as it belongs to the book of Daniel) to the wasting of Jerusalem by the Romans, no more proves that such was the original object of Daniel's words, than the application by Matthew (in chap. 11. 15) of Hos. 11: 1 to the exile of the child Jesus in Egypt, proves that Hosea 11: 1 was originally a prediction respecting the exile of Jesus. In fact it is not a prediction at all, in any sense, but simply a historical declaration. But then,

how natural and even appropriate for Matthew to say, that the words of Hosea : "I have called my Son out of Egypt," found a nanowσis in the sojourn of God's greater Son there, and in his recal from that country! A certain event happened in ancient times, viz., the calling of God's Son (a collective designation of the Israelites) out of Egyptian exile; a like event had recently taken place, when the Son of God in a higher and nobler sense was called out of exile in the same country. Was there not now a húgwσis of the ancient declaration of the prophet, such as would compel almost every mind to feel the congruity of adapting that declaration to the recent events?

So is it, surely, with the case of Rachel weeping for her children, as described in Jer. 31: 15, and applied by the prophet to the exile of the Jews; while Matthew (2: 17, 18) applies it to the massacre by Herod of the infants who were in the town of Bethlehem.

Perhaps even more than half of the fulfilments (ringáσeis), spoken of in the New Testament, are of the like character. Why not apply this simple and well known principle, this obvious usage of the New Testament writers, to the passage under discussion, in which reference is made to the book of Daniel? I can see no good reason why they may not be so applied. But if this be allowed, the amount of the reference in the Gospels to Daniel is, that he is appealed to as having described a waster of the temple and city of Jerusalem in ancient times, of the like character and intention as the waster who finally destroyed Jerusalem. What then took place had a nanowos now, i. e. the like thing happened in a still higher sense. And why may we not interpret these passages, in the same way as we feel compelled to interpret so many others? In fact it seems to me, that the Saviour, or the Evangelist, (it is difficult to say which speaks in the passage to be cited, and it matters not for our

purpose), appears to have warned the reader by the parenthetic ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω (let him who readeth consider), that the original words of the prophet were not intended to have such an application as is made of them by the interpreters in question, but only that they described events of altogether a similar nature. As of old, when Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and the temple, the pious Jews fled into the wilderness, so now, when the Roman power invades Judea with purposes of destruction, Christians should flee to the mountains, etc.

Viewed in this light, (and I am persuaded this is the light in which the passages before us ought to be viewed), these declarations of Jesus do not establish the position, that we ought not to apply the passages in Daniel according to the plain historical manner in which I have applied them. In vain do we seek in the book of Daniel, then, any justification for interpreting 1260 days as meaning 1260 years; or any justification for interpreting any of the times specified there in a manner contrary to, or different from, their natural and obvious meaning.

COME WE THEN, at last, to THE APOCALYPSE itself. Here is perhaps more difficulty than in the interpretation of Daniel; but still we must travel in the same road as before, and see if we can find solutions which are satisfactory. This I apprehend may be done, if we continue to regard only the simple principles of interpretation.

But before we undertake to do this, I must beg the reader's attention to a few plain yet very important facts, in regard to the tenor and object of the Apocalypse. I cannot here discuss the topics which I am now about to sug