the most cogent reasons, drawn from the context, can justify any other interpretation. In fact, even those numbers, which are often employed in a tropical or symbolical way, are to be thus understood only when there is good reason to be found in the context, for supposing that the writer meant to employ them in this way. Any other method of interpreting the Scriptures would lead to the most arbitrary and extravagant conclusions.

From the usage which has respect to numbers, we will now proceed to that which has respect to PERIODS OF time. Here also is a literal and a tropical usage. The first needs no explanation; the second may be illustrated in a few words.

It is said of Jehovah: "Thy years shall not fail." Here the word years is not confined to periods of 360 or 365 days, but means time indefinite, which is measured, so far as we reckon it, by years. So the word day and days are often employed in a generic sense. Thus: "In the latter day;" "Thy days are numbered;" "The day of the Lord;" and other very frequent expressions of the like meaning. So is it also with the word hour. The sum of all is, that the specific designations of time, viz. day, days, year, years, etc., are often employed in the generic sense of time. In all such cases, synecdoche, i. e. a figure of speech where a part is taken for the whole, and vice versa, is to be found; and no figure in rhetoric is more usual than this, in all languages whatever.

Thus it is with the designations of time, when they stand in a simple state, unconnected with numbers which limit them and render them specific. But very different is the case, when they stand connected with such limitations by numbers. The very fact that numerals are connected with them, is of itself a proof that the writer means to limit them. If there be any examples of a different usage, they

can be only such as mark a period which may be symbolical, in like manner as we have seen the numbers seven, three, etc., sometimes to be symbolically employed. While we concede that there are examples of this nature, yet they are certainly very rare. A thousand years may be, in some passages, comprised among these examples; and possibly seven years and three years may in some cases be supposed to belong here. But, as it seems to me, there is much reason to doubt of this last supposition.

At all events, nothing but an imperious necessity can justify us in explaining years or days, when accompanied with definite numerals, in a tropical way, except the necessity of the case. If any good and appropriate sense can be made without resort to such an expedient, we are clearly bound, as interpreters, to abide by it.

Our way is now prepared to investigate the designations of time in Daniel and in the Apocalypse. And here the designations of time are, for the most part, accompanied by numerals; and of course, unless some valid and satisfactory reason can be given for a different interpretation, they are to be considered as intended simply to mark the periods which they designate. No one, we may presume, will call in question a principle so plain, and so obviously the dictate of reason as this.

Let us now make the supposition, that the times specified in the book of Daniel and in the Apocalypse may all be understood according to their plain and obvious import, and that when thus understood they not only accord with the design of the writer, but are indispensable (in this mode of interpretation) to the object which he has in view; is there any one who can reasonably call in question that exegesis, which interprets them agreeably to the common usages of language? Apart from all preconceived and favourite schemes of interpretation, where a particular end is

to be accomplished by giving to numbers a symbolic sense, no considerate man would hesitate to subscribe to such a sentiment. It becomes then an imperious duty of the interpreter to examine thoroughly the nature of the case before us, and see whether Daniel and John may not have employed the designations of time, exhibited in their works, in the usual and ordinary manner. And if it should turn out, upon examination, to be matter of fact, that historical occurrences predicted by them accord with those designations when interpreted in a simple and obvious way, who will venture to maintain with confidence, that any other interpretation than the obvious one is to be given to the periods in question? I know indeed that there are some, who are apparently so attached to favorite methods of interpreting, that not even an argument of so plain and cogent a nature will satisfy them. Among intelligent, considerate, and impartial men, however, I am persuaded that such an argument, if well supported, will find a patient hearing if not a welcome reception.

The truth plainly is, that the public mind begins to grow weary of being tossed so long on a tempestuous sea of conjecture, in regard to the meaning of Scripture. Men of inquiring minds wish to know what the Bible says, when interpreted by principles of exegesis which are stable, well grounded, and capable of an honest and open and intelligible defence. There is no end of the arbitrary and the fanciful. When we are once cast upon such a sea, it is quite impossible to tell with certainty what harbour we shall ultimately make. Like the Corinthians who had every man his own interpretation, the arbitrary and fanciful interpreters of our own times scarcely ever agree; and even if they do, whether the church derives any edification from their views of prophecy, is a serious question indeed. At all events, if a more sober, rational, and normal me

thod of interpretation can fairly be pointed out, sooner or later the public mind will approve of it and admit it.

Enough has been said to show, that the plain and obvious interpretation of numbers in the prophecies is to be followed, unless there be cogent reasons for a departure from this rule. If there be indeed such reasons, we may then admit a tropical or symbolical sense; for so much I most readily concede. But there are only two sources, so far as I can perceive, from which reasons of such a nature can be drawn. The first is, analogy in other parts of the Scriptures; the second, the exigencies of the context. Let us pursue the examination of our subject, by inquiring how the matter before us stands in relation to each of these.

FIRST, analogy with other parts of Scripture.

It is a singular fact, that the great mass of interpreters in the English and American world have, for many years, been wont to understand the days designated in Daniel and in the Apocalypse, as the representatives or symbols of years. I have found it difficult to trace the origin of this general, I might say, almost universal custom. Without venturing on a positive statement, I am inclined to believe that we may trace it mainly to the distinguished Joseph Mede, who lived and wrote during the first quarter of the seventeenth century. His Clavis Apocalyptica (Key to the Apocalypse) excited much attention when it was published, and indeed for a long time afterwards. Many criticisms were made upon it by the learned; and in the explanation and defence of the positions which he had taken in that work, Mede wrote many comments, essays, and letters. The learning, piety, and (in general) the sobriety of mind, which this distinguished work exhibited, gave it great influence in the religious community in England, and eventually in America. Abroad, Vitringa and others attacked some of its leading positions, and, as was generally con

ceded, overthrew them. Still, the influence of this work on English commentary has been felt down to the present hour. Particularly is it so in regard to the subject of reckoning time; the consideration of which is now before us.

Mede assumes the position, that the days in Daniel and in the Apocalypse are to be regarded as the symbols of years. In his Remains on some Passages in the Apocalypse, chap. Ix., he goes at some length into a defence of this position. His chief reliance for aid to establish this position, is on the multiplicity and continuance of events which are predicted as standing in connection with the periods named. The amount of all is, that, in his view, such events must occupy more time than is assigned to them, if the natural and obvious meaning of the designations of time should be admitted. He also appeals to Dan. 9: 24, as justifying his interpretation.

The former reason will be touched upon, in its proper place. The latter plainly ranges itself under the question now before us.

Since the time of Mede, interpreters have made additions to the stock of such analogies as will help to support the interpretation which makes one day the symbol of a year. Our first business, then, is to examine these alleged analogies.

I begin with those passages on which the most stress has apparently been laid, down to the present time. In Ezek. 4: 5, 6, the prophet represents himself as having received a command to "lie upon his left side 390 days, in order that so he might bear the iniquity of the house of Israel;" also to "lie upon his right side 40 days, in order to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah." It is then added expressly by divine monition: "I have appointed each day for a year," i. e. each day was the symbol of a year, in