observes, that the generality of expositors, both ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian, have referred the exploits of this second little horn to Antiochus Epiphanes " but this opinion has been so amply refuted both by himself and Sir Isaac Newton, that it would be superfluous for me to do more than barely mention that it has existed. I am inclined to think however, that these two eminent writers have been more successful in combating the formerly received interpretation, than in establishing their own. They both contend, that the little horn, is the Roman empire; and that it became the little horn of the he-goat by subduing Macedon and Greece: that this supposition is strengthened by the progress of the Roman conquests from Macedon; which, like those of the little horn, extended towards the south, the cast, and the pleasant land and that lastly it is decidedly established by the circumstance of the little horn being represented as standing up against the Prince of princes, as taking away the daily sacrifice, and as planting the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary, which our Lord himself refers to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans.

I readily allow, that these points of resemblance are very striking; nevertheless it will be found upon examination, that there are insuperable objections, principally of a chronological nature, to this exposition of the phecy.

pro

1. The first objection, that may be urged against it, is the improbability,that the same power, which in the former vision was represented under the symbol of a great and terrible beast, should now be described under that of only a little horn. In prophetic imagery there is to the full as exact a discrimination of ideas as in ordinary language; otherwise, as I have already sufficiently proved, there could be no definiteness and precision in any of the symbolical predictions. Accordingly we shall find, that au universal empire is never symbolized by a horn,† but

See Bp. Newton's Dissert. xv. and Pol. Synop. in loc.

It may perhaps be thought, that the great horn of the be-goat is an exception to this rule, inasmuch as it represents, not a kingdom springing out of the Macedonian empire, but the imperial dynasty of Alexander which presided over the whole empire. This objection however will vanish, when we consider, that,if a beast be described with

always by a beast; and, on the other hand, that a kingdom, springing out of such an empire when it comes to be divided, is never symbolized by a beast, but always by a horn. On these grounds, I can scarcely think it possible, that the Roman empire should be represented, in one vision, as a fourth distinct beast; and, in another, as only a little horn of the he-goat, which typifies the same power as the leopard, or third beast, of the former vision. I know, that Sir Isaac and Bp. Newton argue, that, when the Romans conquered Macedon, they became in that capacity a little horn of the third or Macedonian beast; while, in the mean time, so long as we consider them confined to Italy and the West, they are to be accounted a distinct fourth beast. But, if this mode of interpretation be allowable, the confusion, which it must introduce, will be endless: for, upon the same principle, as soon as the Greeks have conquered a single Persian province, we must begin, in a similar manner, to reckon them a horn of the second, or Persian beast: whence it will necessarily follow, that the two Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt being originally provinces of Persia, must for that reason be accounted horns of the same second beast; not, as they are represented by the prophet, horns of the third, or Macedonian beast.

2. Another objection against it is, that it renders Daniel liable to the charge of unvarying repetition. In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the history of the four empires is simply detailed, without the introduction, if I may use the expression, of any episodical matter. In the vision of the four beasts, the history of the same four empires is repeated, for the purpose of introducing the exploits of the little horn of the fourth beast. In the vision of the ram and the he-goat, the history of the second and third empires is again repeated, for the similar purpose of noticing in its proper place the tyranny of the only one born, that born must necessarily be identified with the beast itself; because, as the circumstance of there being more than one horn shews that the empire is in a divided state, so the circumstance of there being no more than one horn shews that the empire is in an undivided state. When a beast therefore has more horns than one, those borns typify kingdoms; but, when a beast has no more than one horn, it is evident, that that born cannot signify a kingdom, because the empire is yet undivided: it remains consequently, that the single born must be identified with the beast, and signify the dynasty by which he is governed.

........

third beast's little horn. And, in the last of Daniel's visions, a detailed account is given of the wars between the Greek kings of Syria and Egypt, and of the Roman conquests in the East, in order that we may be conducted in strict chronological succession to the super-eminent wickedness of the king, who was to exalt himself above every god. From this statement then it is evident, that, if the little horn of the he-goat or third beast be the Roman empire, the vision of the ram and the he-goat is a mere repetition of the greater part of the vision of the four beasts; the only additional circumstance that is mentioned being the sacking of Jerusalem, which itself is repeated in the subsequent vision, if we adopt the opinion, that the abomination or transgression of desolation, predicted by Daniel in each of these visions, signifies in both cases the Roman profanation of the Jewish temple. 3. The last and most serious objection however against the interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton and the Bishop is, that it cannot be reconciled with Daniel's chronological numbers. The prophet, as I have just observed, mentions the abomination or transgression of desolation in two successive visions; that of the ram and the he-goat, and that of the things" noted in the Scripture of truth :”* and he afterwards speaks of it yet a third time in connection with certain chronological numbers.† Now our Lord declares, that the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, relates to the sacking of Jerusalem and the authority of such an expositor of prophecy who shall presume to question? The state of the case then is, as follows: the phrase of abomination or transgression of desolation occurs three times in the book of Daniel : did our Lord mean to intimate, that, wherever it occurred in this book, it always related to the sacking of Jerusalem; or that it was only to be referred to that event in one or in two instances out of the three? This question must be resolved by a careful comparison of these several prophecies of Daniel with each other.

When Daniel speaks of arms, like those of a man, (an apt symbol of a powerful and warlike state,) standing up

VOL. 1.

Dan. viii. 13. and xi. 31.

20

+ Dan. xii. 11, 12,

after the days of the northern king of Syria, polluting the sanctuary, taking away the daily sacrifice, and setting the abomination that maketh desolate :* there cannot up be a doubt, but that by those nervous and mighty arms the Roman empire is symbolized; both because the eastern conquests of that republic followed the preceding events in regular succession of time, and because the subsequent events foretold in the prophecy followed the eastern conquests of Rome with the same chronological regularity. Hence we may safely conclude, that the abomination of desolation, there mentioned, is the abomination of desolation which our Lord applied to the Romans.†

Hitherto the subject is sufficiently clear: but we must now endeavour to determine, whether the transgression of desolation, connected with the little horn of the third beast or the he-goat, be the same as the abomination of desolation, set up by the warlike arms of the Roman empire in the temple of Jerusalem.

When Daniel mentions the abomination of desolation the third and last time, he merely attaches to it certain numbers, evidently speaking of it as a thing which he had already noticed in a preceding part of his prophecies. Such being the case, this last mentioned abomination of desolation must be the same as either the abomination of desolation, connected with the little horn of the he-goat; the abomination of desolation, set up by the arms of the Roman empire; or, lastly, as both these abominations of desolation, considered as one and the same. Sir Isaac Newton and the Bishop do conceive them to be one and the same for they maintain, that they both equally relate to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans, and their idolatrous worship of their standards within the very precincts of the temple.

If then they be the same, the last mentioned abomination of desolation must be the same likewise in other words, all the three abominations of desolation, predicted by Daniel, must be equally referred to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans; for we have already seen,

Dan. xi. 31.

The same Roman abomination of desolation is described, along with the destruction of Jerusalem, in Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks. See Dan. ix. 24-27.

that the last mentioned abomination must be the same as either the one, or the other, or both, of the two former abominations. But, if all the three abominations of desolation are to be considered as relating to one and the same event, namely, the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans; then the chronological numbers, attached to the last mentioned abomination, will be found perfectly to harmonize with the era of the siege of Jerusalem: for, if they do not harmonize with that era, the abomination connected with them cannot possibly relate to that era: and, if the last mentioned abomination, connected with those numbers, do not relate to that era, then neither can one out of the two former abominations relate to that era; inasmuch as the last mentioned abomination must be the same as either the one, or the other, or both, of the two former abominations of desolation.

These matters being premised, we will next consider how far the numbers, attached to the last mentioned abomination of desolation, will harmonize with the era of the siege of Jerusalem.

We are informed then by Daniel, that, at the end of a time, and times, and half a time, or 1260 years, the restoration of the Jews will commence; and that all the matters comprehended within the period of the wonders will be finished: that "from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1290 years" to some event or another, which however he does not specify and that "blessed is he, that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 years" after the time when the abomination of desolation shall be set up.

Such are the numbers, which the prophet has connected with the last mentioned abomination of desolation; numbers, which by no efforts of calculation can be made to harmonize with the era of the siege of Jerusalem. The capital of Palestine was taken by the Romans, and one of the abominations of desolation spoken of by Daniel was set up by them in the holy place, in the year of our Lord 70. The Jews however were certainly not beginning to be restored to their own country, neither were

* Dan. xii. 7, 11, 12.

Chronol of Univ. Hist. p. 369.