Page images
PDF
EPUB

all the matters which are comprehended within the period of the wonders finished, in the year 1330, or 1260 years after the sacking of Jerusalem nor is it easy to say what particular event, to which the prophet might possibly allude, happened in the year 1360, or 1290 years after the same epoch: nor yet shall we be able, without the exertion of extraordinary ingenuity, to point out the peculiar blessedness of living in the year 1405, or 1335 years after the Romans had set up the abomination of desolation in the temple and had taken away the daily sacrifice.*

Thus it is abundantly manifest, that the abomination of desolation last mentioned by Daniel, cannot possibly be the same as the abomination of desolation set up by the Romans, and alluded to by our Lord that is to say, it cannot be the same as the abomination of desolation, set up by certain symbolical arms, which were to invade the East, after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.† But, if it be not the same as the abomination of desolation set up by the symbolical arms of Rome, it must be the same as the abomination of desolation connected with the little horn of the he-goat for it is scarcely probable, that Daniel should speak of some third abomination of desolation, entirely distinct from the two former ones; and yet should give us no sort of intimation by whom this supposed distinct third abomination should be set up. If then the last mentioned abomination of desolation be the same as the abomination of desolation connected with the little horn of the he-goat, (and there is no other mentioned in the whole book of Daniel, excepting this, with which it can

The computation will answer no better even if it be made from the year 136, when Jerusalem was finally destroyed by Adrian. This event however certainly cannot be alluded to by our Lord; both because he declares that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel should stand in the holy place before that generation had passed away, and because he warns his disciples to flee from Jerusalem when they beheld it compassed with armies. Jerusalem accordingly was sacked before that generation did pass away; and the Christians, profiting by the prediction of their master, saved their lives by flight. These circumstances decidedly prove, that our Lord's prophecy relates to the days of Titus. See Matt. xxiv. 15—20, 34. and Luke xxi. 20-24, 32.

+ Bp. Newton very justly applies the three verses immediately preceding the mention of the symbolical Roman arms to the history of Antiochus Epiphanes: consequently the abomination, set up by these arms, must of course be posterior to the days of that tyrant. (See Dissert. xvii.) *And after him (Antiochus) arms shall stand up." Dan. xi. 31.

t

be identified) it will necessarily follow, that the little horn's ubomination of desolation must be something entirely distinct from the abomination of desolation set up by the symbolical arms: consequently, since the abomination of the little horn is not the same as the abomination set up by the arms, the little horn itself must be some power totally different from the power symbolized by the arms : but the arms are allowed by every commentator to symbolize the Romans, and no one ever yet doubted that the abomination which they set up is the very abomination alluded to by our Lord: therefore, finally, since the little horn is not the same as the symbolical arms, it certainly cannot be the same as the Roman empire in the East.

On these grounds, which to myself at least appear satisfactory, I am obliged to dissent in toto from the interpretation proposed by Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton. The eastern conquests of the Romans are very fully predicted in the eleventh chapter of Daniel's prophecies; but they cannot, for the preceding chronological reasons, be at all alluded to in the twelfth chapter and in the history of the little horn of the he-goat.

Before I dismiss this part of my subject, I cannot refrain from observing, that the force of Daniel's chronological numbers, which I have so largely insisted upon, has in a manner compelled Bp. Newton, notwithstanding his previous interpretation of the vision of the ram and the he-goat, to notice, among various other conjectures, what I am persuaded is the true exposition of the abomination of desolation connected with the little horn, as contradistinguished from the Roman abomination of desolation. "The setting up," says he, " of the abomination of desolation appears to be a general phrase, and comprehensive of various events. It is applied by the writer of the first book of Maccabees to the profanation of the temple by Antiochus, and his setting up the image of Jupiter Olympius upon the altar of God. It is applied by our Saviourt to the destruction of the city and

* Ver. 30, 31.

† 1 Mac. i. 54.

It is more than merely applied: our Lord expressly pronounces, that the approaching profanation of the temple by the Romans was the event intended by some one of the abominations of desolation mentioned by the prophet Daniel. The abomination to which our Lord alluded, is, as we have seen, that predicted in Dan. xi, 31.

........

temple by the Romans, under the conduct of Titus, in the reign of Vespasian.* It may for the same reason be applied to the Roman Emperor Adrian's building a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, in the same place where the temple of God had stood; and to the misery of the Jews, and the desolation of Judea, that followed. It may with equal justice be applied to the Mohammedans invading and desolating Christendom, and converting the churches into mosques: and this latter event seemeth to have been particularly intended in this passage. If this intepretation be true, the religion of Mohammed will prevail in the East the space of 1260 years: and then a great and glorious revolution will follow; perhaps the restoration of the Jews, perhaps the destruction of Antichrist: but another still greater and more glorious will succeed; and what can this be so probably as the full conversion of the gentiles to the Church of Christ, and the beginning of the millennium or reign of the saints upon earth? for, bless ed is he, that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 days.”‡

Mr. Kett, in his exposition of the vision of the ram and the he-goat, supposes the little horn of the he-goat or Macedonian empire primarily to mean the Mohammedan Apostacy of the East, and ultimately the Gallic Infidelity of the West. This opinion however he maintains, without wishing to invalidate the former applications of the prophecy both to Antiochus Epiphanes, and to the Romans. In short, unless I have entirely mistaken his meaning, the little horn of the he-goat was designed by the prophet to typify no less than four distinct powers; Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman empire in the East, the Mohammedan superstition, and the infidel republic of France.§ Had Mr. Kett confined the application of this symbol to the false religion of Mohammed, I could have given my hearty assent to his scheme: but unfortunately he has marred his whole exposition, by involving the prophecy respecting the little horn of the he-goat or third beast in the same perplexing confusion of primary and secondary and ultimate accomplishments, as he had previously done

*Matt. xxiv. 15.
+ Dan. xii. 11.
§ Hist. the Inter. Vol. 1. p. 346-359, 360.

Dissert. xvii.

that respecting the little horn of the fourth beast. So lax a mode of interpretation as this ought ever to be warmly protested against, because it utterly destroys all definiteness and precision in the sacred oracles. If the same prophecy may be construed to relate to so many totally different periods and events, we must bid an everlasting farewell to all certainty of exposition. So far as any knowledge is concerned that we can derive from a prophecy of such a nature, it must, so long as this world endures, remain to us a sealed book. Sir Isaac Newton and the bishop have amply refuted the opinion, that the little horn of the he-goat is Antiochus Epiphanes: and, how far their application of it to the Roman empire be tenable, the reader must judge for himself from what has been said upon that subject. As for Mr. Kett's conjecture, that it relates ultimately to the infidel power of France, it will be sufficient to observe respecting it, that a horn, which was to spring up in the East, can never be designed to typify a power, which has arisen in the West. In the right interpretation of prophecy it is not enough to discover mere partial resemblances, and thence to infer that such a symbol belongs to such an event: before we venture to decide, we ought to point out a perfect similitude between the type and its antitype, a similitude of such a nature as utterly to exclude all events which will not tally in every respect with the symbolical history under consideration. Thus, in the present instance, Antiochus Epiphanes has some features which very much resemble those of the little horn; but the period of his persecution cannot be accommodated either to the 2300 days mentioned in the vision of the ram and the he-goat or to the three prophetic periods of 1260, 1290, and 1335, days, specified towards the conclusion of Daniel's last vision, even if those days, contrary to the whole method of prophecy, be computed as natural ones: therefore the little horn cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes. So again the Romans have many features in common with the little horn, insomuch that the grand characteristic of both is designated by the very same phrase of setting up the abomination of desolation; yet the era of the sacking of Jerusalem can in no wise be reconciled

with the periods of 1260, 1290, and 1335, years: therefore the little horn cannot be the Roman empire.* Lastly, the impious wretches, who converted France into an atheistical democracy, have doubtless, like the little horn, waxed great against the host of heaven, have magnified themselves even against the prince of the host, and have cast down the truth to the ground; nevertheless, those hardened miscreants, Voltaire and his associates, did not arise in the East, but in the West, and the period of the French revolution can as little be accommodated to the prophetic numbers as either of the two foregoing periods: therefore French Infidelity cannot be the little horn.

I shall now endeavour to ascertain, what that power is, which alone is designated by this symbol.

Daniel informs us, in his account of the vision of the ram and the he-goat, that he heard a certain saint inquiring, "For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" The answer made to this question was," Unto two thousand and three hundred days;" or, as the Seventy read, "two thousand four hundred days," or as certain copies mentioned by Jerome read, "two thousand two hundred days: then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Bp. Newton doubts, whether these prophetic days are to be calculated from the establishment of the Persian empire, from the invasion of Asia by Alexander, or from the beginning of the history of the little horn. Whatever doubt there may be upon this point, and whatever difficulty there may be in ascertaining which of the three readings is the true one, I cannot but think it sufficiently evident, both that the 1260 days are a certain part of the 2300 days, and that these two periods exactly terminate together in the self same year. We are expressly told, that the vision of the ram and the hegoat, whenever it begins, reaches to the time of the end :†

I have already assigned other reasons, besides this chronological one, why it is scarcely probable, that the be-goat's little born should have been designed to symbol

ize the Romans.

"Understand, O son of man, for the vision shall reach even unto the time of the end it shall reach even to the appointed time of the end." Dan. viii. 17, 19.

« PreviousContinue »