« PreviousContinue »
was grandson of Astyages king of Media ; and afterwards marrying the daughter and only child of his uncle Cyaxares, king of Media, be succeeded to both crowns, and united the kingdoms of Media and Persia. It was a coalition of two very formidable powers, and there fore it is said that the two horns were high : ' but one, it is added,
was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.' Persia was of little note or account till the time of Cyrus ; but under Cyrus the Persians gained and maintained the ascendant.” “ Bishop Chandler and others further observe,” says Bishop Newton, “ that rams' heads with horns, one higher and the other lower, are still to be seen on the pillars at Persepolis." “ The empire of the goat," says Bishop Newton further
on, was in its full strength when Alexander died of a fever at Babylon. He was succeeded in the throne by his natural brother Philip Aridæus, and by his own two sons Alexander Aegus and Hercules : but in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered, and then the first horn or kingdom was entirely broken. The royal family being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who bad usurped the power, assumed the title of kings; and by the defeat and death of Antigonus in the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, who parted Alexander's dominions between them, and divided and settled them into four kingdome. These four kingdoms are the four notable horns' which came up in the room of the first great horn ; and are the same as the four heads of the leopard' in the former. · Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in bis power:' they were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexander's own family, but only of his nation ; and neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion, as an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is
greater than any They were likewise to extend toward the four winds of heaven :' and in the partition of the empire, Cassander
held Macedon and Greece, and the western parts ; Lysimachus had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions ; Ptolemy possessed Egypt, and the southern countries ; and Seleucus obtained Syria, and the eastern provinces. Thus were they divided toward the four winds of heaven.' We have quoted thus largely from the work of Bishop Newton, because it is impossible to give a better description of the first portion of history typically narrated between v. 3 and 8 inclusively, than he has here done.
Having thus detailed the portion of past history prophesied of, it now remains for us to enter upon the interpretation of the latter part of the vision between verses 9 and 14 inclusively, which gives a somewhat less symbolical narrative of a portion of history yet to come to pass. And as this portion of the prophetical narrative contains the elements, or data, from which the date of 1847, the year of the return of the Jews to Palestine, according to some interpreters, is obtained, and which result we promised in our prospectus to prove erroneous, we entreat the best attention of the reader to the exposition which we are now about to lay before him.
“ And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed
of the parts.
exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land,"-le gloire, decus. This verse, paraphrased, will evidently stand thus : And out of one of the four kingdoms, into which the dominions of Alexander the Great were divided, there came forth a little horn, or power, which waxed exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glory. From this verse we merely learn, that the little horn arises in some part of the extensive dominions of the Emperor Alexander. This is quite sufficient proof, however, even if we had no other, that this little horn cannot, as Bishop Newton supposes, be the Romans, either in their imperial or papal capacity ; for their power arose within Italy, to which the dominions of Alexander the Great never extended. But we have another proof, which decides incontrovertibly against the Bishop's opinion, in that this little horn does not arise till the transgressors are come to the full, which they could not certainly be said to have done at the rise of the Roman commonwealth, long before the rejection and crucifixion of our Saviour by the Jews; nor not even then, — for we shall find, as we proceed with this exposition, that a nation professing and practising the true Christian faith, are to be punished by this same little horn for transgression. And here we may observe in passing, that this latter proof bears incontrovertibly, also, against those who suppose this little horn was to be explained of Antiochus Epiphanes. Though it is a widely extended locality which is assigned to the rise of this little horn, yet if we consider that this power is the same with the abomination that maketh desolate spoken of by Daniel the prophet, as we shall see in the course of this work many reasons for so doing, and that we are told, in Dan. xi. 31, that arms standing in Syria shall place the abomination that inaketh desolate, it may, perhaps, be concluded that it is in Syria that the little horn shall arisc. Supposing this, then, to be the case, it must of course be from Syria as a centre įhat he must extend his dominions. Now, the reader will remember, that in our compendious interpretation of Dan. xi., we pointed out, that, in relation to Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt were called the north and the south. One would think, then, that when this little horn extends bis dominions toward the south, his conquests must embrace the land of Judea and the city of Jerusalem, which lie south of Syria, and also Egypt, which was reckoned south again of Judea. How, then, can Jerusalem be again alluded to by the title of glory (le gloire, Jerus), when it is said the little horn waxed exceeding great toward the pleasant (le gloire, decus.) We are disposed to differ, therefore, from those commentators who assign the expression “pleasant” in our version, and “ le gloire” and “ decus” in the French and Tremellius's Latin versions, to the land of Judea, and to assign it to the kingdom of Great Britain, for the following reasons : lst, Because we have no mention made of the extension of the conquests of the little horn to the west, although it will appear, from an analysis of the seventeenth chapter of Revelations, that this little horn, wbich is the same power as the searlet-coloured beast described there, holds sovereign sway in the city of Rome, as the eighth head, or form of personal
executive of the Roman commonwealth ; which city, under the emblem of the woman upon the beast, is reckoned, in her title, the mother of the two Antichristian powers—the Harlot of Popery, and the Abomination that maketh desolate ; having on her forehead written, Mystery, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH : and it is evident that this little horn could not hold such a station, unless he had extended his conquests westward from Syria, or some part of the dominions of Alexander the Great. 2d, Because in Tremellius's version, immediately after “decus,” we have the word “ubi” beginning v. 10; as much as to say, that where the little horn waxed exceeding great toward “ le gloire,' decus," it waxed great against the host of heaven, which we shall afterwards shew to be the people of Great Britain. 3d, Because the Antichristian powers are to be destroyed at the battle of Armageddon, when they are assembled in battle array against our Saviour, Revelations, xix. 19, 20; consequently, “ decus,” or “ le gloire,” are expressions which cannot be applied to the Jewish nation, seeing that it continues reprobate until the first advent of our Saviour, whom they, returned to their country, shall acknowledge as Messiah, and mourn over as having pierced, Zechar. xii., and who shall fight upon their side. 4th, Because the kingdom of Great Britain is well entitled to the appellation of " le gloire" or " decus,” or glory, its people being pointed out in Rev. xiv., as we have shewn, as a nation set apart from the idolatrous errors of popery.— Nothing is mentioned of the conquests of the little horn towards the north; for if we consider him to be identical with the wilful king; whose narrative begins at chap. xi. 36, of Daniel, we shall see that he experiences, v. 40, considerable opposition from this quarter,—for it is there said, that “ tidings out of the east and out of the north sball trouble him : therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many."
Verse 10—" And [ubi] it (the little horn) waxed great to [or, against] the host of heaven [exercitum cæli] ; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.” It is a curious question to determine who this host of heaven, this “ exercitus cæli” is, some of whom are cast down by this little horn and stamped upon. Let us first see, in observance of our own precept, whether the interpreting angel gives us any light upon this point. All that we can gather from the angel is, that the king of fierce countenance, of whom this little horn is typical, “shall destroy the mighty and the holy people”-doubtless other designations of the same host of heaven. We have next to inquire whether there be any passages of scripture which may throw light upon this expression, “ host of heaven.” And now it will readily occur to the reader, that, in our exposition of Rev. xiv., we sbewed, as far as prophecy condescends to inform us of such things, that the British nation was pointed out as a people set apart from the abominations and errors of popery. They must, therefore, we think, be the host of heaven mentioned in this chapter. Let us see, now, if this conclusion will stand the test of reason : for, the prophecy being of the future, we have no other test of the truth of our interpretation to apply. Since this host of heaven are called by the angel “ holy people," we may justly infer that they must be a nation who maintained the true form of worship as set forth either in the Mosaic or Christian covenant. But to the Jews, ever since the preaching of John the Baptist, the expression cannot apply ; for the holy people are to be destroyed by this little horn, and we are expressly told that this power is not to arise till after the transgressors are oome to the full, which could not have been the case at the time of John the Baptist, seeing that the greatest transgression of the Jewish nation, the crucifixion of our Saviour, was not then perpetrated. The host of heaven, and the mighty and the holy people, must therefore either be some Gentile Christian nation, or the Jews after their return to the Holy Land. In our exposition of v. 9, however, we shewed that the Jews are a nation reprobate of heaven till the first advent of our Saviour, at which the Antichristian powers are to be destroyed ; and, therefore, could by no means have the title of “ holy” given them in the prophecies of sacred scripture antecedent to that date. Moreover, we shall find, from our exposition of v. 13, that an appointed time is given for both the sanctuary - the country in which the true faith had found an asylum ----and the people of that true faith, to be trampled under foot; and we are informed in v. 12, than an appointed time was given by reason of transgression on the part of the host. But the Jews, after their return from their captivity among the nations, we are told by Ezekiel, xxxvii. 31, shall transgress no more :-“ And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them unto their own land : and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel ; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions : but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them : so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd : they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them." — The only conclusion, therefore, which we are forced upon, by necessity, is, that the “host of heaven,” or the wholy people," must be some Gentile Christian nation, in which the true mode of Christian worship had found an asylum, or sanctuary ; which may truly be said of Great Britain, in which the Christian worship, in its purity from the errors of popery, had found protection.
“ Yea, he magnified himself to [or, against] the prince of the host," is interpreted by the angel," he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes,” which can be said of none other than our Saviour; for to none other than bim is this expression applied in the sacred scriptures. If we read, “ to the prince of the host," we shall find it said of the wilful king, in Dan. xi. 36, that he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god; and if we read, “ against the prince of the host,” we shall find in the same verse of Daniel, that the wilful king shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods : and, also, if the reader will turn to 2 Thessalonians, ii. 4, he will find that St Paul's man of sin, there prophesied of, “ exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” And if the reader will turn again to Rev. xvii. 14, he will there find, according to the angel's interpretation of the above passage in the eighth chapter of Daniel, that the scarlet-coloured beast, the false prophet, described in Rev. xvii., shall make war, alongst with his congregated and vassa! kings, with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them ; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings- the very title applied to our Saviour in the angel's interpretation.
“And by him the daily sacrifice [le continuel, jugis cultus] was taken away; and the place of its sanctuary [domieile, domicilium] was east down.” Our readers are well enough aware that the word “sacri
fice," in the expression “ daily sacrifice," has no word corresponding to it in the original, like many other words in the Bible printed in italics, to complete the sense of the English version. The word is introduced erroneously here, however, on a private opinion of the translators concerning the meaning of the word in the original translated in our Bibles “ daily," in the French version “ le continuel,” the continual, and in Tremellius's Latin “ jugis cultus ;” the word “cultus" being correctly added by Tremellius, to shew what substantive is understood after the adjective in the original, literally and truly rendered in the French Bible, “ le continuel." It must be understood, then, that the meaning of the word translated “ daily” in our version, is the constant form of true worship at the time it was taken away by the little horn. Now, the true worship, from the time that the law was promulgated to the children of Israel from Mount Sinai, till the preaching of St John the Baptist in the wilderness, was, as we observed, according to the Mosaic covenant, as unfolded to us in the Old Testament. From this latter period, till the restoration of the Jews to Palestine, when, according to Ezekiel, the offerings by burnt sacrifice shall supersede it
, the true worship bas been, and will be, the Christian covenant, as we have it in the New Testament ; so that ever since the delivery of the law from Mount Sinai, onwards till the end of time, there has constantly been, and will be, a true faith and a true worship
-a “jugis cultus.” Now, this “jugis cultus,” this continual worship, which was taken away by the little horn, could not have been according to the Mosaic covenant, or by daily offerings at the temple ; for this was not taken away by human power, but by the preaching of St John the Baptist, as we mentioned before. Neither can this “jugis cultus” be the worship appointed by Ezekiel to the Jews after their return to the Holy Land; for we are told, v. 12, that " an appointed time was given against ” this "jugis cultus,” “ by reason of transgression ;” and we are told by Ezekiel, xxxvii. 23, that after their return to Palestine, the Jews shall transgress no more. It necessarily follows, there