an ex

niel, clap. x. 14, "to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days;" and, as if to give Daniel a hint at what portion of the narrative of chap. xi. these latter days come in, the angel adds, "for yet the vision for many days," or, literally, "for days," pression somewhat similar to what is used at the close of the narrative of the papal power in Dan. xi. 35, "for yet for a time appointed;" and we shall find, from several hints that we shall gather from our exposition of the eleventh chapter of the Revelations, that a period of 1260 years is yet to run under another Antichristian power, which days, succeeding to the papal days, may, in reference to them, be called the latter days. The reader will readily remember, that it was just such an expression which led us to conclude that power to be the papal, whose narrative lay between v. 32 and 35 inclusively, where it was said, that those who understood among the people should "fall by sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, days;" the papal period being the former, the second Antichristian period the latter days, in which some event should befall the people of the Jews.

There is yet another question regarding time connected with the prophetical narrative of chap. viii. the resolution of which has been a fertile source of error with many of the interpreters of prophecy, who have, very unthinkingly, obtained from the number 2300, in v. 14, a conclusion which led them to give out that the Jews would be restored to their own Holy Land in the year 1847. Those interpreters have erred, partly from misunderstanding the meaning of v. 13, partly from considering that that which the angel calls the vision, comprehends the whole narrative—as well that concerning the ram and he-goat, as that concerning the little horn; whereas we have shewn that what is called the vision by the angel, comprehends only the narrative of the little horn: but, in more than all, they have erred in mistaking the 2300, in v. 14, for days, to be interpreted, as in other places, years; whereas they are, in the original, only to be rendered evenings and mornings, or absolute days, as we shall confirm by the meaning of the text. Such heedless predictions, pretended to be derived from the interpretation of prophecy, throw great discredit upon the study of it, and those who have entered most deeply upon this will ever be the last to hazard them.

"Then I heard one saint speaking," says Daniel," and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days [evenings and mornings, literally]; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Of the different translations of these two verses which we have seen, we, upon the whole, prefer the English, the meaning of the question in which is evidently as follows: How long shall that portion of profane history be, in which that portion of the prophetic narrative shall be fulfilled which concerns the daily, or continual true religion, in which both the nation in which that true religion had found an asylum, and the people of that nation, shall be trodden under foot?

We are of opinion that this is the meaning of v. 13, because what is called the vision by the angel, concerns, as we have shewn, the rise, and character, and history of the little horn in general, and not one of the acts of that power in particular; and, therefore, the question of time is restricted by the saint to a particular act, viz. the giving the nation and people, from which the continual true religion had found protection, to be trodden under foot; and the answer given corresponds to this meaning of the question; for the saint says, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings, or absolute days. The reader will be sensible at once that the question asked here is different in its nature from the one which is asked by the angel of the man clothed in linen which was upon the waters of the river, in Dan. xii. 6 viz. "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders ?" for there two distinct points of time are implied by the connection of the word "to" with the question "how long." But neither the word "to" nor" till” have we in the question of v. 13; neither is it asked how long shall be the vision generally, but only, how long shall be that portion of profane history during which the people and nation shall be trodden under foot, which afforded protection to the continual true religion. And here we may observe, that although the close of this period is marked by an event, viz. the cleansing of the sanctuary or nation in which the continual true religion had found an asylum from the invading and polluting little horn, or Antichristian power, yet no event marks the beginning of that period. Between what two points of time the 2300 days of triumph of the little horn over the people and nation who had sheltered the true religion lies, we are, therefore, not given to know; and it would be useless to conjecture. It is proper, however, to point out the errors of others, that the Christian world may be undeceived in those idle and groundless hopes that some have so confidently called up. Allowing, then, that the 2300, or 2400 if they will have it so, are to be interpreted not days, but years,-allowing that the word in the original, translated in the English version "daily sacrifice," is significative of the worship by daily offerings at the temple, allowing that the sanctuary and host of v. 13 were the Jewish temple and the Jewish people, before the destruction of the former, and the banishment of the latter, by the Roman arms, — and allowing that the vision comprehends the whole narrative between v. 3 and 14 inclusively, how will interpreters make it out, that between the year 553 B. C., and the year 1847, the Jewish temple and Jewish people the sanctuary and the host-were trodden under foot for the space of 2400 years ? Why, the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 76 A. C., so that between that date and the year 1847, when it is, according to these interpreters, to be restored and cleansed, there are only 1771 years.

We are averse from cumbering this little condensed treatise with long extracts from the works of other interpreters of prophecy, merely for the purpose of refuting their errors; but as one of our purposes in writing this work was to undeceive our readers with regard to a result which has been widely communicated to the Christian world

through the work of the Rev. Edward Irving, about the return of the Jews to Palestine in the year 1847, we think it equally due to sour readers, and that gentleman, to let them hear him in his own words. "It is of so much importance that the Church be banished out of this incuriousness and doubting, concerning the revelation of exact times, which I resolve either into want of industry to study, or want of faith to receive, the divine admonition thereof, that at the risk of being thought prolix, and given to repetition, I shall, before I dismiss the subject, advert once more to the date of 2400 days, (according to the reading of the Septuagint,) given in the vision of the Ram and He-goat. The great end of which vision, as hath been often said, is the superstitions of Mahomed: but, as is usual, it is deduced by a chain of events, from the time of the prophet, down to the time when the false prophet prevails against the host of heaven, and takes away the daily sacrifice, and casteth down the truth to the ground. After which, for the rest of his actions, it is merely said, in two words, that the practised, and prospered.' Then to draw the greater attention to the matter of the time, it is put into the mind of one saint to inquire of another, ' How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?' The vision is, by the holy one, characterized, not by the battle of the ram and goat, or by the four horns which sprung up, or by the little horn which waxed so great, but by that which is its true character, the captivity and spoliation of the Church's honour and glory. And the question is, How long is the vision ? that is, Until how long is the vision? And the answer is, Unto two thousand and four hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.' Now, when one asks a question, How long? without defining a time, he is understood to mean from the time he asks; and when he is answered, For so long, he understands from the time when he is answered. And so we compute these 2400 days from the time when Daniel saw the vision, and heard the angels put and answer the question. If the question had been, How long shall he tread the sanctuary under foot? then we should have reckoned from the time he profaned and polluted it, as in the vision of the papal horn, when the period is given as the duration of his blasphemy and power. But the question being of the vision generally, and answered of the vision generally, without any such interposition of a commencing time, must, as hath been said, be taken from the time then present: that is, from the time at which the vision was seen- - that is, before Christ 553 years. From which, reckoning 2400 years, we arrive at the year after Christ, 1847; at which time the angel declares, Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.""

6

Instead of being banished out of its incuriousness and doubting, concerning the revelation of exact times, we would that the Church were banished from those idle and deceitful hopes which have been raised in its bosom by some interpreters of prophecy, who have set about expounding its oracles with such a careless spirit of inquiry, as totally to disregard the explanations of them which have been given

to their human authors by the very messengers of heaven themselves. It is to dispel these ill-timed hopes that we, who pretend to no learning, no theologic lore, have thought it worth our while, in vindication of God's Word, to throw together, into as clear an arrangement as we could, the various results that we could arrive at by a long continued and frequently reiterated perusal of those portions of the sacred text which bear upon the subjects which we have selected for our essay in exposition. But while we thus freely criticise the opinions of others, we do not arrogate freedom from error for our own. We throw them before the public to be as freely criticised as they may,-happy if, by the play of logical weapons, some sparks of truth may be hit fiery off.

Mr Irving here tells us, that the great end of the vision of the ram and he-goat is the superstitions of Mahommed. It is the little horn which Mr Irving understands to be typical, we presume, of Mahommed; for a horn is never typical of a superstition, but always of a power either personal or national. The power of the popes of Rome has been typified, as the reader well knows, in the seventh chapter of Daniel, by a little horn. But who, we would ask Mr Irving, have been the succession of men who have been the prototypes of this little horn, enforcing, by their earthly power, the worship of the Mahommedan superstition for upwards of a thousand years, in the same manner that the popes of Rome enforced the idolatrous worship and observances of popery? None-none. We defy Mr Irving to point them out. If Mr Irving understand by the sanctuary, the temple of Jerusalem, and by the daily sacrifice, the true mode of Christian worship, as he does; when, we would ask him, did Mahommed take away the true mode of Christian worship that had found a shelter in Jerusalem; or when did the daily sacrifice, as he understands it, ever find a shelter in that city? Does Mr Irving not know that the nation of the host of heaven, in which the true form of the Christian worship had found an asylum, must be some Christian nation? We would also ask when Mahommed cast down the Jewish sanctuary, which was razed to the ground long before his day? Mr Irving knows, that ever since the temple and city of Jerusalem were destroyed and sacked by the Roman arms, they could not, in the language of prophecy, be called a sanctuary, any more than since that time the Jewish people could be called the host of heaven. The little horn, too, we are told in v. 24, "shall destroy the mighty and the holy people ;" but what mighty and holy people did Mahommed ever destroy?

"But, as is usual," continues Mr Irving, "it [the vision] is deduced by a chain of events, from the time of the prophet, down to the time when the false prophet prevails against the host of heaven, and takes away the daily sacrifice, and casteth down the truth to the ground." So the vision, if we understand Mr Irving's words aright, is deduced by a chain of events, from the time of the prophet Daniel, in the year 553, to the time when the false prophet Mahommed prevails against the host of heaven, in the year 606. If Mr Irving understands by the vision the whole of the prophetic narrative between v. 3 and 14 respectively, then surely it is deduced, not only down from the time of

the prophet, or the year 553 B. C., to the time when the little horn is set up, or when Mahommed prevails against the true religion, but down to the very last acts of the little horn, or of Mahommed-down to the time when the sanctuary at Jerusalem is to be cleansed, as Mr Irving has it, in the year 1847. And if Mr Irving will make a chain of the events in the vision, we do contend that it must be a broken chain, with a vast hiatus in its middle- -a great number of its links awanting. We do think that if Mr Irving had made two chains of the events, he would have been much more germane to the matter. In the year 301 B. C. was the battle of Ipsus fought, when the dominions of Alexander were divided among his four lieutenants; and in the year 608 a.c. did Mahommed begin to propagate his superstition: so that here is a gap of no less than upwards of nine hundred years in Mr Irving's chain of events nearly of half its whole length, even if it extended from the time of the prophet Daniel in the year 553, down the stream of time till the year 1847-farther than Mr Irving has here supposed it.

"Then to draw the greater attention to the matter of the time," proceeds Mr Irving, "it is put into the mind of one saint to inquire of another, 'How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?' The vision is, by the holy one, characterized, not by the battle of the ram and goat, or by the four horns which sprung up, or by the little horn which waxed so great, but by that which is its true character, the captivity and spoliation of the Church's honour and glory." Now, we appeal to the common sense of every one of our readers, whether the angel characterizes the vision at all in v. 13, but merely asks how long shall be that portion of profane history fulfilling the portion of the prophetical narrative, in which the sanctuary and the host shall be trodden under foot. The vision of the little horn is a prophetic narrative of the acts of a power, of which that little horn is typical, and the treading of the sanctuary and the host under foot are only two of the acts of that power; but these two acts having relation to the true Church of God—the sanctuary and the hosta question of time concerning them is asked in particular. If the vision of the little horn is characterized at all by any of the angelic personages that appear, it is so by Gabriel, when he tells Daniel that at the time of the end shall be the vision and if Mr Irving had attended to this character of it, he would never have thought of interpreting the little horn to be Mahommed, since he himself makes the time of the end to commence at the year 1792-(see page 272 of his work.)

"And the question is, How long is the vision? that is, Until how long is the vision? And the answer is, Unto two thousand and four hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.' Now, when one asks a question, How long? without defining a time, he is understood to mean from the time he asks; and when he is answered, For so long, he understands from the time when he is answered." We are sorry to be under the necessity of bringing an imputation or charge of disingenuousness against Mr Irving, but really he has here

K