THE BOOK OF DANIEL. A CRITICAL COMMENTARY BOOK OF DANIEL Eev. ALEXANDER ARTHUR, AUTHOR OF "commentary ON THE APOCALYPSE."' EDINBURGH: NORMAN MACLEOD, 7 NORTH BANK STREET. 189 3. PREFACE. My chief object in this work has been to satisfy my own mind, and, of course, that of others, whether or not this book is really a portion of Holy Scripture, or what grounds rationalists have for their attacks upon it. For this purpose I have carefully examined the text, and many commentators, and I here give the results. I claim the credit of rejecting the notion that the first six chapters are historical, for the simple reason that it is not true. They are not the history of any person, certainly not of Daniel, who occupies only a secondary place in them. I suppose also I am the first to refute Porphyry and modern rationalism ; the refutation is so simple and conclusive that if it had ever been observed it could hardly have been lost. I am indebted to Sir Isaac Newton and Faber for the correct interpretation of the eighth chapter and much of the eleventh, but I suppose I am original in regard to the Crusades and the great trouble of the Reformation. I have to thank those who have kindly lent me books, but my special thanks are due to my subscribers, without whose aid I should not have thought of vi Preface. printing, perhaps not of writing. They are not so numerous as I expected, but they have induced me to accomplish what I reckon a great work, in showing rationalism is not infallible, but a mere delusion so far as Daniel is concerned. A. A. 20 EoTAL Park Tfrrace, Edinburgh, 1893, SUBSCRIBERS. Eev. James Mitchell, D.D., South Leitl), Eev. James Fraser, A.M., Manse of Culvend, . J. A. Campbell, Esq., M.P. for Glasgow University, . G. K. Hardie, M.D , Ealing, W., London, A. M'Adam, Esq., Birkenhead, Sir John N. Cuthbertson, Chairman Glasgow S.B., John Cowan, Esq., Beeslack, .... James Cowan, Ex-M P., Edinburgh, Eev. David Johnston, D.D., Orkney, . Eev. A. Williamson, "West St. Giles, Edinburgh, Eev. John Glasse, Old Greyfriars, do., Eev. George Matheson, D.D., St. Bernard's, do., Charles S. Dicks'n, Efq, Advocate, do., Alexr. Asher, Esq., Q C, M.P., Solicitor-General, Edin., Sir Chas. Pearson, Q.C., M.P., late Lord Advocate, do., Dr John Kerr, H.M. Inspector of Schools, do , C. M. Isbister, Efq., ..... Eev. David Kilpatrick, Free Manse, Newhaven, Eev. James M. Scott, Junction St. U.P. Church, Leith, E^v. J. W. King, Manse of New Kilpatrick, . Eev. Professor Flint, Edinburgh, Eev. E. H. Muir, late of Dalmeny Eev. P. M'Adam Muir, Morningside . Eev. Dr. "Webster, late of Cramond, Eev. John Hutcheson, D.D., Bonnington U.P. Church, Leith, ...... Eev. Arch. Scott, St George's, Edinburgh, Eev. A, "Wallace "Williamson, St Cuthbert's, , Eev. Dr James MacGrrgor, Moderator of General Assembly, . . . . . .000 Eev. "William Balfour, D.D., Holyrood Free Church Manse, . . . . . .050 £1 () 10 10 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 t> 5 5 5 f) Vlll Subscribers. Rev. James Sharp, Inveresk, Rev. George Davidson, Kinfauns Manse, Rev. Robert Blair, St Johu'f, Edinburgh, Rev. Thomas Millar, Redbraes, Broughton Road , W. D. Carstairs, Esq., Leith (deceased), John Rae, Esq., Fife, .... Thomas Jackson, Esq., Edinburgh, W. T. Dickson, Esq., Edinburgh, Sheriff Cheyne, Edinburgh, William Hogben, Esq., Inland Revenue, Miss Hogben, Leith, .... Miss Greenshiels, Leith, 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 £14 1 Professor Blackie. Edmund Baxter, W.S. John Dick, Esq., Minto Street (deceased). John Dodds, Esq., Edinburgh. Rev. Thomas Burns, Lady Glenorchy's. Rev. Charles M'Gregor, Lady Yester'?. Rev. Thomas White, Canongate. Rev. John F. W. Grant, St Stephen's. Rev. Andrew Thomson, D.D., Broughton Place U.P. Church. Rev. John M'Ewan, John Knox's Free Church. Rev. James Williamson, Dean. Rev. Dr Thorburn, South Leith. Rev. John Crawford, Abercorn Manse. Rev. John Ritchie, Portobello. THE BOOK OF DANIEL. INTEODUCTION. I CAN hardly imagine anything more important, both for preachers and hearers, than a full assurance that any portion of Scripture is really a part of the Word of God. The Apostle writes to Timothy, " From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation " (and this is surely the great end both of preaching and hearing), and then he adds : " All Scripture (is) given by inspiration of God, and (is) profitable for doctrine," &c. The reader will see that the substantive verb is twice supplied here (Old Version), but the Revised Version thinks to improve upon it by saying, " Every Scripture inspired of God (is) also profitable." This supplies (is) only once after God, and changes and into also. The literal Greek is, " (All or) every Scripture inspired of God and profitable." Now, the natural place for the substantive verb is surely after Scripture, if used only once. And so a minority of the Revisers have thought, for they put it in the margin thus: " Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable." Peter in like manner says, " The prophecy came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spake, moved by the Holy Ghost." The Revised Version is substantially 2 hitroduction. the same, "for no prophecy ever came by the will of man ; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." It appears therefore that the Scripture that makes " wise unto salvation " must be connected with God through men moved by the Holy Ghost. I have no doubt my reader has heard that very able and learned men in Germany and elsewhere, have for some time back been finding great fault with the Scriptures which Timothy had known from a child, and found no fault with ; but I am concerned at present only with this book of Daniel, and I beg to quote a few sentences from Moses Stuart, which make the case before us plain enough. "The objections made to the genuineness of the book are numerous, and are urged with great confidence and earnestness, by nearly the whole corps of theological critics. ... Or (to use another of the decent comparisons that have lately been made), it will take its j^lace, with general acquiescence, along with Amadis de Gaul and Jack the Giant Killer." Again, "If we are to believe the mass of recent critics, the book of Daniel is a supposititious work — a romance forged during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes — how then came Christ to appeal to, and to treat Daniel as a true prophet ? . . . The answer to these and the like questions is, that * a miracle is an impossibility ; that if Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus, a miraculous inspiration must be conceded, and therefore it could not have been written so early as the book pretends.' " He also states, I believe correctly, " Nothing of testimony against the genuineness of the book, by competent and cognizant witnesses of ancient times, has been or can be produced. From the time in which it made its appearance down to the last quarter of the eighteenth century, among Jews and Christians, the Introduction. 3 l)Ook held a uniform and undisputed rank as a genuine book. No one, except men like Porphyry, who rejected all the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, rose up to call it in question." These quotations seem to me to speak for themselves. The assertion that the book is a forgery of a late date, and that a miracle is impossible, should surely require some proof, but I have met with none that make the least impression on my mind ; and yet I cannot accuse Stuart of exaggeration. Professor Reuss says, if the book was not written by Daniel, " It must be a literary fraud." Also, Dr Pusey says, " It is either divine or an im- posture. But the case as to the book of Daniel, if it is not his, would go far beyond even this. The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God words which were never uttered, and miracles which are assumed never to have been wrought. In a word, the whole book would be one lie in the name of God." I fear both preachers and people must have uneasy consciences if they suppose that these liostile sentiments extensively prevail. The people are apt to think that their ministers do not believe their texts, or a word of what they preach, but that they use the pulpit only as a means of raising money ; while the preachers may suspect that the people do not trust them. I hope that will be thought a sufficient justification of an attempt like the present to ascertain the truth on such an important question ; and this can only be done by a careful examination of the whole book. Stuart ably defends its genuineness as the work of Daniel, written at the time and place it professes ; but I am free to confess that I would as soon think of defending the inspiration of Amadis de Gaul as of Stuart's inter- pretation of Daniel, so that a correct interpretation must 4 Introduction. lie at the root of the whole mater. This, therefore, I shall attempt. All the chapters of this book are distinctly dated except the third and fourth, but these can be guessed at with sufficient nearness. I may divide the book into four parts, revealed and written at different times, but all essential to the completeness of the great pre- diction. The last three chapters clearly form a part by themselves, revealed and of course written in the third year of Cyrus, two years after the restoration, and four years after the ninth chapter in the first of Darius, This I consider the FOUETH PART, containing a rapid review of much that was previously revealed in the former chapters. But the foundation of the whole is the wonderful dream sent, not to Daniel, at least in the first instance, but to the pagan King of Babylon. It is chronologically first, in the second year of the reign of ISTebuchadnezzar, and the first chapter is a necessary preface or intro- duction, written nearly seventy years later, in the first year of Cyrus. The particulars about the captives of Judah, that were well-known at the time of the dream,, must have been generally forgotten after two generations, and hence the necessity for the first chapter. But a better reason for it still, is that Daniel must now have seen that it was a heavenly prophecy of great interest to the people of God in every age. This I reckon the FIRST PART, wliich dififers very widely from The SECOND PART, in the third and following chapters,, where religious persecution begins with great violence. The great King, having amassed much gold, wishes to carry out that curse of humanity, uniformity of religion in his whole empire ; and commands all his princes and rulers to fall down and worship his great golden image,. Introduction. 5 on pain of being cast into a fiery furnace. This is a stretch of power offensive to heaven and inconsistent with the religion of the Jewish captives. It is quite compatible with the principles and practice of paganism, but subversive of the entire ground of the call and covenant of Abraham. It is upholding the sin of idolatry, for which the Jewish people are now in bondage. It is the first grand colhsion of the religion of Abraham with the paganism of the neighbouring nations, unless we suppose something similar to have taken place in Egypt. The God of Heaven had given Nebuchadnezzar a secular kingdom, and great dominion even over the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven, but no religious authority — no power to inter- fere with the religion, or coerce the consciences of his subjects, so that the third chapter shows a clear attempt to overstep his heavenly commission. This is a great sin against the consciences of men and the honour of God, and must not escape without condign punishment, which we see in the fourth chapter. The immediate consequence is the King's seven years' insanity, and the remote consequence is that the civil rulers are converted into beasts of prey, as in the seventh chapter, where the mysterious little horn is allowed to wear out the saint of the Most High for three-and-a-half times. But the extreme wickedness of this little horn will be punished by another little horn nearly as bad as itself, revealed in the eighth chapter. The remaining three chapters I consider PART THIRD, which still show the result of Nebuchadnezzar's sin, aggravated by that of his son or grandson in the profanation of the fifth chapter. The reading of the hand-writing on the wall brings Daniel into the notice of Darius, who in that night succeeds to the Empire over Babylon, now called 6 Introduction. that of the Medes and Persians, which shows the dominion passing from the gold to the silver part of the great Colossus, and chapter six shows that Persia is a wild beast persecuting the conscience, as well as Babylon. The ninth chapter shows the final downfall of old Judaism, and the rise of Christianity in its stead. These three chapters, containing two great events and one prophecy, Belshazzar's feast and the Lion's den, and the revelation of the Advent of King Messiah, all take place within a few months of each other. The fourth part contains a further development of all that had gone before, and brings down the prophecy to our own day. Each part has a particular subject to itself, and all combine into one magnificent whole, the greatest prophecy in existence, and a fine specimen of the phil- osophy of history. All this will be brought out in the Commentary, which, if correct, proclaims its own divinity. I have followed the chronology in putting the seventh and eighth chapter before the fifth. This division into four parts is strictly chronological and much more natural than the usual six chapters of history, and other six of prophecy, which is clearly in- correct ; for if the seventh chapter be prophecy, the second must be prophecy also, for they are substantially the same ; and besides, the second chapter is the foundation of the whole book of Daniel, as well as of the Apoca- lypse. The bulk of the ninth chapter is a prayer, not a prophecy ; and the tenth chapter is a vision, and not a prophecy either. Some may think this a small cor- rection, but I do not, for it shows how slovenly the book has been studied ; while it is the model of the whole interpretation of certain authors, who go on as they begin, with complete misinteriDretation. PART FIHST. CHAPTER I. This chapter is peculiar : it begins with the siege of Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim — the beginning of the Captivity — and it ends with the first of Cyrus, the end of it, embracing a duration of seventy years. It could not have been written till the date it bears, and therefore I call it the Editor's preface, written after the following eight chapters by Daniel himself. No one else could tell us what Daniel " pur- posed in his heart " (ver. 8). He requested " that he might not defile himself." So '•' tender love " suggests the Editor. The whole shows a profound respect for CONSCIENCE, and a strict puritanical hatred or dread of idolatry, and no wonder. It was the want of regard to conscience that led to all the idolatry of the past history of his nation, and brought on this terrible ruin of his country and sanctuary, and the misery of his people referred to in the ninth and tenth chapters. With the frankness and ardour of youth he rushed into the opposite extreme, and had influence enough with his three companions to lead them to do the same. We see in the third chapter how they profited by his teaching and example. They faced the fiery furnace without dismay. They had faith in the God of their Fathers, that He w^as able to deliver them, but they were 8 Part I. not sure that He would deliver. Tins only they were certain of, that they could die for their faith and the law of their God. " They loved not their lives unto the death." Such teaching and conduct showed them young men of genuine principle, which their fore- fathers so much wanted. They saw the long con- tinued and aggravated guilt of their nation, which personally they determined to avoid. After this notice of their preferring pulse to all the fine meats and drinks of the king's table, and that for conscience sake, we need not wonder at the success of their studies. These men must have achieved success in whatever they tried. The paragraphs are correctly marked in our common English bibles. First two verses contain the siege and capture of Jerusalem, the only civil history I remember in the whole book ; vers. 3-7, the King's private instruc- tions about the captives to the master of his household ; vers. 8-16, the young men's temperance to avoid even the approach of any idolatrous pollution; vers. 17-20, the success of their studies, which they, or rather Daniel, ascribes to God (ver. 17), "God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom ;" and the last clause prepares us for the next chapter. " Daniel had under- standing in all visions and dreams," which some of the magi cultivated. The twentieth verse is obviously written from memory, ten times being proverbial for many times, and was possibly used by the King himself ; for the only time the King is said to " enquire of them in matters of wisdom and understanding" is in this passage, when they seem to have obtained their M.A. degree. "In all his realm," clearly refers to the King himself, and if so, it excludes all appearance of boasting. Mr Fuller, author of Daniel in the Speaker's Com- mentary, remarks on ver. 21, in an abridgment called Chapter I. 9 the Students' Commentary : " The verse (like Deut. xxxiv. 5), is probably an addition by a later hand." Now, I deny that there is the slightest probability of anything of the kind. The whole chapter seems written from memory, and the work of the Editor ; and I cannot protest too strongly against any attempt to poison the minds of inexperienced students by suggesting that the verse is not genuine. His only ground for it, the pre- tended analogy of Deuteronomy, is no analogy at all, for the one is the death and burial, the other is the life of the person mentioned ; but no one was ever so simple as to suppose that any man could write his own death and burial. These last verses of Deuteronomy are clearly the work of "a later hand," but, in Daniel's case, it is totally different, a mere proof of modesty where the whole six chapters are written in the third person. Besides, the same statement is made in chap. vi. 28 : *' So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian." The first chapter is written in Hebrew, and the sixth in the vernacular of Babylon, and the writer seems to be the same. On this last verse Fuller remarks, " The verse is a note of time — whether added by Daniel himself or not is not material." Now, I maintain it is very material whether it is the work of the author, and therefore genuine, and whether it is an interi^olation by a strange hand, and perhaps false ; but these rational- ists are unwearied in falsifying the text, even in small matters, which they expect to escape notice ; and then they blame the author for their own misinterpre- tations. We shall meet more of this as we go on. But this is not all. This name Cyrus occurs a third time in this book. Chapter tenth begins, " In the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia," this clause is obviously used lo Part I. simply as a date two years later. Does be say this was " probably by a later hand " ? If Daniel could write in the third year of Cyrus, why not in the first ? On this clause, he says, "Daniel remained at Babylon instead of returning to 'the city of Jerusalem, the holy mountain;' he was very old, and unfit for the journey ; he may further have felt that by remaining in exile he would be of greater service." The first reason is quite probable, and the second implies that Daniel was there living and able to write it himself, but he was a captive, and hardly his own master. If he could write that date, why could he not write the same two years earlier ? Let the reader carefully examine the date, chapter i. 21 : " Daniel continued, (literally, was) unto 3^ear one of Cyrus the King." Now, observe was or continued is a broken and imperfect sentence : was what ? What was Daniel taken to Babylon to do ? " To stand before the King." In chapter viii. 27, he says, "I Daniel fainted, and was sick for days ; afterwards I rose up, and did the King's business." That tells us what he was, and continued "doing." Can the reader think now that chapter i, 21, "is probably an addition by a later hand " ? He adds, " his age in the third year of Cyrus would be about eighty-five. He may have lived some years after this ' third year ' with unabated mental power, like Moses." Then what was to hinder him to write a date two years before ? It may be proper to mention another fact that Mr Fuller ought to have known. The fifth chapter is about Belshazzar and the hand- writing on the wall, and concludes — [" In that night was Belshazzar King of the Chaldeans slain, and Darius the Median took the kingdom, (chapter vi.). It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty princes who I Chapter 1. 1 1 should be over the whole kingdom ; and over these^ three presidents ; of whom Daniel was first. — Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him, and the King thought to set him over the whole realm. Then the presidents and princes sought occasion against Daniel."] This led to the lions' den, which was intended to destroy Daniel, but which only exalted him the more,^ so the chapter concludes thus — ["thus Daniel prosj)ered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cj^'rus the Persian "]. Now, if the reader is of opinion, as I am, that these two chapters were written before the first, the fifth in the jirst of Darius, and the other in the first of Cyrus, after the lions' den, the deficiency of the first chapter is easily supplied. " This Daniel continued [to prosper] unto the first year of Cyrus the King." The reader may think I have spent too much time on such an insignificant subject, but I was anxious that no reasonable doubt or objection should rest against the first chapter. Besides, I have not merely silenced Mr Fuller's rash insinuation, but I have refuted the equal rashness of Spinoza, Hobbes, and Sir Isaac Newton about the authorship, quoted in my prospectus, of two or more authors to the book ; and all the rubbish of German rationalism about eight, nine, or ten authors. If Daniel wrote the first, fifth, sixth, and three last chapters, he must certainly have written the other six, as will soon appear. This shows the complete unity of the book, and that even wise men may show themselves foolish when they express groundless opinions about books they have not studied sufficiently. There is a clear chronological difficulty here, whether there was time for the three years of study between the third of Jehoiakim 1 2 Part I. and the second of Nebuchadnezzar, but I am not concerned about that matter at present. I only wish to ascertain the nature of the documents on which the theory of Porphyry and his followers is founded, for they admit that the external or historical evidence for the truth and inspiration of this book is overwhelming, having been handed down by the Old Jewish Church to the Christian, and undisputed for eight hundred years till the end of the third century, when Porphyry, an apostate Jew I suppose, who had become a Pagan by embracing the religion of the State, saw how Christianity was encroaching on Paganism notwithstanding all its persecutions, and resolved to do his best to injure it. He was not made of the metal for a martyr, but he had , good talents and learning, malice and envy, and the deliberate purpose to triumph over it. This will prepare us for prejudice and misrepresentation. Modern critics, however, have no such excuse, but they are generally men of such learning and importance that they cannot well be ignored ; and they allege they find something in the book itself that excites their suspicion, and hence the different verses and their correct inter- pretation must be carefully examined, to enable us to judge whether they are a series of fictions, as many moderns profess to believe, or the genuine works of the great prophet whose name they bear. A learned professor of Strasburg, who does not believe in the authenticity, puts the case very clearly thus : " Up till the last century, Jews and Christians have accepted this history of Daniel as authentic, and above all susjDicion. The objections of Porphyry, coming from a Pagan, were not thought worthy of a serious refutation. ... As the author wishes positively to pass for the prophet Daniel, who lived at Babylon during the exile, under King Chaptei' I. 13 Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, up to the time of Cyrus, his book, if not authentic, is necessarily supposi- titious, and we are in presence of a literary frauds Our task, the reader can hardly fail to see, is one of great nicety and importance, and I do not suppose any one will take exception to our remarks, so far as we have gone. Dr Zockler, the learned author of the article Daniel in Lange's Commentary, holds similar views about the time of the writing of the first and second chapters, though he does not seem to see the importance of the date. He calls the 21st verse the "preliminary conclusion of the Introduction" (p. C2). And again, " the copula (and) probably indicates that verses 1-4 were written immediately after chapter i., and doubtless for the purpose of connecting this introductory section more closely with the Chaldean fragment, chapter ii. 4-49, which, together with the narratives in Chaldee that follow, may have already existed" (p. 68). Still further, (p. 17) " the contrast between the use of the Hebrew in the introductory and the five closing chapters, and of the Chaldee in chapters ii. - vii., . . . the latter sections seem to have been reduced to writing at an earlier 'period than the former. They were probably recorded during the Chaldean supremacy. The note in chapter i. 21, implies the later composition of the introduction, but more especially that the Chaldee fragments, without exception, convey the impression that they were recorded immediately after the events to which they relate." These, I have said, are my views, and I consider them of some importance. The use of the Hebrew will be noticed afterwards. T4 Part I. CHAPTEE II. [ " And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchad- nezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled."] The first and second chapters being united by and, are evidently intended by the Editor to be taken as one section ; and the first three- and-a-half verses, written in Hebrew, at the same time as the preface, introduce the dream scene. These dates are all famous and worthy of notice. Chapter i. 1 is the commencement of Israel's terrible punishment in the Babylonian exile ; ver. 2 1 is the date of their deliver- ance ; and chapter ii. 1 is the date of the most wonderful dream the world contains. It is clearly a divine dream, if true, and no one has any right to say it is not true, without very clear evidence. Not merely is the dream divine, though sent to a heathen king, but his anxiety to know its meaning is also the work of the inspiring Spirit, and is a kind of pledge of its truth ; for the words of the King, that " his spirit was troubled," are the same as those used by Pharaoh, whose dreams were true. This first verse by Daniel is founded on the King's own words in the third verse, addressed to the Chaldean wise men whom he had summoned to his aid ; and in the next verse the transition is made to the original document and to the ordinary Chaldean language, which we translate Syriac (Aramaic). It may be proper to notice that Professor Reuss professes to discover here a chronological mistake which is entirely of his own making, but that is the grand stock-in-trade of his friends. He says on " second year," '' A manifest con- tradiction with the chronology of the first chapter." Chapter II. i c That is not " maDifest," nor true. Does he mean, as some do, that Nebuchadnezzar is called King when he was only the general of his father's army perhaps ? No one knows the relations between himself and his father, the old King of Babylon ; but Goldsmith in his history of Rome remarks, " Octavius Caesar, afterwards called Augustus, as we shall henceforth take leave to call him, though he did not receive the title till long after." So if Daniel called his old and valued friend of forty years, nearly thirty years after his death, by the old and familiar title of " King of Babylon " while his father was living, is that enough for any man of sense to convert into a manifest blunder. But Eeuss does not stop there. He thinks he has got something useful, and adds, " the three years' study of Daniel is not reckoned." We are all ignorant of the chronology of the period, and it is too much to pretend to know better than Daniel living on the spot twenty-five centuries ago. He knows no reader of sense will suspect Daniel of either ignorance or falsehood, but he wishes to suggest it is not Daniel who writes this, but some impostor in the age of the Maccabees, who was really ignorant of the ch°ronology. This is a questionable mode of persuading the inexperi- enced reader that the book is a forgery, " a literary fraud." ^ Surely he should prove his contradiction first, but this he cannot do, so he takes the easier way of asserting it, hoping the ignorant reader will take his word for it. He goes on : " Ought we not to admit that the three years were not yet passed, and Daniel not yet in the caste of the magi." Certainly not, for that would be " a manifest contradiction," and then his life could have been in no danger, as no one would have "sought him to be slain." I think it necessary to warn the reader of these groundless insinuations. Who told 1 6 Part I. him that Daniel was ever admitted into any caste ? The book does not say so. He was only enrolled among the wise — the learned. Reuss does not write like one in search of truth, but to support his theory of the book being a fiction. There is no "chronological contradiction,"' but only a difficulty which commentators explain differ- ently, and rationalists take advantage of this ignorance and confusion. In the first chapter Reuss refers us to Jeremiah xxv., which says the battle of Carchemisb was fought in the fourth of Jehoiakim, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar ; still there is no contradiction, for Daniel does not mention Carchemish. But it* is possible, and perhaps natural, to suppose that Nebuchad- nezzar came to Jerusalem after the battle at Carchemish on the Euphrates, between Jerusalem and Babylon. Still we do not know this ; nor the day nor month from which either Daniel or Jeremiah reckons. We know there was a time of confusion after Josiah's death, for " the people of the land " would not allow Jehoiakim, the oldest son, to reign, but appointed his brother Jehoahaz who reigned three months, till Pharaoh-necho heard of it, and then deposed him, and made the older brother King. That would involve an interregnum of five or six months, so that Jeremiah in Palestine might begin his reign with the death of Josiah, when he should have reigned, and Daniel in Babylon with his actual reign when the fourth year of the one would only be the third of the other. Besides, Jeremiah does not mention Nebuchadnezzar's reign, so he might mean his first invasion of Palestine, which it certainly was ; and we know he went to Egypt and spent we know not how much time there before he heard of his father's death, and his reign might not begin officially till some time after he reached Babylon. Daniel's studies would begin at Jerusalem, for he could Chapter II. 1 7 learn the language on the way to Babylon, and the dream might be in the end of Nebuchadnezzar's second year ; so that if little more than a year was spent in connection with Egypt, or before Nebuchadnezzar's official reign, there was ample time for the three years' study, and upon such a narrow foundation does Reuss's manifest contradiction depend. Keil, Zockler, Fuller, Strong, &c., explain it differently, but none find a contradiction. Reuss also refers to Jeremiah xxxvi., where, in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, Jere- miah threatens this King with a visit of the King of Babylon to destroy the city and temple. So Reuss wants his readers to infer that Daniel is wrong about the third year, but that does not follow. Could he not come twice, as he actually did ? These discussions are very dry work, but as my chief object is to ascertain the true meaning of the book, and to defend it from the groundless attacks of rationalism, I must notice another objection of Reuss. " These young Jews are considered hy the author as admitted into the number of the magi of Babylon ; but this was a noble, indigenous caste to which strangers were not admitted." Nebuchadnezzar ordered these young Jews to be taught the language and literature of Babylon, but not to be admitted into any caste. After their three years' successful study they were numbered with the luisc men, but we hear nothing of being made astrologers, sorcerers, magicians, or Chal- deans, the four classes mentioned in the second verse, and who alone were summoned before the King to tell him his dream. When all the wise men were ordered to be slain they were of the number, but were ignorant of the cause of their condemnation ; so they do not seem to have been admitted into any caste, and Reuss seems as far astray as ever : but if Nebuchadnezzar had B 1 8 Parti. ordered it so, they surely would have been though strangers. Section Second. The Chaldee portion of this chapter (ii. 4 to end) may be divided into preliminary matter, ver, 4-30 ; the dream, vers. 31-35 ; ver. 36 is explanatory — [" This is the dream, and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the King "]. This interpretation is in nine verses more, from thirty-seven to forty-five, where the second and third kingdoms have only one verse (39th), a half each ; but they have the whole of the eighth chapter. The last four verses conclude the whole. I must here request the reader carefully to peruse the whole of this cha])ter. There is much character in every part of it. Ver. 4. [the Chaldeans said, " O King, live for ever ! tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. (5.) The King answered, the thing is gone from me : (that is, I have lost or forgotten it. His spirit was troubled before, and now their answer excites him into a violent threat), if ye will not make known to me the dream, and the interpre- tation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill "]. He then adds a promise of "gifts and rewards" if they do so; but we are not bound to suppose that no more was said. I believe Daniel was here writing from common report, for he was not present to hear, and the awful threat struck every one, ver. 7. The Chaldees reply in the same words, ver. 8. The King charges them with trying to gain time, and repeats his threat, adding [" tell me the dream, and I shall know ye can shew the interpreta- tion]. Ver. 1 0. They try to reason with him : [" There is not a man on earth that can shew the King's matter. Chapter II. 1 9 It is a rare thing, and there is none other that can shew it before the King except the Gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh "]. Daniel gives us no more of the dispute, but we have enough to shew the state of the case : ['' the King was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men (more than the four classes of ver. 2), and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain "]. This seems to be the first notice Daniel has of the matter, so he asks (ver. 15), [" Why this severe decree ? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel (ver. 1 6, Revised Version). And Daniel went in, and desired of the King that he would appoint him a time, and he would shew the King the interpretation "]. The answer is implied. So far as we have gone, we have the King's furious decree on dis- covering for the first time that dream-readers have no divine aid ; but he erred in condemning the innocent, for, though they could not tell the dream, they could teach language and literature. The whole led to bring- ing Daniel forward, who knew his nation had held communication with heaven since the days of Abraham, and who probably saw the dream was from God. Here probably the King put the same question that occurs afterwards. Art thou able ? for the whole is very condensed. A^er. 17. Daniel has now recourse to united prayer, to save their lives. Ver. 19. ["Then the secret was revealed to Daniel in a night vision,"] Some hastily assume that this was a dream, and ridicule the idea of two people having the same dream ; but this is common to rationalists, first to misrepresent the text, and then to find fault with it for their own misinterpretations. A vision is not a dream, and many may see the same vision. We have next his grand thanksgiving hymn, written afterwards, of course — 20 Part I. [Ver. 20. '' Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever ? For wisdom and might are his : 21. And he changeth the times and the seasons : He removeth kings and he setteth up kings ; He giveth wisdom to the wise And knowledge to those who know under- standing ; 22. He revealeth the deep and secret things : He knoweth what is in the darkness, And light dwelleth with him. 23. I thank thee, and praise thee, thou God of my Fathers, Who hast given me wisdom and might, And hast made known to me now what we desired of thee ; For thou hast made known unto us the king's matter."] Vers. 24-6. Then Daniel returns to Arioch and the King, and to the question: ["Art thou able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? Ver. 27. Daniel answered, The secret which the king hath demanded the wise men cannot show, but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. (29.) Thy dream and th"e visions of thy head upon thy bed are these ; As for thee, O King, thy thoughts came into thy mind what shall come to pass hereafter : "] — The dream consists of two visions, each beginning with "thou sawest." The first is a grand human statue, of earthly matter, but dead and motionless, without thought or feeling; the second is a mysterious stone, of earthly matter too, but full of life and motion — it acts. Ver. 31 is a general view; 32 and 33 give the particulars. Thus — Chapter II. 2 1 I. The Image. 31, [Thou sawest, king, and behold one grand image, This image was lofty, and the splendour of it dazzling : It stood before thee, and the appearance of it was terrible. 32. As to this image, the head of it was of fine gold ; Its arms and breasts of silver; its belly and thighs of brass ; 3 3. Its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay. II. The Stone. 34. Thou sawest, until a stone was separated, but not by hands. And it smote the image on the feet, and brake them in pieces. 85. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken together ; And became like the chaff of the summer thresh- ingfloors ; And the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them ; And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, And filled the whole earth.] This translation is a mixture, for I ai?i not satisfied with any I can find. I borrow, from Keil and others, the numeral "one" (in first line), better than the article, as if the earth could not endure another such. It denotes an important epoch in histor}^ Ver. 32. Its head and neck are single ; the arms and breasts double, but contemporaneous ; the belly single, the thighs double, 2 2 Part I. but successive to the belly ; the legs, feet (and toes), are all successive. Ver. 34*. anything "Cut without hands " seems a contradiction, and the Chaldee word signifies to divide or separate in any way. Paul speaks of being separated from his mother's womb, and this is plainly the idea here, for the stone is living, it is born, not cut. This stone is dearly the Christian Church, and Mount Zion is its mother. Christ quotes it more than once, the stone which the builders rejected, mean- ing Himself and His church. Again, if any one fall on this stone he shall be broken, as here ; but if it fall on any, it will grind them to powder. " Naturally (says Zockler), a stone which lay on the side of a mountain." I say, no ! we don't have living stones lying on the side of mountains. This is one of the grovelling ideas of rationalism ! The metals are inverted, as the stone first crushed the feet, and then the rest fell upon it, and were ground to powder. Men were members of the Jewish Church by their first birth as children of Abraham, but the members of this kingdom of the stone must be born again, separated from the kingdoms of the statue, but not by hands ; thus very important meanings may be annihilated by erroneous interpretations. This stone is clearly su2)eomatural. Its birth is so ; its actions also, as no natural stone can crush all metals. And its growth into a great mountain shows it to be Isaiah's " Mountain of the Lord's house," chap. ii. 2. Stuart has told us that modern scientific critics reject all prophecy and miracle ; then they must reject the whole Bible, and Daniel among the rest, and this dream also. I think, so far as we have gone, that rationalism has the worst of it, for it is brimful of the supernatural : the dream itself, the forgetting of it, the divine means of the recovery of it, and the whole of the stone and mountain; Chapter II. 23 so that they can only get rid of divinity by denying the whole, but this they can hardly do, as they profess to condemn it for what they find in the book itself, and they cannot both reject and build upon it. I cannot agree to call it a mere fiction, without proof : I may as well deny that Julius Csesar ever lived as Daniel, or that his commentaries are a forgery. But we shall have abundance of proof as we go on ; only I must insist upon a fair natural interpretation, and no groundless assertions and assumptions. A writer on the year-day theory in Barnes' Apocalypse accuses Stuart of insisting on his own interpretation of the 1260 days, and then mocking his opponents with supposing that any one man can live 1260 years. He ought to have seen that was not argument, but ignorance, but we shall have plenty of the same. The Interpretation. We may now turn to Daniel's interpretation, where we find two verses devoted to Nebuchadnezzar as the head of the whole image. The next two kingdoms have only one verse between them, thus treating them with wonderful contempt in contrast with the fourth, which seems to be all important, and has four long verses to itself, as if to show it cannot be the Seleucidae, while the kingdom of the God of heaven, the stone, closes with two verses more. Vers. 37-8. [" Thou, O King, art a king of Kings ; for the God of heaven hath given to thee the Kingdom, &c., and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art (this or) the head of Gold."] I like the emphatic this; Stuart says "the very or that same." Nebuchad- nezzar was truly a king of kings, for these large empires subdued and ruled over many kingdoms ; but Daniel 24 Part I. again reminds him that there is a God in heaven, who had sent him this dream, and to whom he owed all he had ; the kingdom, and not merely rule over men, but over the beasts of the field and foivls of the air. Jeremiah (xxvii. 6) says the same. " 1 have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, my servant, and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him." This is important in connection with chapter iv. 12. There is nothing new in being a king of kings, for all the Assyrian monarchs before him had been the same ; but to be made the head of this metallic image, connected with the stone, and entrusted with dominion by the God of heaven, who called him his servant, and raised up by Providence to chastise the sins of his own people, and to occupy the throne of David, was a new departure for humanity, and therefore of special interest to him and to us ; but let us hear Daniel. Ver. 39. [And after thee shall arise another kingdom, inferior to thee : and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.] This is surely connected with that wonderful man who is said to have conquered tlte ivhole world, and then sat down and wept because he had not another world to conquer. Every school-boy can point to Alexander of Macedon. There is just one fact given as the character of each of these two kingdoms, inferior and rule ; but that must be reserved for further enquiry. Now comes the great kingdom with legs of iron . and feet of iron and clay. Ver. 40. ["And the fourth king- dom shall be strong as iron ; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces, and subdueth all (stones and metals) ; so, as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."] This is certainly the strongest, most un- yielding and bullying kingdom of the four. It has both Chapter II. 25 imwonted strength and tyranny ; it shall not merely break, but bruise. It can hammer all metals, but no stone or other metal can hammer it. It seems to stand conspicuous for hardness of heart, as well as for cruelty ii,nd injustice. Surely history will find out such a nation if such really exists. It has other characteristics. Ver. 41. "And whereas thou sawest the feet and ioe^, ■&C.," the toes of course were in the image as part of the feet, but not mentioned till we come to tbe clay. There was no clay in the legs, but strength and unity ; this divides this kingdom into three parts, the legs of iron, the feet of iron and clay, strength and division, and the toes, separately mentioned, of the same materials. The rule and dominion comes down from the head to the ankles or heel in four metals, gold, silver, copper or brass, and iron, of which tbe iron is by much the strongest and the hardest, able to beat any of these metals flat, — into gold-leaf for instance, — but none of these can make any impression in beating it, especially in the shape of steel. Does this mean that this kingdom is to last longest, and to have the hardest fighting. But it does not end here. It now turns at right angles, and commences a new career ; still hard as iron, but now mixed with an inferior material, quite a foreign element, and this inferior material extends to the toes, which again form a kind of minor kingdom of their own. And has this minor kingdom any quality of its own? Ver. 42. "And as the toes, &c," shall be still more liable to be broken up or divided. Ver. 43. [" And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men ; but they shall not cleave one to another, as iron is not mixed with clay."] There is something peculiar in this last expression, as they really are mixed. 26 Part I. and that with seed of men, like different seeds of grain, producing their like. It means, I think, that they are- not amalgamated. They live together as different races, and intermarry, but their tribal characteristics, are not obliterated. So far we have spoken of the natural parts of the dream, but now we come to the supernatural. The Stoxe. Ver. 44. ["And in the days of these kings (or kingdoms) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom (or dominion) shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."] We are now told of another, a fifth kingdom ; its author, its comparative date, its work, and its duration. 1. Its author is that " God in heaven who revealeth secrets," and that hath sent this dream, (ver. 28) to the king. 2. It is this God's own kingdom, and he shall set it up in the time of those kingdoms already men- tioned. 3. It shall fall on the feet of this image, and thus " break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms." And 4. It " shall never be destroyed," but " last for ever," either as a stone or a mountain. I am surely entitled to say this is the most remavhaUe part of the whole dream, uniting in itself both time and eternity. The others are a mere temporary expedient, preparing for this. Its author and its duration are alike unique. Each of the previous four must dwindle into mole-hills when compared with this mountain, and yet it gets less attention from commen- tators than any of the rest. They wrangle away long Chapter II. 2 7 enough, and sometimes foolishly enough, about all the rest, but they tell us exceeding little about this, as if they wished to ignore its very existence. The ration- alists, who maintain there is no prophecy in the dream, must close their eyes very hard in the presence of the stone ! but they cannot avoid the destruction that awaits them. Such is the solemn tone with which Daniel closes his interpretation : Ver. 45. ["Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was separated from the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold ; the girat God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter : and the dream is certain, and the interpretation sure."] The former part of this verse is a mere repetition, but the last clause is an appeal to Nebuchadnezzar if that is not exactly the very image he had seen in his dream ; thereby giving him leave to judge whether the interpretation might be trusted by first giving him the dream. The king's answer is contained in the next two verses, and his gratitude in the other two. Vers. 46-7. Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel (as the servant of the God of heaven, to whom he had given all the credit), and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours to him, the God of heaven. The king answered, [" Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret."] This is the fullest attestation we can have of the truth of the dream, and the accuracy of the interpretation, provided only the book is genuine, and that is a question we have yet to investigate. But let us first conclude the chapter, and see the king's admiration and gratitude. 28 Part L Vers. 48-9. [" Then the king made Daniel a great man/' &c. "Then Daniel requested of the king," &c.] I do not know whether that means that Daniel declined the honour and got his three friends appointed in his stead, or only under himself, he being supreme judge in the realm, sitting in the king's gate, but really it does not matter much, so here we end the chapter. What next claims our notice is how does this dream, so interpreted, accord with history, for if it does not, the genuineness of the book must be given up. This, therefore, is a very serious question, the great question of the book, I prefer to have no secrets with the reader, and shall lay the whole case before him, inviting him to be judge at every step. There are various modes of interpretation, but chiefly two, called the traditional, ^nd the modern : the one handed down by Jews and Christians, who hold it genuine ; the other that of Porphyry, with some modern modifications, who maintain there is little or no prophecy in it, but mere Idstory •down to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is the subject of every pretended prophecy in it, and that the whole is a forgery or " literary fraud," written by a Jew of that age. The latter opinion we have already seen is held by Edward Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, and a Roman Catholic I suppose. He is an interesting writer of ^reat talent and learning, clear and brief, and therefore I shall avail myself of his assistance to state the opinions and arguments of the rationalists or "moderns. The first point is — What are the four historic kingdoms that Daniel refers to ? They are thus clearly stated by Reuss, in a note on ver. 40, in French, but I suppose I may give it in English. " And a fourth empire shall be powerful as iron ; as iron breaks and subdues every (thing), so like iron, it (the fourth empire of course) will Chapter II. 29 bruise and break in pieces all the others." The note is, " The interpretation given in the text has become an enigma, and an apple of discord for the interpreters of every age. It is clear it treats of four empires which shall succeed each other, even to the Advent of the Messiah ! and it is equally certain that the first is that of Nebuchadnezzar. As to the rest there is no agreement. The traditional explanation, which does not admit that the Prophet can be deceived, pretends that the fourth empire is the Roman, which is made to last to our day (even after 180G?). The other three will then be the Chaldean, the, Medo-Persian, and the Greek. To those who understand that the author lived in the time of the fourth empire (he means the Greek, not the Roman, and assumes that the author is a Maccabean Jew, contrary to the book itself), there is presented the difficulty of determining which ought to be the second and the third. (He should add, and the fourth!) There are — 1. Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Alexander. 2. Chaldeans, Modes, Persians, Macedonians. 3. Chaldeans, Medo-Persians, Alexander the Seleu- cidae, &c." The reader will observe that even a rationalist admits that the traditionalists are unanimous as to these four empires, but the moderns are as much divided as possible : they seem to feel that they stand on a shifting and sandy foundation. Also, observe the first line is composed of men, not empires at all, though it is only empires we are concerned with. This trick is in order to get in Belshazzar, who in decency could not be called a separate eminre, as he inherited his father's. And have they who hold this opinion the conscience to put this spoilt boy and his drunken concubines on a 30 Part I. level with the greatest heroes of antiquity, Nebuchad- nezzar, Cyrus, and Alexander the Great. Belshazzar created no empire, like these great men. He is only famous for profaning the golden sacred vessels of the Jewish Temple, he and his concubines, &c. His mother had too much sense or decency to be present. I should think that opinion requires no further refutation. I should like to see the man that will defend it ! Dr S. Davidson gives the same list, but adds a few names of those who hold each opinion, and of this he seems to know only two, though he lived many years in Germany, and boasts a D.D. from Halle. He says, " Redepenn- ing and Hitzig understand by the head of gold, Nebu- chadnezzar ; by the silver breasts and arms, Belshazzar ; by the body (belly it should be), the Medo-Persian em]pire (instead of Cyrus only) ; and by the legs and feet, the Grecian one." I do not know Redepenning, but Hitzig I believe to be an outrageous rationalist, so I am glad to show what his views are worth. Reuss does not seem to know his own mind. In his Intro- duction (p. 219) he declares his belief in the No. 2, and in his notes (p. 237) he is clear that in the iron and clay he has " decisive " proof that it is No. 3, " the Monarchies of Seleucidae and the Ptolemies." Thus he seems to hold both opinions ; but I hope to show on the seventh and eighth chapters that both are clearly wrong. I may only say at present that his decisive proofs seem to me to prove precisely the opposite of what he main- tains. If the iron and the clay denote a marriage union as he alleges, there could be no marriages where there was no clay, none in the time of the gold, silver, brass, and pure iron ; and moreover, there could be no marriages with the iron and clay, for we are distinctly told they would not by any possibility unite. Iron Chapter II. 3 1 will never amalgamate with clay. This is surely too absurd for further notice. Reuss admits there were three such marriages, but he reckons the third too late to count, but it was not too late to overthrow the whole modern theory, which is that this book is a forgery, and the author can neither utter a prophecy nor record a miracle, but this third must be a prophecy, for it took place after they confess the book was written in time of the Maccabees. No wonder he evades it ! But if this book be a forgery theie moderns will require another forger to produce another book to suit their theory, for this next verse (44) overturns the whole. It says, " In the clays of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom " that of the stone or Christianity. Surely that is prophecy if true, and the stone was separated not by human but divine power, so we have here both prophecy and something supernatural or divine, but this is contrary to their hypothesis. It is a matter of small moment whether Daniel wrote these words in Babylon six hundred j^^ears before their fulfilment, or a forger did it only two hundred years before. In either case, it is prophecy, and spiritual or miraculous action, and since their theory will not fit this book, even though it were written by a Maccabean forger, they will require, I say, another forger to write another book to fit their theory. I turned to Reuss for some explanation here, but I find him too cautious to commit himself, but the fact of no explanation is a silent confession that no explanation can be given. His only note here is : " the Messianic kingdom," but we did not require a learned French or German Professor to tell us that, it is mere dust in our eyes. There is another point of importance here : not merely that the whole theory of a Maccabean forgery is of no avail, but also that the fourth kingdom 32 Part /. is the Roman. " In the days of those kings " (of the metallic image, of course), this kingdom is to be set up. Now, there is no difficulty about this kingdom of the stone ; which stone is sometimes applied to Christ Him- self — "the stone which the builders rejected, — the chief stone of the corner," but it obviously applies to Christ's kingdom here, that of "the God of heaven," or " the kingdom of heaven." And every intelligent Sabbath scholar in this country or America can tell us when it was " set up." " There went out a decree from Csesar Augustus that all the world (or Roman Empire) should be taxed. And Joseph and Mary went up to Bethlehem," when Christ was born. This is the setting up of the stone, but the kingdom was not yet. Now, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Csesar, Poutus Pilate being governor of Judea, came John the Baptist preaching, and saying, " Repent ye ; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," or near. So Christ also preached. But on the day of Pentecost the kingdom was no longer ojt hand, but actually and miracidously present. Where is their quibbling about the successors of Alexander now? There was none reigniog in the fifteenth of Tiberius. There is an important remark of Dr Pusey, which I must here quote, and ask the reader to lay to heart : " In this thickening strife with unbelief, it is of much moment for the Church and for individuals, that we do not allow unbelievers to choose for us our battlefields. Rationalism, in its assaults, ever chooses what is obscure, avoids what is clear ; it chooses what is minute, avoids what is comprehensive ; it chooses what is negative, avoids what is positive ; it chooses what is at a distance from the centre of the faith, it avoids the central truth, or would fain hide it in the cloud of dust raised in the subordinate controversy " (Preface, p. xxiii.). That is the Chapter II. 33 key to half the struggle with rationalism, and we may- see it here. How carefully Reuss avoids saying any- thing on the great point, but utters a commonplace to lead the thoughts of the reader off the scent ! But every one is not so cautious. Let us hear Zockler, the able author of Daniel in Lange's Commentary, a very popular work, p. 78 : "In the days of these kings ; hence, while these kings are still reigning, the Seleucidae, Lagidae, and other Diadochi, (that is, the kings of Syria, Egypt, and other successors of Alexander the Great, which this writer, Reuss, and many others reckon the fourth king- dom, Alexander's being the third), the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom." Now, observe, Daniel says nothing about Seleucidae and Lagidae, and knows nothing about them, so what are they doing there in explanation of this verse ? It is a plain violation of history. I confidently ask what kingdom did the God of heaven set up in their days? History knows of none such (I despise the idea of some, that the Maccabees set up this kingdom of heaven !), and every scholar, (and these rationalists among the rest,) knows there was and is none such ! Does this able writer suppose that in- telligent readers are to be led off the scent by palpable falsehoods? Oh no; but the power of his prejudices is such, that he was led to speak in favour of his beloved Lagidae and Seleucidae, when wiser men, like Reuss, hold their tongue. We have seen from the gospels, if they will be acknowledged to be history, whether they grant them genuine or not, that this kingdom was actually " set up " in the days of the Roman emperors, and, therefore, this empire must be the fourth kingdom, the traditional theory, and the Stone the fifth, partially contemporary with " these kings " of the metallic image. As this subject is so essential to rationalism, and c 34 Pcf'rt I. clearly refutes it, root and branch, perhaps I may be ex- cused for enlarging a little further on the point. Let the reader turn to p. 29 and note Reuss's division of rationalist theories. He will see (1) these make the fourth king- dom Alexander alone, who, I have said, is not a kingdom at all ; but it is of no consequence, as they all come in the end to the same thing. The (2) makes the fourth the Macedonians, which means Alexander and his suc- cessors ; and the (3) separates Alexander and his successors, and makes the latter, the Seleucidae and Lagidae, the fourth kingdom. He admits also that the kingdom of heaven is the Messianic. Now, the simple question which refutes the whole of rationalism is this : " Was the Messianic kingdom really set up in the days of Alexander, or of the successors ? " Alexander died 323 B.C., or 350 years before the great Pentecost, so that is a reckless falsehood, plainly in the teeth of history. Then take Antiochus Epiphanes, their great man, and he died 164 B.C., or two centuries before the said kingdom was set up. Next take the Lagidae (Egypt), and Seleucidae (Syria), and Pompey the Great made Syria a Roman province B.C. 65, or one century before Pentecost. It astonishes me that intelligent men talk such non- sense. The only person I find referring to this forty- fourth verse, which is the key to the whole chapter, or I may say to the tuhole book of Daniel, is old Matthew- Henry, and he only indefinitely, thus : " The legs and feet of iron signify the Roman monarchy. Some make this to signify the latter part of the Grecian monarchy, the two empires of Syria and Egypt. . . . These they make the two legs and feet of this image : Grotius, and Junius, and Broughton, go this way. But it has been the more received opinion that it is the Roman monarchy that is Chapter II. 35 here intended, because it was in the time of that monarchy, and when it was at its height, that the kingdom of Christ was set ^ip in the uorld, by the preaching of the everlasting Gospel." He does not see the full value of the verse for refuting Porphyry, Collins, Bleek, &c., because rationalism was not then so rampant. This was written early in the eighteenth century. Ration- alists set themselves the task of making three kingdoms into four, by splitting one, but they can't agree which, and it matters not, the difference being between tweedle- dum and tweedledee, for all are equally untenable. We have seen Reuss giving a separate kingdom to Balshazzar, who only lost one he received. The next tries to separate the Medes and Persians in violation of the text, and also of the eighth chapter, where the United Kingdom is re- presented by a ram, and they refuse to be taught common sense by Solomon's harlots, who saw at a glance that to divide a living animal, quadruped and biped, is to kill it. The same applies to those who divide Alexander and his successors, who are represented by a he-goat, as if every school-boy did not know that Alexander was never conquered by his generals, who could not even preserve the kingdom he left by his death. They tore it in pieces, and devoured each other, cutting each others' throats, and did little worth notice till the Romans ate them up. In spite of all this. Professor Cheyne in his recent Old Testament literature shows his bias by a notice of this book brimful of blunders ; and in 1888, a Mr Deane, B.D. of Oxford, in his "Men of the Bible," condescends to tell us that the clay of this image is the kingdom of Syria, and the iron Egypt, in happy ignor- ance that the reverse is equally true, or equally absurd. Stuart and others, Reuss, &c., make this a royal marriage of a King of Egypt, and one of Syria, but they take care 2,6 Part /. not to tell us which is iron and which clay, so I thank Mr Deane ; and Daniel tells ns they will not unite. The subject will return again, but I hope I have said enough to sweep away the rationalist theories like so many cobwebs or soap-bubbles ! I may quote another distinguished author whose value is not sufficiently known, I mean Sir Isaac Newton. "The belly and thighs of the image were of brass, and repre- sent the Greeks, who, under Alexander the Great, con- quered the Persians, and reigned next after them. The legs were of iron, and represent the Romans, who reigned next after the Greeks, and hegan to conquer them in the eighth year of Antiochus Epiphanes (the eighth King of Syria or the Seleucidae), for in that year (177 before the birth of Christ) they conquered Perseus, King of Macedon, the fundamental kingdom of the Greeks, and from thenceforward they grew into a mighty empire." These successors of Alexander, being the source of much trouble to the Jews, are largely discussed in the eleventh chapter, but in Daniel's interpretation of the dream they are 7iot thought luorthy of the slightest notice, unless they could be shown to be the fourth kingdom in the days of which the kingdom of the Stone was set up ; and I presume the most rabid rationalist will not venture to say so again, after this plain statement of historical facts. This matter is clear in history, that they formed no empire. But they are implied in the dream itself, as the brazen thighs; for Alexander's king- dom is plainly composed of two successive parts ; — first the lower part of the body, as a unity, and second as a plurality, the thighs. These successors were at first about thirty, and they set up Alexander's weak brother Arideus as king, " after disputing about it seven days." Eventfully, however, in a few years all his blood Chapter II. 37 relations were murdered. " Statira, his Avidow, the daughter of Darius, soon followed her unhappy father to the grave. Her death was brought about by Roxana, another wife, or widow, who suspected her to be with child (a likely rival for the throne) ; and Perdiecas, who had charge of Arideus, was an accomplice in this murder." Olympias, Alexander's mother, had been divorced by Philip his father, who married Cleopatra, a daughter of one of his generals, and Olympias killed her (Cleo- patra's) son in his mother's arms. " Having been recalled into Macedonia, she made herself mistress of that kingdom, and put to death Arideus, who had borne the empty title of king six years. Euridice the wife of Arideus, Nicanor the brother of Cassander (one of Alexander's generals), together with a great number of Cassander's other friends, were likewise the victims of the cruelty of that princess. But these cruelties did not long remain unpunished. Cassander having besieged her in Pidno, and obliged her to surrender at discretion, the relations of those she had caused to be murdered, demanded vengeance in the assembly of the Macedonians. She was condemned and put to death by the hands of her accusers, the soldiers sent for that purpose not being willing to lay hands " on their late king's mother. " The Macedonians, growing weary of the divisions of the generals, required that the young king, the son of Roxana, now about fourteen years old, should be set at their head. Cassander, fearing that might interfere with his ambitious designs, put to death privately the young prince and his mother ; and next year, in concert with Polisperchon, he despatched in like manner another son of Alexander, called Hercules. Antigonus, on the other hand, secretly put to death Cleopatra, the sister of Alexander, and widow of the King of Epirus. Thus the 38 Part I. generals had the cruelty to extirpate the wliole family of their sovereign, that they might have no master, but might hold their governments in perfect independence. Ambition stops not at the most detestible crimes. But the prosperity of these monsters was of short duration." All those relations who had a natural claim on the throne, or who sat on it, I reckon the brazen belly, and the generals the thighs of the metallic image. That is all the dream and its interpretation give us on this third kingdom, but the subject will come before us again in the seventh and eighth, but especially in the eleventh, chapters. I wish to ascertain no more at present but what the dream denotes, so as to leave the author to develop his own revelations. I think it would have been but decent had Zockler and Moses Stuart done the same, but as they have forced themsekes with erroneous remarks on the reader's notice, trying to gain an unfair support to their untenable opinions, I must clear my feet of them. But first I have a few words about the generals, how they were reduced from thirty to four or two, the Lagidae and Seleucidae. " Ptolemy, Craterus, Antipater, and Antigonus fell out, and Craterus perished in the dispute. Perdiccus died in an expedition against Egypt, Antipater likewise died, Eumenes was put in possession of Capadocia, was defeated in an engagement with Antigonus, was taken prisoner, and soon after put to death. Of all Alexander's officers he was the wisest and most virtuous, the best commander and ablest politician. He seems to have been on the whole the most accomplished man of this time, and the worthiest of becoming Alexander's successor." In the meantime, Antigonus aimed at nothing less than to dispossess Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy of their respective governments, but they united against him. Chapter II. 39 A great battle was fonght near Ipsiis in Phrygia, where Anfcigonus was slain, and his dominions divided and added to their former possessions. After much con- troversy, they resolved 302 B.C. to divide the whole empire of Alexander thus — Egypt, Libya, Arabia, and Palestine were assigned to Ptolemy (South) ; Macedonia and Greece (West) to Cassander ; Bithynia and Thrace (now Bulgaria, North) to Lysimachus ; and Asia, as far as the Indus, to Seleucus (East)." These are the four cardinal points of the compass, equal to the four winds of heaven, and they are represented by the four heads of the leopard or panther in the seventh chapter, and the four horns of the he-goat that succeed the one grand horn in the eighth chapter. We have seen in the extract from Sir I. Newton how they began to be absorbed by the Eomans so early as 200 years before the setting up of the kingdom of Heaven. But the strong iron hand of Rome was felt even earlier by the South and the East, or the brazen thighs. Antiochus III., called the Great, the father of Epiphanes, and the sixth king of Syria, was defeated by the Romans in battle, and compelled to pay a heavy sum of money under the name of expenses of the war, and thus his son Antiochus was sent to live at Rome as a hostage and security for the punctual payment of the money. To prevent the king of Egypt from attacking him when so much in need of money, or as some think, in the hope of getting Egypt into his power, he proposed to marry his daughter Cleopatra to the king of Egypt, and to give half the taxes of Palestine for her dowry. The first marriage of iron and clay ! The king and queen of Egypt sought the alliance of Rome, and so Rome had its eye and its heart on the two brazen thighs long before it absorbed Greece and Macedon. It soon 40 Part I. after received Thrace and Bithynia by their own inter- pretation of the will of King Attains, and ousted his sou and heir. Thus were Alexander's successors reduced to these two Kings of Syria and Egypt. They hung on, however, dependent more or less on Rome, for a century longer, when Pompey the Great, the famous Roman general, conquered Syria and Palestine in 65 B.C., and thus ended the Seleucidae, long before the kingdom of Heaven was " set up." Egypt hung on for some years longer, but was at length also absorbed by Augustus, B.C. 30, after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium. Cleopatra, afraid of falling into the hands of Augustus, then called Octavius, and being led in triumph through the streets of Rome, as a gazing- stock to the unwashed Roman mob, fled from the battle before it was ended ; and Antony followed her to Egypt, where both committed suicide. Thus ended the king- dom of the Greco-Macedonians, many years before the kingdom of the Stone was set up. If that does not annihilate Porphyry and the moderns, at least as far as Daniel is concerned, I do not know what can do so. We have seen what Zockler has the assurance or the folly to say about " the days of those kings," to bolster up his theory and throw dust in the eyes of his ignorant readers ; and it is wonderful to see how many are, and how easily they have been, blinded ; so I think it is lawful to show another touch of the same ingenuity a few lines above, in the same column. He says " That Daniel, while mentioning the toes, already refers to the ten kings of the Seleucidae, who are represented later (chap. vii. 7), as the ten horns of the fourth beast, cannot be certainly shown." Why does he say " already," and why can it not be " certainly shown " if true ? ! But of course it has no support, and I do not Chapter II. 41 think he sees the absurdity of what he is uttering. If the third kingdom be that of Alexander, as he and many others hold, and the successors the ten toes, then we shall have an image representing a man, with a head, two arms and breasts, and a belly, and ten toes, but no legs ! ! Will Zockler, or his American editor, or any one that holds the same views, undertake to show us a man so born ? Or will they show us one born with only one toe at a time, like most kings, but ten only successively ? the former being killed or dead, like kings, before the next appears ? It is melancholy that men, otherwise respectable, should venture to print and sell such rubbish, and stranger still that men buy it. Davidson says this view is held by " Bertholdt, Herzfeld, and M. Stuart," and he might have added, " many more he did not know ; " but since we have Stuart mentioned, let his admirers help him with the foregoing questions. On vers. 41, 42, he says : " Here the toes are twice mentioned separately from the feet. Why ? Let the reader turn to chap, vii., where is another vision of these four monarchies, and he will there find ten horns of the fourth beast, which are explained as meaning ten kings, ten who are ta iwecede the little horn, which, beyond cdl reasonable doubt, symbolises Antiochus Epiphanes," Now, let the reader remember that Dr S. Davidson, a D.D. of Halle, and who spent many years among those German ration- alists, could only mention three, Bertholdt, Herzfeld, and Stuart, who hold that the ten contemporary toes or horns are ten kings of Syria, reigning successively ; but the great point is that this little horn symbolises Antiochus Epiphanes beyond all reasonable doubt. And yet Stuart knows as well as I do that nine-tenths of interpreters not merely doubt, but flatly deny that 42 Part I. this little horn of the 7th chapter is Antiochus. Most Protestants consider it the papacy, which was to reign 1260 years; but all traditionalists, such as Dr Pusey, Keil, &c., who are the great majority of interpreters, distinctly deny it ; some call it Antichrist ; none admit it to be Antiochus but a very small section of rationalists. So much for Stuart's trustworthiness. He goes on : "The ten toes iv. the passage hefore us (vers. 41, 42) appear to designate the ten kings," but in the 7th chap, already referred to we find "the four great beasts" called four kings in ver. 17, and ip ver. 23 they are all kingdoms, which Stuart himself translates : " As to the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom in the earth, which shall differ from all the other kingdoms." All the kings then are kingdoms, the words being nearly synonymous. And how does he deal with the 17th verse ? " Kings, concrete for abstract, i.e. Kings for kingdoms." Now, why not the " concrete for the abstract " here also, as almost all writers consider it ? The traditionalists •consider them the ten Gothic nations, which settled in Europe above 1200 years ago, and which still exist. To such straits does a false theory subject its supporters ! Again, he says on next verse (43), " the mixture of the iron and clay (which we have already considered) is re- presented as symbolising the intermixture of the party chiefs of the fourth dynasty by marriage." Now, what right has he to limit this to the j^arty chiefs ? Do not these metals apply equally to the whole population ? Or does he mean that there were no marriages of party chiefs in the former kingdoms of gold, silver, &c., for want of clay ? Oh, what miserable shifts as the explana- tion of Scripture ! This clay I understand to imply the •deterioration of the population — the iron strength of the old Romans was mixed with much weakness. But can Chapter II. 43 ihe refer to the " seed of men " in the same verse ? This will as little serve his purpose for his marriage of chiefs, for it is equally general ; Keil correctly suggests, among the different nationalities (or races) of Modern Europe. If you melt gold and silver together, they form a metal between the two — an amalgam ; but if you sow wheat and barley mixed together, they do not form a new grain between the two, but wheat produces only wheat, and all grain its like : so different tribes of Franks, Germans, Saxons, Gaels, Welsh, and Angles, still, after many generations, show many characteristics of their ancestors. He further says, " This circumstance is so peculiar that one wonders such a matter should be introduced in order to characterise a dynasty. (Yes, he might wonder if it were true, which it is not.) It implies, of course, that there were several chiefs who negotiated intermarriages ; for that of a single reigning prince with someone, or anyone, would be nothing characteristic in a symbol of it." He leads his ignorant readers to suppose there Avere several or many, and he carefully avoids telling there were only two ; for though there was a third, as Reuss told us, it was too late to be admitted, for, as implying 'pTOjjhecy, it would overturn the whole theory ; but really this was the most remarkable of the three. A Syrian king asked the King of Egypt for his daughter Cleopatra, and he consented and took her to Ptolemais, now Acre, in great pomp, but he afterwards took her from him. She married three successive Kings of Syria, two of them being brothers, and she died a widow, after having taken back the second, and again shutting her gates against him when pursued, and so causing his death. Surely that is worth notice, but still they are only three, and, as I have already shown, traditionalists deny the whole as senseless fabrications. On the 44th verse he 44 PcLrt I. says, " In the days of those kings must of course meam the kings that belong to the fourth dynasty (he still harps on the Seleucidae and his ten horns) although they have not thus far been expressly named." Of course- not, for they are not intended, but the four kings " expressly named " of the metallic image, are plainly intended. But see his consistency ; a little further down he says, " the symbol would imply the contempor- aneous existence of all the four monarchies (the Kings- are monarchies now, and expressly named), when the fifth commences its course." Quite right, but this- means the metallic image now, and is contrary to his theory, for we have already seen that the Seleucidae, &c.,. were contemporaneous, who were extinguished by Pompey near a century before the grand Pentecost, " when the fifth commenced its course." Now, see how he tries to wriggle out of it. " Yet, as this would altogether dis- agree with the actual nature of the case," will any reader be simple enough to believe him ? it quite agrees for the Medes and Persians, the Greeks and the Romans were all in existence and contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar, but not all having supreme dominion ; and what is more, they all still exist, except Babylon,, which was specially doomed by Isaiah long before Nebuchadnezzar. It quite agrees, but see his drift. "It is not necessary, moreover, to suppose this crushing to take place after the time when the fifth monarchy had actually begun." What ! Does he dare to say the fifth monarchy could crush before it began ? Can any- thing act before it exists ? Will he actually boast of the gallant deeds of a man before he is horn ? This is a piece of bold assertion, and of special pleading to cram the unwary or inexperienced with nonsense, that he may protect his darliog theory. Nor is this Chapter II. 45 inere inadvertence, for he had said the same on the 35th verse, thus : " One thing should be specially noted here — viz., that an end of all is made when the fifth kingdom BEGINS to be set up." Nay, not until it is actually set up, able to act, and does act in crushing the image. I am tempted to exclaim here with Havernich : " It is wonderful how men have been able to impute so much nonsense to this book." I hope I have effectively disposed of all Stuart's inventions, where he has employed all his learning and skill, and somewhat unscrupulous ingenuity, in his cher- ished cause. And it deserves an able defence, for it is the only fortress of rationalism, as it renders all previous efforts ineffectual. The Stone cannot act before it exists, but it does not exist as a kingdom till the last fragment of the Seleucidae or Alexander's successors had long been absorbed by the Romans, who must therefore form the fourth empire. Reuss, however, asserts what has no force as argument, but aims at depreciating by showing that Daniel can make mistakes, but he makes nothing of it. "The monarchy of Cyrus (he says) in any case cannot be said to be inferior to that of Nebuchadnezzar, though it may well apply to that of the Medes." He wishes to separate Medes and Persians, but that is impossible, as Rome is fourth. As to the second being inferior, it may be matter of opinion ; but the word is ambiguous, and besides what Keil and Pusey say, I think Persia in history cuts a poor figure com- pared with Babylon. What is she famous for ? For losing battles with huge numbers against a handful of Greeks, — ask Miltiades at Marathon, Leonidas at Thermopylse, Themistocles at Salamis, Cimon, &c., &c., — while, both before and after him, Nebuchad- nezzar and Alexander are famous for gaining every 46 Part L battle they fought, and rapidly. Even Cyrus was slow compared with either, but Nebuchadnezzar's internal works are of world-wide renown, and his greatest recommendation. The walls of Babylon, and hanging garden, two wonders of the world, far surpass all that Cyrus ever tried, and Persia is singularly destitute of great works. As to bulk of metal, or square miles of territory, or even wealth or population, Reuss has some grounds to go on ; but neither acres, nor even numbers make social or historical greatness. Pusey compares China and Russia to England, apart from her colonies, but even Reuss would hardly call these greater than England ; and that even an ignorant Maccabean forger should have known this, and stated it so early, is not a little remarkable, and clear prophecy. Of course, it was easy for Daniel to know it ; but as some of these subjects must come before us again in future visions, I will agree with Reuss to adjourn further remarks. Zockler and Stuart, by forcing their errors on the reader's notice, have required what I have said ; but it has not been irrelevant, as it has illustrated the text by contrast. PART SECOND. CHAPTER III. THE GOLDEN IMAGE, ETC. Persecution for Conscience sake begins. — "We now come to what I have called the second part of this book, about twenty-five or thirty years after the former chapter, and it introduces a totally different subject. The for- mer showed us four secular kingdoms represented by a human image of four metals, which could neither see, nor hear, nor feel, and could do neither good nor evil. The second part of the dream was a mysterious living stone, that was eventually to destroy the image. In this next part the four secular kingdoms are shown us under living symbols also, four savage beasts of prey, a lion, a bear, a treacherous panther, and an indescribable beast, which no man ever saw, and no one can name ; which wore ten horns, and a living mysterious little horn with human eyes, and a mouth speaking great things, the like of which was never seen before, and never will again. All these denote trouble and danger to the Stone, the kingdom of the saints of the Most High. I assign four chapters to this part, which I explain chrono- logically. The whole of this change depends on a new departure of Nebuchadnezzar, wlio assumed the right to domineer over the conscience of his subjects. Such a 48 Part 11. right belongs to God only. Daniel told him God had given him a kingdom, power, and glory, but no right to interfere with any man's conscience. He got full power over the kingdom of Judah, and he deposed its king, destroyed its capital, and led its people captive, virtually abolishing the secular kingdom of Judah ; but he got no power over the spiritual kingdom, which had long before been promised to King Messiah, and this attack on the consciences of the captives of Judah was virtually an attack on God Himself, as if he would abolish the spirit- ual kingdom also. This could not be tolerated, so an immediate punishment follows in the fourth chapter, and one more remote in the seventh and eighth chapters. This is the principal subject of the whole book of Daniel, a contest for and against conscience. The metallic image of the last chapter was merely a " Sacred kalendar of prophecy," and interfered with nobody, but this claims to interfere with everybody on the most im- portant points, liberty of thought, feeling, conscience, the religious duties and eternal hopes of his subjects. This, then, is the principal part of the whole book, which we must carefully examine, as polytheism and mono- theism are here directly opposed, and the theatre of contest is the most conspicuous in the world. If a mir- acle was ever legitimate it was now. In Egypt and in Syria, diplomacy might have done much, but nothing here. It would have been out of harmony with all God's dealings with His people had He not come to the assistance of these three men, confronted as they were with the hostility of the whole civilised world. Could the Almighty allow the religion of Abraham to be annihil- ated in the persons of these three men, and persecution and idolatry to set aside all the predictions of Scripture from the seed of the woman to that moment, and all the Chapter III. 49 plans and purposes of heaven for man's salvation to be made of none effect, lest some German, pagan, or deisti- cal unbelievers should find fault with prophecy and miracle ? To me the very assumption of these unbe- lievers is simply monstrous, and we may be sure we shall have a miracle here. We may safely allow these men to assume and assert that prophecy and miracle are im- possible, while we show the world that they are not- withstanding true. One fact is Avorth a thousand arguments. The contest really is between God and man, or between Nebuchadnezzar and all paganism and idolatry on the one side, and the God of Heaven on the other. The God who sent Nebuchadnezzar the dream, and gave him a kingdom, power, and glory, is about to rebuke his presumption. ["Nebuchadnezzar, the King, made an image of gold, its height sixty cubits, its breadth six cubits ; he set it upon the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon."] This chapter contains some difficulty, and has been the cause of much worthless criticism, which may suggest doubts, but must come to nothing, as it is founded simply on our ignorance. The author writes as if his readers knew the subject as well as himself, which is the opposite of what an impostor would do, who would aim at being intelligible. If we suppose this image the statue of a man, the size would be enormous, and the proportions unnatural. The height is so much greater than the breadth, that it suggests a statue on a pedestal. Even then it is gigantic like everything there. It is clearly unnecessary to suppose it made of solid gold ; it might be either hollow or plated on wood. The fact is, the statue is not the prime or only object of the writer, but the miracle of the fiery furnace that follows. The D 50 Part II. time is certainly correct between the second chapter, in the beginning of his reign, and the fourth, toward the end of it, when the King was full of pride and presump- tion. This seems about the middle of his reign, after his many conquests, when the accumulation of his plunder must have been enormous. Some say, Where could he have got so much gold ? but I say. Where could he have stored all his spoil ? The one question is as irrelevant as the other, though this seems an admirable invention to make it into the image of a god, and elevate it on a high pillar beyond the reach of ordinary thieves, and in an extensive plain where any attack upon it would be seen far and wide. I have no doubt the whole had a political object, — to consolidate his vast empire, to make the different nations forget their own country and gods, and to detect treason if any cherished it. He could not have forgotten that his father by his treason had acquired Babylon, and overthrown the kingdom of Assyria, and he knew from the previous chapter that his empire was to be succeeded by another though inferior, and he would naturally wish to prevent that in his day ; and his greed of power led him into a bkinder, as usual, for to prevent treason against himself he committed treason against the God of Heaven, who had given him all his greatness, but he attributed all this prosperity to his own god Bel. Now it was to be seen whether Bel or Jehovah was the greater ; a second case like Elijah's great miracle and triumph. He ordered all his grandees to assemble to the dedication of this great image and the worship of this new god. He does not call his image a likeness of himself or of his god Bel, but only an object that 'must be ivorsliipjped by all his subjects at his command, and at the sound of a grand musical display. Observe Chapter III. 5 1 here, the musicians could liardl}'^ fall down and worship, or the music would be stopped, nor is there any word of himself and his private counsellors (ver. 24) falling down where Daniel might have been. Now, the question arises : " Had he any power or any right to issue such a command ? " Is he the lord of their minds, thoughts, and consciences as well as their bodies ? Was it not converting his subjects into brutes managed by the bridle and the whip, or into mere machines, who had no thought, mind, will, conscience, and religion of their own, which might lead them to rebel against this command ? So that, instead of preventing divisions, it was the readiest means of promoting them, as actually took place. And this cursed invention, here appearing for the first time in history, I suppose, of pretended uni- forrtiity in religion, has caused more religious persecution, and therefore mischief and misery in the earth, than any- thing else, and is only a new species of the love of power. The idea of unanimity in religion, all men thinking, feeling, and worshipping as the King does or commands, is very imposing, and captivating to a monarch, but it makes him the lord of heaven as well as earth, and is therefore high treason against the Almighty. Nebuch- adnezzar did not see this, nor have his successors in the metallic image seen it ; but it is the great truth the whole " times of the Gentiles " were intended to teach. But I am anticipating. Let us return to the facts in ver. 2, where " the King sent to gather together," like a flock of sheep, all his gi'andees, governors, " and all the rulers of the provinces," under eight different classes, " to the dedication," or rather, consecration of this new idol. While [" they stood before the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up, an herald cried aloud, ' To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 52 Part II. at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, j)saltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image which Nebu- chadnezzar the King hath set up. And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace."] And the multitudes fell down and seemed, but only seemed, to worship accordingly. Such is the first act of this great tragedy ! The second act, the accusation of the three Jewish captives, begins with ver. 8. At that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. ["They spake and said, Thou, King, hast made a decree, &c. (ver. 12). There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon ; these men, O King, have not regarded thee : they serve not thy gods : nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."] Now, the reader will observe that of these three charges there is only one new, and only one relevant to the present occasion. Those accusers are evidently actuated by malice and envy. They want their places " over the affairs of the province." These Jews have not disregarded the King, or they would not have been present. They obeyed as far as their consciences and their duty to God would allow. That they did not serve the King's gods, Nebuchadnezzar knew quite well from the hour he besieged Jerusalem, and took them captives above twenty years before, and there must have been many more in that crowd who did not know, and did not serve his gods, and they say no- thing of them ; but the last article is true. Nebuch- adnezzar was not such a fool as not to see all was falsehood and malice but the last clause ; and that could not be overlooked : so in rage and fury he commanded them to be brought before him. Polytheism has no conscience ; so the king had no idea of such a thing. Chapter III. 5 3 The false charges were doubtless intended to excite his anger, knowing that he was hasty and passionate, but angry as the accusers had made him, he had as much self-command as to give the accused a fair trial. This is the third act. Ver. 14. [" Nebuchadnezzar spake and said to them. Is it true, Shadrach ? "] This is the old version, but Stuart renders it : " Is it of design, Shad- rach," &c. ; and the Kevised Version : " Is it of purpose ? " Here I prefer Stuart, for he makes it perfectly plain that this is to see if any are treating him with disregard, as the first charge said, or if there has been any mistake ; and then he repeats the two last charges only : " Is it of design, O Shadrach, that ye do not serve my gods, nor worship the golden image that I have set up ? (ver. 15) l!sow if ye he ready at luhat time ye hear the sound, &c., ye fall down and worship the image which I have made (well) ; but if ye worship not (Stuart says ivill not ivorship), ye shall he cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace ; and ivho is that God that shall deliver 3'ou out of my hands ? " The charge has now taken a turn greatly in favour of the accused. He must have seen from their looks that they were not at all afraid, and he must have thought they were trusting in their God to deliver them, so in his wrath he adds the last clause, and brings their God fairly and fully in- to the case. He partially mistook, however, the cause of their unconcern. It was not that they expected de- liverance, as their answer shows, but because from the first they must have seen that their case was hopeless. He could not understand any defence they might offer. From his point of view the command would seem per- fectly reasonable, and so all the heathen complied without a murmur ; but he did not seem to be aware that their religion could admit of no compromise. They 54 Part 11. must have violated their conscience and their religion, and dishonoured their God, had they even thought of obeying ; but it must have been a great comfort to them to find that their God was now brought in as a defender with them in the cause. Their God must now defend Himself, for He is openly accused of not being able to defend them. The rationalist critics are fond of alleging that the miracles of this book have no adequate objects. Dr S. Davidson, echoing his German teachers, says, " The cases of Ezra and Daniel are different. The former was a priest and scribe ; and the latter a prophet (then the book must be truly his), and u'or/ce?' of oniracles." Now, it is worthy of note that I think Daniel never works a single miracle in the whole book. He certainly could not work this one at least, as he is not so much as once named or connected with the whole chapter, the only one where he does not appear. Dr Davidson would per- haps apply to me what he says of a distinguished writer : " It is strange that Rawlinson is so didl as not to see the nature of this argument." The miracles recorded in the book are lavishly accumulated without any appar- ent object, and differ from those elsewhere related. (All miracles do so.) Their '[>rodigal expenditure is un- worthy of the Deity. (And has he become a defender of the Deity ?) They are all of a colossal nature, im- posing and overawing in form. (Was not everything in Babylon colossal ?) They could hardly have been wrought to strengthen the weak faitli of the exiled people (certainly this one was not ! did anybody say so ?) and preserve them from idolatry (no, they were preserved before it), because at the commencement of the captivity God is represented as having given them up a prey to their enemies. (But not to worship golden images !) It would therefore have been inconsistent Chapter HI. 55 Avith the divine procedure (palpably false) to have wrought stupendous wonders for their benefit. (There was nothincj inconsistent in saving honest men from this furnace.) The captivity was not a time of miracles like that of Moses." This author is surely very hard to please ! He says it was not a time of miracles, and yet he complains of miracles "' lavishly accumulated without any apparent object." Now, I have no difficulty in admitting that lie did not see the object of this, or per- haps of any of the miracles ; but it does not follow that they had no ohject, but only that he may have been "so dull as not to see" that object, and I don't think that at all " strange," as he says of Rawlinson. But I can hardly imagine a case where the demand for a miracle was more imperative than here. It was far more im- portant than that of Elijah, in a somewhat similar case, where Ahab, the idolatrous King of Israel, in conjunction with his " wife Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians," endeavoured to substitute the religion of Baal for that of Jehovah, the God of Abraham. The people were children of Abraham, who revolted from Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and formed under Jeroboam the kingdom of Israel. Ahab was an Israel- ite by birth, and Jezebel was a Zidonian born. All the people, therefore, as well as the King of Israel, and even Jezebel, had ample means of knowing the religion of Jehovah as the God of Israel, instead of which they preferred that of Baal. Elijah wrought this miracle to convince this people that Jehovah was the true God whom they ought to serve. " How long do ye halt between two opinions, said he, if Jehovah be the God {i.e., the true God) follow Him, but if Baal follow him." Now, look at the multitude of heathen people from nearly all Asia, even from the banks of the Ganges and the 56 Part II. north of Africa, who had no means of knowing any- thing of the religion of Jehovah, or even the very name. The King himself was very imperfectly informed, and seemed to have no idea that he was doing wrong in forcing all to worship his image on pain of a cruel and horrible death by being thrown into the fiery fur- nace belching out flame before their e3'es. I maintain that though Jehovah had not been challenged (and defied), to save His three helpless but faithful servants, a great miracle here, greater than that of Elijah, was fully justified ; but the taunt of the king rendered it absolutely necessary for Him now to show His power by a great miracle, or be for ever disgraced. The heathen would have been justified in saying their God, in whom they trusted, has not saved them because He could not. By this deliverance in the midst of the flames, God was glorified and the captives also. They showed their courage and devotion, and He His almighty power. To call it an objectless miracle is either deplorable ignorance or wretched malice. Davidson maj' make his choice ! But as Moses has been named, I am not sure but this was as important an occasion as that of Moses. He was sent to form a church and nation out of a multitude of slaves, and to provide for the throne of David and David's greater son ; but this too was a most im- portant religious era. The Israelites had been tried with God Himself as their King, and then David and his heirs ; but so unsatisfactory had the trial been that the God of Abraham had been compelled to abolish that throne altogether, or rather He had transferred it in things teraporal to Nebuchadnezzar and his successors of the metallic image. We could not have known this at the time perhaps, but we know now that the throne of David has never been filled since and is never intended. Chapter III. 57 I believe, to be filled any more as a temporal throne ; but these metallic Kings, so to speak, are to be allowed to tread God's true people under their feet all " the times of the Gentiles," till the Stone shall reduce them to powder. An epoch that began in Nebuchadnezzar and is still going on after 2500 years, an epoch which has inaugurated the tremendous curse of persecution for conscience sake, and has shed the blood of saints like rain-water, is certainly an important epoch, and worthy of the greatest of miracles ; and even rationalists admit that these are " colossal," but I do not admit that they are, either in number or character, " unworthy of the Deity." But I have again been anticipating ; we were only at the third act, the King's charge, and we must hear the reply. Ver. 16. The accused [" said to the King, Nebuchednezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter."] I have always thought that a strange answei', as I think they required great care about their reply. It does not mean, however, that they are in- different about it, but that no answer can be of any use. The case is hopeless so far as words are concerned. The translation is disputed. Stuart says, " We are not under any necessity to answer thee a word." I like the Revised Version best : " We have no need to answer thee," literally " to return a word in answer," meaning we must look to deeds alone, and then they state two alternatives : (ver. l7) " If it be so, our God is able to deliver us : " that is. If it be that we are to be cast into the furnace, our God, &c. That expresses confidence of a deliverance which the text hardly warrants. Stuart is again dissatisfied, as are also the Revisers. Stuart makes it, "If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from, &c.. He may deliver." The Revisers follow the 58 Part 11. Old Version, but condemn the " so " in their margin, which has no authority in the text, but only refers to the past. The margin has, "Behold, our God, &c., if our God ... be able to deliver us, he will deliver us," &c. Still much confidence. Stuart is better than that, but I doubt the propriety of " may deliver." I don't think they have caught the true meaning. They divide the 17th verse into two sentences. " If he is able, he will or may ; " I think there is only one compound sentence in that verse, answering to a second alternative in the 18th verse, thus, [" If our God whom we serve be able to- deliver us from the fiery furnace, and (if) He will deliver us from thy hand, O King : (well) ver. 18 ;. but if not, be it known to thee, King, that we will not- serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image thou hast set up,"] The fourth act is /Ac execution, vers. 19-25. " Full of fury," he commanded to heat the furnace much hotter than usual, and powerful soldiers to throw them into the furnace, bound in the dress they then had on. The soldiers were caught by the flame and died, but I do not regard that as any miracle. The force of their fall in the fire would carry a volume of air with them, and arouse the flame to come out and choke them ; but the Jews were uninjured, and the king saw a fourth person in the fire, like the Son of God. Then follows the deliverance, to the end, vers. 26-30. We may notice the deep interest the King has taken in this whole affair. The death of his soldiers who threw the men into the furnace would arouse his attention, and he narrowly watched the result, so that he is the principal speaker in the 24th verse. He was. astonished at something as he gazed, and rose up in haste, and said to his counsellors beside him, [" Did not we cast in three men bound into the midst of the fire ? "} Chapter III. 59 They said, certainly. Then he added, [" Lo, 1 see four men loose ;] so the Son of Man seems to have been seen only by himself, either he being in a better position, or more attentive. He next goes nearer to the mouth of the furnace, and addresses the Jews as " Servants of the Most High God," showing the great change that had taken place in his mind toward them, and the power of the whole sight. Naming them, he says, [" Come forth and come hither, and they came forth from the midst of the fire,"] but the fourth came not. He only named the three, and could not name the other. All this seems quite natural and wears the aspect of truth, but of course there are doubters. Ver. 27. We have next the evidence of all the princes and counsellors, who now crowded around, and [" saw these men on whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed ; neither were their clothes changed, nor the smell of fire upon them."] Ver. 28. The King is still the chief speaker. [" He spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent His angel, and delivered His servants that trusted in Him, and have transgressed the King's commands, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve any god except their own God."] Now, I might maintain this is a piece of the most wonderful generosity I have ever met with, though of course rationalists cannot see it. He praises the very men who have transgressed his decree, and because they transgressed it, having good reason for what they did. How the audience were affected we know not, but the King shows himself a. thoroughly honest man, and profoundly reasonable. Not one man in a thousand would have done as he has done. When he sees a great miracle, he frankly ac- knowledges it and feels its power ; he even commends 6o Part II. the men that have disobeyed him. But what say the critics ? Zockler quotes Hitzig thus, " The claim. of this narrative to a historical character is unworthy of con- sideration." Just so ; the power of prejudice is so strong that he cannot even consider it. How different from Nebuchadnezzar. The man shows a narrow soul that cannot comprehend a great object when he sees it ! He goes on : " Its correctness would not only involve that the nature of an element was changed (there was no change in the element, but only it was powerless for a moment, through a higher power) but also that the flames had demonstrated (ver. 22) and denied (ver. 27) their power to consume." There was clearly no denial of power to consume — they had proved that ; but because the soldiers were killed, he wanted the captives killed also ; but that is just to annihilate the whole miracle. So that it comes to this, — that a miracle is not luorth consideration till the whole miracle is annihilated ! How differently thought and felt Nebuchadnezzar. Hitzig is clearly not worth wasting words upon. But what says Zockler himself, a professed believer, I suppose ; " Traces of a certain co-operation of natural laws in the wonderful event, are by no means wanting in the text. . . . The excessive heating of the furnace which the King had commanded, the reckless haste in execut- ing his commands, and even the circumstances that the flames issuing from the upper opening should seize upon and destroy (the soldiers) ; all these taken together make it possible to conceive how the condemned persons might remain uninjured, and on leaving the furnace, be without even the odour of fire upon them." Observe what he says — " the excessive heating of the furnace," &c. " All these make it possible to conceive how the condemned might remain uninjured ! and leave Chapter III. 6r the furnace without even the odour of fire upon them ! " Can the excessive heating of a furnace prevent people in it from being burnt ! If he can conceive how this is possible, it is a pity he did not show us how ; for I cannot. He does not try, for a very good reason, I believe he does not believe it himself. Another passage may throw light on it. " It is not necessary to believe that this vision of the King was an objective seeing." That is, it was a mere delusion. But that is not to ex- plain a book and criticise, but to contradict it ! But hear another clause : " It is not difficult to assume that, owing to the excessive violence of the fire, a strong draught of air, sweeping through the compressed flames, might blow them in the direction of the executioners, which leaving the three victims vMharmecl at the bottom of the furnace, and continuing to burn above their heads witliout attacking them." That seems to me to be assumption run mad ! It is tenfold worse than Hitzig, who only assumes the impossibility of a miracle, while Zockler assumes the possibility of a person in a burning fiery furnace quite safe without any miracle. " But he still sees a miracle in it. The deliverance of the con- demned Hebrews is still miraeulous, even on this assumption." I must again exclaim with Havernick, " It is wonderful how commentators could invent so much nonsense." I do not wonder that some men reject the book of Daniel, if they read and believe in such commentators. Ver. 29. This decree not to speak evil of this God, because there is no other that can deliver in this manner, does not imply a knowledge of Him as the only true God, but only as very great. This was a miracle, and a great one, and worthy of the occasion ; but its greatness will not be understood unless we see in it the greatest blunder in the life of 62 Part II. Nebuchadnezzar — viz., his attempt to exercise power over the consciences of his subjects. In ignorance he did it, but not less dangerous and blasphemous it becomes when he is viewed as the head and represen- tative of the metallic image of the second chapter. The God of Abraham had honoured him very highly in calling him His servant, and appointing him to overturn and occupy the throne of David, and endowing him with dominion over most of the then known world, at least in Asia and Africa ; but that commission did not and could not include spiritual control over the consciences and creed of his subjects. If he had known the God of Heaven, or the religion of the Jews, he would have seen how impossible it was for a Jew to recognise him in that capacity. But the greatest wonder is that his successors have been more outrageously at fault than even he in this the most serious fact connected with his whole life. Not merely did Antiochus Epiphanes and the Eoman Emperors outstrip him in this bad pre- eminence, but christian kings, popes, and people, as well as Mahomedans, have not known how to stop in their blasphemous assaults on both God and man. It is won- derful they cannot see, in the greatness of their pride and self-conceit, that none but that God who made the conscience as His representative within the breast, and who alone knoweth all things, can be the lord of the con- science ; and that a man robbed of all conscience can be nothing but a machine. He will act only as he is acted upon. This chapter I recognise as one of the most important in the book as it displays so fully Nebuchadnezzar's unpardonable blunder on a point so important to humanity. The king had a great com- mission from heaven, but he thoroughly outran that commission and usurped the place of God ; and he was Chapter III. 63 very soon punished for his rashness and pride. Would to God all other similar offenders had been as fully pun- ished. It is one of the greatest lessons we can learn from this book, that conscience is above the control of mortal man, and must be free. Before the Flood every man was his own priest, but the earth was filled with violence, and the result was a failure. Since the Flood, national religions have generally existed, but they have not known God, nor benefited man. Their aim has been to benefit only kings and priests, the people being mere ciphers ; and so Abraham was selected by God to carry out this great end — the knowledge, honour, and glory of God, and the good of humanity ; but under the Jewish kings it was also a failure. At length Nebuch- adnezzar was selected to head the times of the Gentiles, and that too has been hitherto a failure. Now we must look to " the Stone " as humanity's only hope. The book of Daniel thus deals with the times of the Gentiles, and the time of the Stone and mountain ; and surely a subject of greater interest to humanity could hardly be mentioned ! Let the author be a forger, or what you like, he brings before us a subject of overwhelming im- portance, — Shakespeare or Milton have nothing like it, — and we do well to attend to the lessons it contains. The difficulty is for commentators to comprehend it. Many see in it little but a silly King of Syria, and what can the world expect from an empty barrel ? I have endeavoured to understand the book, and the reader is welcome to the result of ray inquiries, and every one may receive it or reject it as he thinks fit. Now begins Nebuchadnezzar's punishment. 64 Part II. CHAPTER IV. THE GREAT TREE A SECOND DREAM. This is a very peculiar chapter, perhaps the most- remarkable in the book ; yet I have not met with any commentator that seems to have an adequate idea of its importance. Faber, Guinness, and some others hold that the seven times mentioned in vers. 16, 23, 82, denote the duration of the metallic image, — 7 years with a day for a year give us 2520 years. These seven years are said to pass over Nebuchadnezzar, and that makes him a representative man like Ezekiel, who was to lie on his sides so many days to represent the sin of Israel and Judah. In the case of the king the years must be literal, in that of the image symbolic. But the tree also was a parabolic and symbolic representation of Nebuchadnezzar, and also of the image which he repre- sents. No duration is given to the tree, but only to the stump, or what is implied in the bands of " iron and brass," twice mentioned (vers. 15, 23,) but dropped the third time in ver. 20. Then the object of the punish- ment, or of the whole image is thrice mentioned (vers. 17, 25, .32,) first that the living may know, and twice till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the " king- dom of men," and giveth it to whomsoever He will ; and the first time says, setteth over it the basest, lowest, or meanest of men. These are all remarkable expressions, and if applied to the metallic image, must have peculiar importance. The whole object of this cliapter is clearly punish- ment. " Hew down the tree, lop off its branches, scatter its fruit." The only question, then, is on whom Chapter IV. 65 is this punishment to be inflicted. Surely an innocent tree is not the chief object ! But do our expositors, in their large unwieldy volumes, attempt to throw any light on this subject ? I do not remember any such, unless as regards Nebuchadnezzar, but has it no relation to anything beyond the person of the King ? He is to be punished for his pride, because he said, " Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for the house of the kingdom, by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty ? " Well, there was some truth in that, and was there nothing else 1 Did he not cast the pious Jews into the fiery furnace ? Did he not say, " What God will deliver you out of my hand ? " Did he not think he had no master, was responsible to none, and that the Most High did not ride among the kingdoms of me7i ? The proud and gifted heathen must get a lesson. But does he alone need the lesson ? Will not the name of Philip II. of Spain, the Duke of Alva, Nero, and multitudes more, stink in the nostrils of every honest man as long as the world lasts ? All persecution for conscience' sake is a blunder as well as a sin ; it injures the persecutor as well as the persecuted. If this book of Daniel did no more than establish that as incontestible truth, it would not be written in vain. This is the third and last scene in the life of this great king, a second dream, and he himself is the principal figure in the whole case, both of punishment and thanksgiving. We have seen in the second chapter that the theory of the Germans is utterly untenable, who say it is all a forgery or fraud, written in the time of the Maccabees, by one who was no prophet. It could not be written later, and yet it contains undeniable prophecy, for it speaks of the setting up of the kingdom of the Stone in the 2nd chapter, which was not set up till 200 E 66 Part II. years after ; and also of the work of Messiah in the 9th chapter. Whoever wrote it, therefore, was a true prophet of God, and the fulfilment of that prophecy even to the present day proves its truth, A servant of God who could write true prophecy could also write true miracles. So we need not scruple to admit the truth of the third chapter; and now, this second dream is a thoroughly natural result, developing the metallic image still further. That image was composed of dead, unfeeling matter ; this is composed of living vegetable matter, shadowing forth the sufferings of at least one man. The evidence of this whole book is cumulative, and everything will be seen to better advantage as we go on. The next chapter chronologically is the seventh, where we shall find the four metals rei^resented as four beasts of prey ; and in the 8th chapter, two metals, the silver and the brass, are represented by two domestic animals, a ram and a he-goat. The whole five chapters are thus of a piece. But in this fourth chapter there is still another subject of prime importance : what of the hands of iron and brass ? and in the seventh chapter the lion, representing the first kingdom, has teeth of iron and nails or claws of brass ; the claws of that species of animal being for holding its prey, and the teeth for tearing it, I have surely said enough at present to satisfy any reasonable person that this book is well worth a careful study, but 1 cannot stop to notice the nibblings of German rational- ism which has so far contaminated even Keil and Hengstenberg, Dr Pusey has not altogether escaped, as we shall see by-and-by. I had to expose the absurdities of Beugel, Hengst,, and Stuart in the Apocalypse, so now we must have more of them. Let us turn to the decree. The first three verses are a general introduction, the Chapter IV. 67 next six a special introduction, and the following nine the king's account of his dream of a splendid and useful tree cut doxmi, as a symbol of coming judgment. The next nine are Daniel's interpretation and advice. Six verses more give us the fulfilment of the vision, and four the recovery. I may quote from Stuart : " This purports to be a proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects, after his recovery from a derangement of mind which he had suffered, and his restoration of his former dignity. . . . It touches those points, and those only, with wdiich religion is connected. It is Nebuchadnezzar as rebuked, punished, disciplined, and instructed by an all- wise and over-ruling Providence. The fact that such a jDroclama- tion was made is a singular testimony to the susceptible and variable temper of mind possessed by Nebuchad- nezzar the great King. It is peculiar as a political document." [" Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples, nations, and tongues, who dwell in all the earth (meaning his own subjects) : peace to you be multiplied. (This resembles Paul's epistles.) Ver. 2. It hath seemed to me oood to shew the signs and wonders wdiich the Most High God hath wrought toward me. Ver, 3. His signs — how great ! His wonders — how mighty ! His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and his dominion is unto generation and generation."] (The 2nd verse is the Revised and the 3rd Stuart's.) — It is seldom we meet with such a religious testimony, and that from a heathen ; but it shows his humility and teachableness, for Daniel's hand is in it, and that is creditable both to the King and to the minister. Ver. 4. [" I was at rest in my house, and flourishing (like a green bay tree) in my palace ; ver. 5. (when) I saw a dream which made me afraid ; and the thoughts 68 Part II. upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled (agitated) me ; "] so I sent for the usual interpreters of dreams, but they could not explain the matter, till Daniel came (ver. 8), in whom is the spirit of the holy Gods (or God), and I told him the dream : ver. 1 0. [" I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height (or bulk) was very great. The tree grew and was strong, and the height of it reached to heaven, and the sight of it to the end of all the earth."] That is, the sphere of vision was completely filled with it. The description is very complete and elegant. Ver. 12. [" The leaves of it were beautiful, and its fruit abundant, and there was meat in it for all : the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the air dwelt in its branches (and made sweet delectation), and all flesh was fed of it."] This repetition of food and greatness had regard to the empire of Babylon as well as the tree ; such an empire as God gave him in the second chapter, " kingdom, power, strength, and glory," all of which he ruined by disobeyiug God, going beyond his commission into the realm of conscience, and persecuting God's saints ; and all this, as only the ringleader of all worse than himself that were to follow. He next saw, while contemplating that fair sight, " a holy one come down from heaven," whom he with his heathen ideas calls a " watcher," one who watches over the fortunes of earth and the conduct of men. Ver. 14. And [he cried aloud, " Hew down the tree, cut off his branches, shake off' his leaves (wherein lay his beauty), and scatter his fruit (its usefulness), let the beasts escape from under it, and the birds from its branches."] The sentence of heaven is pronounced against it before the beasts and birds are warned to flee. If it had to be cut down by man there would have been plenty time Chapter IV. 69 to flee ; but, as God is the executioner, it will come as a thunderclap, sudden and terrible, indicating the anger of God, as violent as the flames of the furnace of last chapter. But he cannot reverse the prophecy of the second chapter, but only cripple it, so the Holy One adds (ver. 15), ["Nevertheless, leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a hand of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field."] If the reader still thinks that a false Daniel has anything to do with this, let him ask him- self, What can the writer mean by these words, a band of brass and iron ? Surely he meant his book to be intelligible, or he must have been a fool ; but what is an ordinary reader to make of such a statement ? Reuss says, " As the King is not said to become furious, so as to require to be chained, these bands signify perhaps the captivity of his reason, the loss of the use of his intellectual faculties." But does not cutting down to a stump mean all this 1 So the bands are nothing ! We bind captives ; so he would hind reason with chains of iron and brass, after he has become insane ! And did the writer think that the Maccabees would consider this a good thing, to have Antiochus' reason bound with a chain of iron ? I do not think any novelist ever pro- posed anything so unintelligible '. I consider that phrase alone sufficiently destructive to this theory. But what say the orthodox interpreters themselves on the subject ? I find three attempts at explanation : 1. Literal fetters to bind violent lunatics. Reuss rightlj^ rejects that, since he was to wander about at perfect liberty, — "his portion with the beasts in the grass of the earth." This is the opinion of the author of the Speaker's Commentary, Jerome, and others. •2. Lengerke, Stuart, Fausset, and others, to bind the stump to prevent it splitting in the sun. But who, in 70 Part II. actual life, and among foresters, ever saw such an absurd proceeding 1 Stuart thinks, rightly enough, " there would be no need of chaining the trunk to the earth." No, I don't see it would be likely to run away ! Keil says, " Spiritually, of the withdrawal of free self-deter- mination through the fetter of madness," like Reuss, But the insanity implies all that ; while Zockler sa3^s, they " symbolise the chains of darkness and coarse hestiality ; " but no one ever before charged Nebu- chadnezzar with any such conduct ! It is clear to me that these interpreters see no allusion to the metallic image, which I hope to show on the seventh and eighth chapters is the true meaning, and a very corajjlicated meaning it is where the fourth chapter implies the seventh and eighth. There is no hestiality in saying (ver. 1 6), ["Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given him (let him feed like the beasts and with them on grass, &c.), and let seven times pass over him."] This last phrase some commentators have contrived to misunderstand, though that is almost inconceivable. How could any one talk of a time and season for a fruit- bearing tree being less than a year ? Pharaoh's seven ears of corn, as meaning seven years, might have kept them right. Does not the tree bud in spring, blossom in summer, ripen its fruit with the kisses of the sun in autumn, and yield its ripe fruit in winter, amid cold and snow, to man and beast; and can you have fKult if you leave out any one of these seasons ? And yet commen- tators can talk nonsense as usual. " The expression enigmatical, and the meaning uncertain" (says Dr Rob- inson), " i\\ow^\ prohahly denoting seven years, the usual interpretation. So Joscphus, &c. Bullinger, and others, regard the term as indefinite. Keil considers the duration uncertain, whether to be understood as years, Chapter IV. 7 1 months, or weeks." So Hengstenberg remarks, " It must not be said that ('iddan) chapter vii. 25-xii. 7, occurs in the sense of years : it stands in both passages pro- perly, as here, in the indej)endent sense of time (does he mean time, or a time ?) ; the more strict definition is not in the word, but is only given afterwards. But even granting that a definite period was pointed out, we should not be warranted to assume seven years any more than any other portions of time, however large or small they might be. Nor is a period of seven years required for the occurrence of what is related in the narrative." If that last sentence means that seven years are not required for the king's madness, it may well be granted, but then it is quite irrelevant ; and as to the Chaldee word, it also may mean time in general, for Gesenius in his lexicon gives the word two meanings, first time in general, as Daniel, chapter ii. 1 6, where he " desired of the king that he would give him time ;" of course that means time in general or delay. But second, he defines it " a year," a particular time, again from iv. IG, this very passage, and also vii, 25, the three-and-a- half times of Daniel. Now, it is quite plain that the half of time indefinite is nonsense. If you do not know the duration of the time itself, you cannot know the half of it. Three delays and a half would form a strange calculation, so the context of the season of trees again must decide. IfKeiland Hengst. the ablest of the orthodox Germans, have such untenaMe notions on a matter so simple, what are we to think of the trust- worthiness of commentators in general ? Fuller, for instance, of the Speaker's Commentary says, " The times during which the madness lasted, is usually taken to be years. It is best, however, to retain the studied Q) inde- finiteness of the original, and not fix upon any period, ^2 Part II. — years, months, weeks, or days." Does not the author see that the word " studied " charges the Almighty with purposely making a word unintelligible, first used not by Daniel, nor the King, but the Holy One ! And what judge on earth would sentence a criminal to seven indefinite periods of imprisonment, minutes, or years, or 7000 years being a matter of indifference. These absurdities are very instructive, showing how little reliance we can place on commentators ; and I could quote many more of the same kind. Stuart says of Haverick, " After all, he is obliged to concede that some definable season or time is meant." The word seven compels that, as seven nothings would just be nothing, and the seven meaningless. Even the passage of Daniel mentioned (vii. 25), requires definite time: "He (the little horn) shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High ; and they shall be given into His hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time." Is that important period intended to be uncertain ? And will it matter nothing to the Most High, or to his saints, whether this be 3| minutes, or ooOO years? If these men would only thinh, they would see the idea is monstrous. All these attempts are to avoid the plain meaning of a season or year, Ver. 17. This is the end of the vision, and gives us the object, I believe, of the whole book, as well as of this punishment ; and gives to the present chapter and vision an importance which the ordinary reader would not suspect. [" The sentence is by the decree of the Holy Ones ; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."] Such is the decree of the Holy Ones, or the Chapter IV. 73 Holy One, and it claims that all men — the living — may acknowledge His claim. This makes the whole vision universal, though Daniel rightly applies it to the present dreamer. He confessed himself that when he saw the vision he felt it was from heaven and boded evil, for he was afraid, and determined to have the opinion of his wise men ; either from fear, or from ignorance, they could not or would not tell the meaning. In the second chapter they said " tell us the dream and we will give the interpretation ; " so here he tells them, but they give no opinion. Many an honest man has suffered for honestly telling unpleasant tidings, but Nebuchadnezzar was no such unreasonable fool. Darius, the last of the Persians, asked the opinion of his atten- dants as to his prospects against Alexander, and they gave flattering testimony that the Greeks would never stand to fight, but run away before such a magnificent display ; but, not quite satisfied, he saw a Greek fugitive among his followers, who spoke not ; but he asked him flat for his opinion, and the manly Greek told him that Alexander's troops would not be afraid of his vast mul- titude and fine array. The foolish King ordered him to be instantly put to death. But he soon repented of cut- ting off the only sound and useful advice he received, but only when it was too late. Daniel, however, was as in- capable of fear as the King of such injustice, though he was confounded for a moment, not an hour, at the approaching doom. He saw ifc was a just retribution for the fiery furnace, but he felt for the King, who saw amazement in his looks, and that he knew more than he was willing to utter. He had said (ver. 9), " No secret troubleth thee," and now he says, " Let not the dream or interpretation trouble thee." Thus encouraged, Daniel sorrowfullyreplied,[" My Lord, the dream be to them 74 Part II. that hate thee, and the interpretation to thine adver- saries." (Still, as requested, he gives the application.) " The tree which thou sawest (in all its beauty and usefulness), it is thou, O King, that art grown and become strong, for thy greatness reaches to heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."] He then repeats what the King had told him (ver. 23), but he sees that part of that description relates to the tree and part to a person, so he takes the hint in his interpretation, and drops the bands of brass and iron. These must refer to Nebuchadnezzar, as the tree refers to him ; but personally he is only the ringleader of that fierce persecution of the conscience that comes to a head in the kingdoms of brass and iron. He has done ill enough, he has invaded the prerogatives of the Most High, forgetting that he alone has a right to rule in the kingdoms of men ; and in every way he has set a bad example, but personally his kingdom shall be preserved to him, and handed down to these terrible little horns of iron and brass, Avhich are looming in the distance. He has seen [" a holy (herald) coming down from heaven, and saying. Hew down the tree and destroy it (as an evil doer) ; yet leave the stump of the roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field ; "] so far for the tree, but observe the next two clauses, which cannot apply to a tree : [Let it (or him) be wet with the dew of heaven ; (no tree can escape that, so it was unnecessary to be said for it ;) and let his portion (of food) be with the beasts of the field,] to eat grass, which cannot apply to any tree. He drops also the basest of men, which can only apply to a Nero, a Philip of Spain, a Charles of France, a Duke of Alva, or an Antiochus, besides the little horns ; but the rest he aiDplies to the King with terrible force. Vers. 24-26. [" This is the in- Chapter IV, 75 terpretation, King, and it is the decree of the Most High ivhich is come upon my lord the King ; that thou shalt be driveu from man, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and thou shalt be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee ; till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to ivhomsoever He ivill. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots ; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule."'\ Then follows a good advice, ver. 27: [" Break off thy sins by righteous- ness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor."] Stuart translates, " by compassion to the aflBicted, if perhaps there may be a prolongation of thy prosperity." He also says, " It seems to me more than probable, that by iniquities he means to designate the capricious and tyrannical behaviour of Nebuchadnezzar on some oc- casions, when he fell into a rage ; perhaps also to remind him of the heavy hand that pressed on all the captives whom he had led into exile." Daniel, however, does not name the Jews in particular ; that may have been because he saw no immediate ground of complaint. Some remarks of his on ver. 19 seem also worth quot- ing ; "The astonishment of Daniel (not for an hour, which would have rendered Nebuchadnezzar very im- patient, but for a moment), was evidently the result of his consciousness (as soon as the dream was fully related) of the interpretation which must be given to it. His complaisance, kind feeling, and fidelity to the truth, are equally conspicuous in his answer. Comity led him to say (what at the moment he undoubtedly felt), ' Let the dream be to those that hate thee/ etc. Sj^mpathy for the King, who had bestowed so much honour and "](> Part 11. kindness upon him, was a very natural and commend- able feeling. The King, on his part, is kind and con- descending. He encourages his pale and trembling minister to go on with the interpretation, be it what it may. He summoned resolution to say so, even after he saw the agitation of Daniel. Doubtless former experience of Daniel's prophetic power must have inspired him with re- spect for the man; and hence his lenient treatment of him." I cannot but admire Daniel's discretion in applying part of the description to the tree, and part exclusively to the King, though no commentators I have seen have noticed it. The King was to be literally insane, and to eat grass, the tree could not, and his successors were only to be socially and spiritually insane, and to degrade themselves to the level of the beasts that perish by their wicked persecutions. Of course, what applied to the tree must have applied also to him as head and part of the image, but his case was special, and the most bitter of the whole ; so it was well that the iron " bands " should not specially apply to him, nor the "basest of men." I reserve the bands for the next chapter, but as to the tree I remark that a firm band of brass or iron is directly calculated to stop its natural growth in sending forth young suckers to supply the place of the de- capitated tree. It is perfectly well known that the life is in the sap, which goes up from the roots to the topmost twig or leaf, and that the sap goes up between the bark and the wood; so if you peel off a band of bark the tree all above must die. These iron and brass bands did not kill, but only retard growth, till the seven years should expire, and the madness cease. This is my literal explanation of these bands to the tree, which nobody seems to have thought of. Daniel seems now to continue to speak (vers. 28-83). He could not himself so well give that Chapter IV. 77 liistory as a spectator could, but at ver. 34 the King resumes, [" And at the end of the days,"] &c. The language is very elevated and very suitable to such strong feelings as he must have had, but perhaps he had profited by intercourse with Daniel. Yet the whole is perfectly natural and creditable to all concerned, and here I consider him to speak for himself, while the mouthpiece as well of the Kings at the close of the metallic image, which is yet future. This is all we hear in this book of the great King of Babylon. Three chapters treat of the begin- ning, middle, and near the end of his reign, and other three have the name of Belshazzar. In the fifth chapter we have his blasphemous feast, and the end of his life and reign \ but the seventh and eighth were revealed to Daniel in the first and third years, and therefore they are chronologically before the fifth, and I mean to consider them next, as they are also connected with the third and fourth. The history of this period is involved in great darkness, as the historians differ. We know that Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years, and was succeeded by his son Evil-merodach, who was kind to Jehoiakin, whom Nebuchadnezzar carried captive and let him remain in prison thirty-seven years, when Evil-merodach took him out, "■ in the year he began to reign," as we read in 2 Kings and Jeremiah lii. 32 : " And spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the Kings that luere with him in Babylon ; and changed his prison garments ; and he did continually eat bread before him all the days of his life." Perhaps this was going to the opposite extreme, and may have had something to do with the death of Evil-merodach himself. Two ques- tions occur to me here, which commentators do not seem 78 Part II. to trouble their heads about ; first, Why was Nebuchad- nezzar so harsh with the young King and his mother ? and second, Why was Evil-merodach murdered by a conspiracy of his nobles after a brief reign of two years. As to the first, I formerly mentioned there were two political parties in Judea, a Babylonian and an Egyptian. Josiah and his second son Jehoahaz, I have supposed, belonged to the first, and all his other sons inclined to trust in the King of Egypt. Now, Jaconiah's father Jehoiakim was placed on the throne by Pharaoh ; and Nebuchadnezzar, having conquered Pharaoh, also de- throned the King he set up, and proposed to take him to Babylon ; but finding no suitable person to succeed him on the throne, he made a league with him on certain conditions, all of which Jehoiakim broke, and rebelled, trusting in Pharaoh : and after his death Jaconiah succeeded as the heir to his father's treachery, and may have shown his desire to walk in his father's steps, so Nebuchadnezzar took him to Babylon, " and opened not the house of his prisoners." It was thus on political grounds this traitor to Babylon and to Judah was treated so harshly. But, second, Evil-merodach seems to have perished on rehgious grounds, or for his true piety, which the heathen priests could not endure. Mr Fuller, in what he calls " the Students' Com- mentary," gives the following list of Kings at this period from Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy in which they agree, which is accepted by Prideaux : — Evil-merodach, two years ; after his murder, a brother-in-law succeeded, Neriglissar, who reigned four years, and was succeeded by a young son, who reigned only nine months. He was murdered, "beaten to death with clubs," and another son-in-law, Nabonnedius, a priest, succeeded, who reio-ned seventeen years, and associated on the throne Chapter J^II. 79 Belshazzar, his oldest son. We are left in doubt when Belshazzar began to reign, or if he was the real King from the first, being another grandson of Nebuchad- nezzar, and his father only vice-King. We know from Daniel that Belshazzar was not inclined to heresy from the Baylonian priests, as Evil-merodach was. He says of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. v. 21), "They fed him with grass like oxen, &c., till he hneiv that the Most High God ruled in the kingdom of men. And thou, O Belshazzar, his son, hast not bumbled thy heart, thouo-h thou knewest all this. But thou hast lifted up thyself against the God of Heaven ; and they have brought the vessels of His House before thee, and thou, and thy Lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them ; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, &c., and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified." From these extracts it appears that a son and a grand- son of Nebuchadnezzar were quietly murdered within five years, and two sons-in-law succeeded apparently under the influence of the priesthood ; but the King, who kept by the gods of gold and silver, reigned seventeen years, till heaven condemned him for profaning the vessels of Jehovah's sanctuary. This shows that neither Kings nor people had liberty of conscience in the Chaldean dynasty, and the two little horns shall show the same in the third and fourth, which I now turn to examine. Chapter VII. — Tlie four kingdoms and little horns — The first verse gives us the date, the fact of the dream, and what he did in regard to it. [In the first year of Belshazzar, Daniel saiu a dreain and visions of his head upon his bed ;] that is, he had. a dream, and saiu the following visions, when he was in bed ; ami he ivrote doivn 8o Part IL as well as related the particulars. This is the preface, and may have been written afterward, when editing the first nine chapters, in " the first year of King Cyrus." It is written in the third person, which shows he was merely the historian, not the prophet. In the first six chapters he is merely a secondary person, at best only an interpreter of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams, but now for the first time he becomes a dreamer himself, and a seer of visions. He is not, and never was, a preacher like Isaiah or Jonah, but only a dreamer, and recipient of divine communications. So here (ver. 2) : [" Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night (it was not in the world at large, but in a dream or vision by night), and behold, the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea."] Some commentators, on the watch for fault-finding, allege that contrary winds could not blow at the same time, but this is silly, for everybody has experienced a gust of wind veering rapidly in different directions, like one wave striking you in the side, and immediately another before or behind, when both wind and water are lashed into wild commotion. The description is faultless, for it is only in a dream, and wonderful things take place in dreams. The winds are the natural forces acting on the Mediterranean, the greatest of seas, in the experi- ence of Daniel. It is like a great bag filled with wind or water, with a narrow mouth at the Straits of Gib- raltar, and another mouth or throat at Constantinople, communicating with the Black Sea, much smaller, but it does not communicate with the Ked Sea, smaller still. So of the Caspian, &c. This sea washes Africa in its south, Europe in its north, and Asia in the east, so it was, as it were, in the very centre of the then known world. Isaiah says (xvii. 1 2), " The multitude of many Chapter VII. 8i people make a noise like the noise of tlie seas ; and the rushing of the nations make a rushing like the rushing of many (or might}') waters." Stuart rightly calls it " the symbol of the heathen world, the mass of the world's people." Now, out of this mass of people (ver. 3) ["four great beasts came up, different one from another "]. There could be no mistake. They were clearly seen, and their differences were seen. Ver. 4. ["The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings."] Here is the king of wild beasts, and the king of birds. Both are powerful, swift, and eager for prey. This lion cannot merely run and leap, but he can fly, denoting the rapidity and terrible power of his conquests. But what a change of symbols from the second chapter and the fourth, while meaning the same ! In the metallic image the gold, silver, &c., are beautiful and valuable, but have neither thought nor feeling ; but the fourth chapter passes into living nature in a magnificent tree, beautiful and useful, to represent Nebuchadnezzar and his successors in that image ; but now there is a sudden transition to savage and devouring beasts of prey. Why is this ? The fiery furnace explains it all. God's sheep were cast into a furnace of blazing fire to destroy them, and the mighty tyrant had exceeded his commission. The God of Heaven called him His " servant," and made him a king of kings, clothed in glory and majesty, like the Almighty's servant ; but he had dared to cast God's holier and better " servants " into the flames, in support of his hellish invention of uniformity of religion ; and the daring insult to Heaven can neither be forgotten nor forgiven. He is no longer God's friend, but a wild beast, which it is lawful for all men to kill, because it lives by killing and devouring all that pleases its appetite. But one may say the King was already punished for this in the F 82 Part II. fourth chapter. Yes, one transgressor was then pun- ished, but the others only in symbol ; and the crime will be repeated, who can tell how often ? And so the punishment cannot cease till the eleventh verse, when the last and greatest sinner will be consigned to the burning fire. But observe, the punishment of the fourth chapter is here fully acknowledged, and the re- pentance too. Daniel says, [" I beheld (or continued looking) till its wings were plucked (when it could fly no longer after man or beast), and it was lifted up from the earth (that is, its fore feet were), and made to stand upon its two feet as a man (the quadruped was made a biped and civilised, so to speak), and a man's heart (thought and feeling) was given to it."j This King was delivered from his lion-like guilt, and his repentance was accepted ; but he could not repent for his succes- sors, or for guilt not yet committed. The reader must see that this seventh chapter absorbs both the second and the fourth, so far as this first beast is concerned, Ver. 5. [ ' And behold another beast, a second, like a bear, and it was raised up on one side (this is the second or silver kingdom, with two hands or sides, the Medes and Persians), and three ribs were in his mouth, be- tween his teeth (these ribs clearly enough denote prey, Lydia, Babylon, Egypt), and they said thus unto it, ' Arise, devour much flesh ' (or many lives)."] In the Apocalypse I have explained the flesh of the harlot, which the ten kings or horns are said to eat, to mean her wealth and endowments. But the reader will see that the flesh of a woman that kings are to eat must differ greatly from the flesh of the animals that a beast of prey, a bear, is to eat. I mean by flesh here human lives, and this is strikingly characteristic of Persian wars. It is said that Xerxes invaded Greece with two- Chapter VII. 83 and-a-balf millions of fighting men, and probably as many camp followers. Very few of these five millions, the whole population of Ireland, ever saw their native home. When the Greeks fought, they did so not merely in defence of their lives, but also of their wives and children, and homes, and all their earthly property, all they held dear, — dearer, perhaps, than life ; but when these Persian soldiers fought they had no interest in the matter. If they had refused to go to the war they would have been killed for disobedience to the king, and in a battle they could only die ; but whether the battle was lost or won was nothing to them. Hence the Greeks could at any time face ten times their number. But, besides, the Greeks were always ably generaled, the Persians were not. Miltiades drew up his troops in a position where they could not be sur- rounded by the overwhelming multitudes of the enemy, so it was generally man to man, and who could doubt the issue ? Alexander the Great, too, took care to choose his ground where a small army could not be surrounded. If the Persians could have got a large plain in which to draw forth all their troops, they might have surrounded the Greeks, like mice in a trap, and never drawn a weapon, — I mean starved them for want of food. But, as they had plenty men to spare, their lives were of little value, so they pushed them upon the arms of the Greeks by other troops behind, and the poor men were simply massacred. This was a most foolish and sinful waste of human life — Arise, devour much flesh ! Leonidas at Thermopyle, with 5000 troops faced the whole two-and-a-half millions, and could have kept them from ever setting a foot on Greek soil, had not a traitor shown a mountain pass by which they could come behind him, and then with 300 men, who devoted 84 Part IL their lives to the good of their country, and determined to stand their ground to the last man, they faced the two millions in the narrow ground. It is clear the Persians, who were forced to face these Greeks, must expect a great waste of human lives. I have never read of any people that trusted more to large armies and did less ; and this is my explanation of devouring much flesh, and inferior to Nebuchadnezzar. It will be remembered that the silver and brass kingdoms got very little space in the second chapter, and none in the fourth chapter, but they have the whole next chapter to themselves, so here also they are only, but carefully, described. The third is in these words (ver. 6), ["After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings like a fowl ; the beast had also four heads ; and dominion was given to it."] This is the only beast whose dominion is noticed as a special characteristic, and agrees with the second chapter, " rule over all the earth." The four wings also denote the rapidity of Alexander's conquests ; the lion had one pair of wings, but they were eagles' ; this has two pair of a humbler bird, but the meaning seems clear ; and the four heads most people understand to denote the four kingdoms of Alexander's successors. So far this is a further development of the metallic image, with the addition that the kingdoms are now converted into beasts of prey ; but the fourth beast almost seems to be something diabolical. No beast in Nature can represent it, and Daniel seemed actually afraid of its very look. He says (ver. 7) : [" After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; (it would be almost hopeless to contend with such a beast) ; and it had great iron teeth."] It was thus fitted to devour. Chapter VII. 85 The teeth were both large and strong, and composed of iron. This shows its connection with the iron kingdom (chap, ii.), and with the hoop of iron (chap, iv.) ; but with the addition of terrible power, and the inclination to use its teeth ; [" it devoured and brake in pieces (and crushed with these terrible teeth), and stamped the rest with its feet : so that it was different from the (three other) beasts that were before it ; and (finally) it had ten horns."] These horns are obviously the ten toes, but more formidable looking, ready to gore. Everything about it is changed for the worse. Surely it is almost ludicrous that any German scholar, though a rationalist or deist, could persuade himself that such a beast could be a symbol of a mere fragment of Alex- ander's kingdom, which was only a leopard. First, we have its terrible look, great strength, and large iron teeth ; then we have its actions, and they too are far worse than those of all the former beasts. Last of all, we have the ten horns ready for an attack, and an additional horn, worse than all the ten. This horn is said to be little, but it is most unnatural, it has eyes. A horn with eyes to look through you, a beast of irresistible strength, and a mouth too, to threaten, to blaspheme, and to ape even the thunder of heaven. Such is the description of the 8th verse, with the addition that three big horns are destroyed to make room for the little one. I reserve any remarks on this horn till we reach the explanation which Daniel requests. Before that, we are shown the throne of Providence, and of the God of Heaven, which John describes with much more magnificence in the Apocalypse, which is clearly only a continuation of this. Ver. 9-14. These verses give us a view of the judgment on this great beast and bis little horn. Ver. 9. ["I beheld till the thrones were 86 Part II. cast down, and the ancient of daj's did sit."] Com- mentators have made much ado about this subject, but to very little purjoose. The revisers have even corrupted the text by saying, " thrones were placed." Where were they placed ? That is interpretation, and I believe wrong ; it is not a translation, and has no authority. I have met with none that seemed to understand it as I do, so I will give my own view. These thrones are the thrones of the four kingdoms of the metallic image. They have run their course, and now an account is demanded of how they have fulfilled their trust. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar, as representing the whole image, [" Thou, O King, art a king of kings, to whom ' the God of Heaven ' hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory : And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath He given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all."] Now, is there any- thing unreasonable in this God of Heaven demanding an account of their stewardship. Most men are heathens, and think they are accountable to no one, but such is not the view of Scripture. Every man must give an account unto God, and even hmgdoms are here called to give an account. Nebuchadnezzar himself told Daniel that he heard a Holy One, who came down from heaven, cry aloud. Hew doivn the tree, &c., to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to ivhom- soever He luill. Here then we have the solemn trial of the metallic image, or of its reigning dominion, the fourth. The thrones that are cast down are those of the kings and kingdoms from Nebuchadnezzar to the last little horn. They stand at the bar of the God of Heaven in myriads of myriads, and the books are Chapter VII. Sy opened. Daniel is not able to give us all the process, but he gives the result. [" I beheld, because of the great words which the horn spake (the only horn in Scrip- ture that had a mouth and could speak), I beheld till the beast was slain (having first been found guilty and condemned), and his body destroyed (i.e., the myriads of myriads of the accused), and given to the burning fiame."] The revisers seem to think, with many others, that these thrones were for what they call assessors ; but it sounds to me like blasphemy to insinuate that the God of Heaven needs assessors when seated on the throne of the universe. If these are not the persons tried, then who were tried ? What is the use of a solemn judgment if there are none to be judged? And why, — let the revisers ask their assessors, — why the body was given to the burning flame, if not first fairly tried, and found guilty? The next verse (12) tells us what became of the three former beasts. They did not escape, but lost their dominion, one after another, as in chap, v, ; but their lives were prolonged indefinitely, " for a season and a time." After the Judge has thus condemned the guilty beasts for their breach of trust, cruelty, and in- justice to the saints, the King of the saints is brought before the tribunal, claiming to succeed to the dominion and glory, &c. ; His claim is sustained, and He is forth- with invested with an eternal dominion, " that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him " for ever and ever. Before I couclude this important subject, it may be right to notice a remark of Keil, as h'^- is a commentator of much weight, and may mislead the careless reader. He says : " The beast is the horn speaking great things. The ungodly power of the fourth beast reaches its climax in the blaspheming (little) horn," &c. This is right 88 Part IL enough, for the little horn is the mouthpiece for the whole ten horns and the beast, and, having lost his case, he is burnt along with the rest, who were burnt chiefly on his account." But Keil adds, " The supposition that the burning is only the figure of destruction, as Isa. ix. 4 (5), is decidedly opposed by the parallel passages, Isa. Ixvi. 14 (15, 16), which Daniel had in view, and Rev, xix. 20 and xx. 10, and the judgment is expressed by a being cast into a lake of fire and brirtistone, vjith everlasting torment (misquoted). So that Lengerke is right when he remarks that this passage speaks of the fiery torment of the wicked after death." Now, I maintain that both he and Lengerke are quite wrong, as this passage speaks of nothing of the sort. It is a judgment of nations or governments, dominions, not of individuals ; besides, Keil is self-contradictory, for if the passages are parallel they must all be similar, which they are, all figurative. I think this too important to be lightly passed by. Keil admits that his texts are imrallel to Isa. ix. 5, which is figurative ; then I say Isa. Ixvi. 15, IG should be figurative also ; and I main- tain it is so, for it says, " The Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots ;" 16. "For by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh." Now, is any one so simple as to suppose that the Lord uses literal chariots, or a literal sword ? And if these are figurative, why should not the Are be the same ? His next text is Rev. xix. 20. This says, "The beast was taken, and with him the false prophet. . . . These were both cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." Now, the context is ver. ] ] , "I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse ; and He that sat upon him was called The Word of God. And the armies that were in heaven followed Him upon white HORSES. And out of His Chaptei^ VI I. 89 mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations." Now, does any one "believe that heaven is full of white horses, and armies come from it riding on literal horses ? or that a literal sword of steel is to come out of the mouth of the Word of God ? But if the sword and horses are not literal, why should the fire and brimstone be literal ? His other text is Rev. XX. 10 : " The devil was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Now, if the beast is not literal, nor the lake of fire and brimstone, why should the torment be literal ? I hope the reader sees that Keil and Lengerke completely mis- understand the whole passage. Besides, who told Keil what Daniel had in view ? These Germans pretend to know what a man thinks better than he does himself ; they know what the writers themselves, 2000 years ago, never dreamt of, and which is entirely without foundation. Cartloads of such rubbish disgrace all German commentators, and should be ruthlessly con- demned, because it assumes the whole a forgery of a false Daniel. The real Daniel states what he saw, and, as inspired, could have nothing in view. The 12th verse is a mere explanatory note about the three former beasts, called the rest. I need hardly inform the reader that this is a very important part, that must be further noticed ; but, first, I want all possible information out of this chapter and also the next. We have here seen the four kingdoms of the metallic image converted into beasts of prey, and a terrible little horn added, with eyes to oversee all the horns, and a blaspheming mouth, all lawfully tried, con- demned, and executed, and the Son of Man invested with the dominion in their stead, an eternal dominion. 90 Pai't 11. which alarms Daniel. Vers. 15-28. [" I was grieved in my spirit, and these visions of my head (in my dream) troubled me. So I came (or went) near to one of those that stood near me, to ask further information, which he cheerfully granted." Ver, 17. " These great beasts (said he), which are four, are four kings (or king- doms) which shall arise out of the earth (formerly, ver. 2, the great sea)." Ver. 18. " But the saints of the Most High shall receive the dominion, and possess it for ever and ever."] That is all plain enough, but Daniel now gives a detailed account of what troubles him. Vers. 19-22. ["I wish to know the truth of the fourth beast, different from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were iron, and his claws brass ; (here is something added, the hoop of brass as well as iron of the fourth chapter. This beast seems to be a combina- tion of both the third and fourth kingdoms). Then about the horns, and the other that came up, before whom three fell, — I mean the horn that had eyes, and a mouth speaking great things, whose very LOOK set him above his fellows." (Here another important verse is added.) Ver. 21. "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." Ver. 22. "Until the Ancient of Days came."] The importance of this verse is due to the fact that the very same beast, apparently, was seen by John in the Apo- calypse, chap. xiii. 1, coming up from the sea, as in ver. 3, for it had the same ten horns, but also seven heads ; and upon the horns of it were ten diadems, so they were all reigning powers, and on its heads were names of blasphemy. This seems to be the fourth beast, with additions, but John adds (ver. 9), " The wild beast that I saw was similar to a leopard (the third here), and the feet of it (and, of course, the claws) as those of a bear Chapter VII. 91 (here we have the second beast), and the mouth of it as the mouth of a lion." This beast of John, then, is a combination of all the four. But John adds, " And the dragon (or devil) gave it his power, and throne, and great dominion " or authority. We know what authority from the devil means, — all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. But now comes the important point. It was granted to this horrid beast to make war ivith the saints, and to (conquer or) prevail against them. It seems to me impossible to mis- take the identity of this beast and that of John, undoubtedly from the Spirit of Inspiration ; and surely it implies the iospiration of Daniel's beasts also. The Holy Ghost would not be likely to copy from a forger. This is like the metallic image, where the whole four beasts are combined, but much more dreadful and destructive, for Daniel says even his de- voured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. But let us hear the one that stood by (ver. 23). He said, [" The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth (no longer mere King) which shall be dif- ferent from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces (and some think that denotes Epiphanes, who shall be different from all kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and break it in pieces)! (24.) And the ten horns are ten kings that shall arise ; and another shall rise after them different from the first (horns. Kings or kingdoms), and he shall subdue three kings; (25.) and shall speak words against the Most High ; and wear out the saints of the Most High ; and think to change times and law ; and they shall be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time ; (26.) but the judg- ment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, 92 Part II. to consume and to destroy unto the end, when the people of the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom."] This is the end of the matter. There is some additional information here also. "We knew before that the mouth spoke great things, but we did not know that it was against the Most High ; and yet this exactly agrees with John, who says (vers. 5, 6), " There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven." But the principal part of the information is the time he was allowed to tyrannise over the saints. Daniel said, "He shall wear out the saints of the Most High ; think to change times and laws ; and they (the saints and times) shall be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time." And John says, " Power was given him to continue forty-two months." Now, twelve months to the year gives three and a half years, exactly half the seven times of the 4th chapter, 30 days to the month gives 360 to the year, not a solar year of 365 days, nor a lunar of 10 days less, but what I may call a symbolic year, or 1260 days, equal three and a half years, as symbols of so many common years. The reader may ask how does Moses Stuart get over that plain similarity of description? or that it is meant by the spirit of inspiration to denote the same subject ? He says it " would betray very little acquaintance with the usages of the New Testament writers," that means, if any one, as I do, should think or say both passages referred to " the same personage," he would be one who had very little acquaintance with the New Testament. Perhaps I should give his own words : " The writer of the Apocalypse has employeJ the same language in de- Chapter VII. 93 scribing the contest of the beast with the saints. But to argue from this that the Apocalyptist has the same personage in view as Daniel, because he applies Daniel's language to his own purposes would betray," &c. I have quoted these words for another object. All rationalists maintain that Daniel was not inspired, but merely the work of a Maccabean forger ; now he dares to insinuate that John is not inspired either, or the Holy Ghost has nothing to do in the matter, but merely that John or any other forger " applies Daniel's language to his own purposes." I may give the reader another specimen of M. Stuart. In the I7th verse the Interpreter says, ["These great beasts shall rise out of the earth,'] instead of the great sea " in ver. 2 and 3. Surely that earth means the world at large, and the same as in the first clause of ver. 23, ["the fourth kingdom upon earth,"] but what does Stuart make of " devour the whole earth " in the next clause of the same verse ? "All the earth of course has reference here to ' the glory of all lands,' i.e., Palestine" ! Of course Stuart's theory requires that ! To such miserable shifts does a false theory reduce even respect- able men ! I may remind the reader that Stuart's theory is that Antiochus Epiphanes is the little horn here as Avell as in the following chapter, and that Alexander's successors, or the kingdom of Syria, or Antiochus himself is the fourth beast ; and while I can't waste time in a regular refutation of what Stuart says, I may remind him that I have shown on the 2nd chapter that the fourth beast is necessarily Rome, as the kingdom of Heaven was set up under the Roman Emperors, as every Sabbath scholar knows. That ruins Stuart's theory. Another argument is, the Stone is to destroy the whole metallic image, but Alexander's sue- 94 Part II. cessors, and Antiochus, and the kingdom of Syria, were all destroyed or absorbed by the Romans long before the Stone existed ; so this theory requires the Stone to act long before it exists. What will our modern philo- sophers say to that : a thing must exist before it can act ; but Stuart's theory kequires it to act before it actually exists ! A third argument may be drawn from this chapter, for Stuart holds the ten horns are ten Syrian kings as formerly stated ; and of course also the ten toes of the metallic image. Now, all those kings were successive, so when Stuart shows us a man who is born with only one toe, and has ten successively like the kings, we may think his theory worth some notice. A fourth and last argument at present is, Alexander was the third or brazen kingdom, as all admit, and his suc- cessors followed him immediately, so here we have an image of a man with a head, Babylon; breast and arms, Medes and Persians ; a belly, Alexander the Great ; and ten toes, ten Syrian kings, his successors, hut no legs. When Moses Stuart or any of his party shows Jiie any such living man, I will resume the argument. The important point in this chapter is the change of the four metals into four beasts of prey ; and also the little horn. I have accounted for the change to beasts of prey, by the civil powers attacking the consciences of their subjects in chap, iii., but what of the little horn ? I reckon it the iron hoop for the tree of the fourth chapter, which prevents that tree from freely growing again, and being either beautiful or useful till the three and a-half times expire, and the beast and horn are destroyed. This horn, with a blasphemous mouth and episcopal eyes, overseeing the ten horns, — for a bishop is an overseer, — is the most diabolical beast in Daniel, or the whole world, and the most destructive of the lives Chapter VII . 95 of innocent saints in the whole history of Europe. The foundation of the whole is unifortnity of religion ; or, choose between worship of the image of the beast and the fiery furnace ! or the fires of Smithfield, or the bullets of Claverhouse. Surely, if this commentary on the book of Daniel do no more good than stigmatise that diabolical invention of the bottomless pit, it will not have been written in vain ! The reader sees that I find not the slightest trace of Antiochus Epiphanes in this chapter ; but Stuart and all the rationalists of Germany and America hold that he is the entire subject of it, and also of the next ; and what is worst of all, the great bulk of commentators agree with him as to the next ; even Dr Pusey among the rest, and Matthew Henry ; but we shall reach the eighth chapter soon. Meantime, what is our ex- planation of the ten horns, and the little one ? I have already shown that the rationalist theory is impossible, and not worth wasting ink upon. The reader will find some good and learned remarks in the work of a greater man and more correct interpreter of Daniel than in any rationalist I have ever met with, — I mean Sir Isaac Newton. I can only find room for the titles of some chapters, and one or two extracts, as a good introduc- tion to my own interpretation. On ver. 12, "their dominion taken away ; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. And, therefore, all the four beasts are still alive. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast, those of Media and Persia are still the second, those of Macedon, Greece, and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the 96 Part II. body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side Greece, we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side of the river Euphi^ates ; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast among the nations on this side of Greece. And, therefore, at the breaking up of the Greek Empire into four kingdoms, we include no part of the Chaldeans, Medes and Persians, because they belonged to the bodies of the two first beasts. Nor do we reckon the Greek Empire seated at Constantinople among the horns of the fourth beast, because it belonged to the body of the third beast." The title of his fifth chapter is, " Of the Kingdoms represented by the feet of the Image, com- posed of iron and clay." The reader may remember that I made the iron legs the pagan Roman emperors, from the conquest of Syria and Egypt to Constantino the Great ; the feet the Christian Emperors to the downfall of the western empire, 476 ; and the ten toes the ten Gothic kingdoms that followed. The little horn I make the papacy, purely Roman, which lasted 1260 years in some state or other, being a time, times, and dividing of time." Sir Isaac Newton discusses the origin and connection of the Gothic nations with the Roman Empire before the formation of the ten toes. Bishop Newton holds the same view, which has been the traditional theory since before the Reformation, I may quote a sentence from the Bishop. " The Roman Empire is represented first with the legs of iron, conquering all before it, and then weakened and divided by the mixture of barbarous nations, feet part of iron and part of clay. Jerome lived to see the incursions of the barbarous nations ; and his comment is, that ' the fourth Kingdom, which iilainly belongs to the Eomans, is the iron which breaketh and subdueth all things : but his feet and toes Chapter VII. 97 are part of iron and part of clay, which is most mani- festly proved at this time ; for, as in the beginning nothing was strono^er and harder than the Roman Empire, so in the end of things nothing is weaker ; since both in civil wars, and against diverse nations, we need the aid of other barbarous nations.' " Sir Isaac's sixth chapter is " Of the ten kingdoms, represented by the ten horns of the fourth beast," and he gives us his list of the ten, which he learnedly discusses in twenty-seven quarto pages. This is ob- viously the continuation of the former chapter, and as I do not think he is so well known as he deserves, I would willingly give some extracts, if I had room. I may do so afterwards in way of an Appendix. Bishop Newton gives Sir Isaac's list, and Mede's and Bishop Lloyd's, Machiavel's, Grotius's, and one of his own. I do not think the particular names of much import- ance, but I will give Machiavel's from Newton, to save the trouble of turning up Machiavel's " History of Florence." " The Roman Empire, as the Romanists themselves allow (Calmet, Bossuet, &c., and as nobody can deny), was dismembered into ten kingdoms by the incursions of the northern nations (Goths and Vandals), and Machiavel has given us their names, little thinking what he was doing, as Bishop Chandler observes, — 1, the Ostrogoths in Maesia ; 2, the Visegoths in Pan- nonia ; 3, the Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain ; 4, the Vandals in Africa ; 5, the Franks in France ; 6, the Burgundians in Burgundy ; 7, the Heruli and Thuringi in Italy ; 8, the Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9, the Huns in Hungary; 10, the Lombards, at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy " (Lombardy). Grotius's list of kings is very much the same as Stuart's, "and Collins adopts the G 98 Part II. same, after Grotius ; for Collins was only a retailer of scraps, and could not advance any of his own. But surely it is very arbitrary to reckon Antiochus Epiphanes as one of the ten horns, and at the same time as the little horn, as the prophet hath plainly made it an eleventh horn, distinct from the former ten." His father was the sixth king of Syria, his brother the seventh, and himself the eighth, his son the ninth, and his nephew, Demetrius, the tenth, who was a prisoner and hostage at Rome when his father was murdered, poisoned by his treasurer, Heliodorus, when, as his father's heir, he should have reioned before his uncle, Antiochus ; but he made up for it, for, after Antiochus's death, he escaped from Rome, collected a force, made war upon Antiochus's son, defeated and murdered him. The reader will observe that these kings were succes- sive, but the horns and toes existed all at the same time ; and I have already shown that the whole modern theory is impossible, demolished in the second chapter, verse 44, and not worth wasting ink upon. Some readers may wonder that I quote Bishop Newton as an authority, seeing that Mr Stuart sneers at him as 'pro- found. I have only to say, I consider there is more solid sense, sound explanation, talent, and learning in the Bishop's little finger than in all Stuart's bulk. He is a good Hebrew scholar, having taught it all his days, I suppose, and I have got help from his translation and knowledge of the grammar, but 1 know nothing more miserable than his explanations of Daniel and the Apocalypse ; he slavishly follows his German or Roman Catholic guides, and does not seem capable of com- 'preliciidivg any argument against his preconceived notions. I have often been struck with the fact that the Enijlish divines knew more about these books two Chapter VII. 99 hundred years ago than the Germans know yet. Joseph Mede published in 1G27, and Brightman before him, Henry More and others after, but no German, not even Bengel, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Keil, &c., can come near these men. The best of the orthodox do not seem ever to have heard of Mode's grand distinction of the kinofdom of the Stone, and that of the mountain, and of course rationalists are out of the question. But to return to Sir Isaac. His next chapter is an interest- ing one on the little horn, and here I must quote a little. The interpreting angel told Daniel that " the ten horns were ten kings that should arise, and another should arise after them, and be diverse from the first, should subdue three kings, and speak great words against the Most High, and wear out the saints, and think to change times and laws ; and that these should be given into his hand until a time, and (two) times, and half a time. Kings (Sir Isaac continues) are put for kingdoms, as above ; and therefore the little horn is a little kingdom. It was a horn of the fourth beast, and rooted up three of the first horns ; and therefore we are to look for it among the nations of the Latin Empire, after the rise of the ten horns. But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten, having a life or soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth. By its eyes it was to be a seer, and by its mouth speaking great things, and changing times and laws ; it was a prophet as well as a king. And such a seer, a prophet, aud a king is the head of the Church of Rome." " A seer (episcopos) is a bishop in the literal sense of the word ; and this church claims the Universal Bishoprick. " "With his mouth he wives laws to king^s and nations loo Part I L as an oracle ; and pretends to infallibility, and that his dictates are binding on the whole world, which is to be a prophet in the highest degree. " In the eighth century, by rooting up and subduing the exarchate of Ravenna, the kingdom of the Lombards, and the senate and dukedom of Rome, he acquired Peter's patrimony out of their dominions ; and thereby rose up a temporal prince and king, and horn of the fourth beast. " Charles the Great propagated the Eoman Catholic religion into all his conquests, obliging the Saxons and Huns, who were heathens, to receive the Roman faith, and distributing his northern conquests into bishopricks, granting tithes to the clergy, and Peter-pence to the PojDe, by all which the Church of Rome was highly enlarged, enriched, exalted, and established. " After the death of Charles the Great, his son and successor, Ludovicus Pius, at the request of the Pope, confirmed the donations of his grandfather and father to the see of Rome. And in the" confirmation he names first Rome, with its duchy, extending into Tuscany and Campania ; then the exarchate of Ravenna, with Penta- polis ; and in the third place, the territories taken from the Lombards." This is a small specimen of the meritorious labours of Sir Isaac Newton, in expounding the book of Daniel, and I have quoted this last clause, because I mean to dispute the conclusion he has come to about the three horns that were rooted out. I agree that the kingdom of Lombardy was one, but I suggest that the duchy of Rome was still the western foot of the beast, as the exarch was the eastern, and not horns at all. "We must have ten horns independent of these, for the beast was still living all the time of the horns. I have stated Chapter VI I. loi this in my Apocalypse, and I make the other two first ; the kingdom of Italy, under Odoacer, King of the Heruli, who invaded Italy in the last days of the Empire, deposed Angustulus, the last emperor, and formed the first horn, 476. The second horn was the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, under Theodoric, who defeated and slew Odoacer, and transmitted the king- dom to his descendants, which kingdom lasted sixty- four years, till it too was rooted out by Narses, assisted by Alboin, King of the Lombards, of whom Sir Isaac says, " he assisted the Greek Emperor against Totila, King of the Ostrogoths, in Italy ; and A.D. 568, led his people out of Pannonia into Lombardy, where they reigned till the year 774," when they were rooted out by Pepin ; so that the Western Empire, under August- ulus, is connected with the little horn, and Peter's patrimony by these three successive horns, Odoacer, Theodoric, Alboin, and Pepin. Now, all I have to prove is that the horns are quite different from the two feet of the image, or the two sides of the beast. Turn to Rev. xvii. 3 : "I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemj'', having seven heads and ten horns ; ver. 9. the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth ; ver. 1 8. and the woman is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth ; ver. 1 2. and the ten horns are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings one hour with the beast; ver. 13. these have one mind, and shall give their power and strength to the beast." Surely that shows that the beast must not be con- founded with its ten hours, far less with the three rooted out. Sir Isaac's next chapter is a very important one of I02 Part II. twenty-five pages, on the mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, entitled, " Of the power of the eleventh horn of Daniel's fourth beast to change times and laws." It relates to the bishop of Rome's ecclesiastical jurisdiction as head of the established church and last source of appeal, whereby his law could change or set aside the law of God or of Christ. God says, "Thou shalt not kill," but the Pope could and did say, " Burn him as a heretic, or pardon a murder for a sum of money." He could also change Apostolic times into Jewish or Pagan. This system began with the edict of Gratian and Valentinian, 378, and was carried out by decretal epistles ; and the chapter ends with another edict of another Valentinian, 445. " By this edict the Emperor Valentinian enjoined an absolute obedience to the will of the bishop of Rome throughout all the churches of his empire ; and that bishops, summoned to appear before his judicature, must be carried thither by the governor of the province, and he ascribes these privi- leges of the see of Rome to the concessions of his dead ancestors. Hence all the bishops of the province of Aries, in their letter to Pope Leo, 450, say, ' Per beatum Petrum Apostolorum principem, Sacrosancta Ecclesia Romana tenebat supra omnes totius mundi Ecclesias principatum.' " This seventh chapter of Daniel and the next are thus seen to be the most important we have yet reached (I may say in the whole book), and extend even to the end of the Apocalypse. I have been anxious to bring out the true meaning of the chapter, and also the merits of Sir Isaac Newton as an interpreter of Daniel, and much more might be added, but I cannot devote more time or room to this subject at present. The next. Chapter VIII., is also one of great impor- Chapter VIII. 103 tance, for on the right interpretation of tliis depends the correct meaning of the whole book. It will be seen at a glance that the great interest centres in the little horn ; and on the meaning of this there are at least four different opinions, which I shall mention before examin- ing the chapter, that the reader may see and judge for himself which is most likely to be true. This is the more necessary as I have a strong opinion in regard to one of them, and I may be biassed in its favour. The FIRST is that of Porphyry, Moses Stuart, and, I suppose, all the rationalists or modern scientific critics, and must have originated at an early period, as we find it in the 1 Book of Maccabees and Josephus. 1 Mac. i. 7-10, "So Alexander reigned twelve years and died. And his servants (or governors) bare rule every one in his place. And after his death they all put crowns on ; so did their sons after them many years ; and evils were multiplied in the earth. Ami there cartie out of them a vjiched root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the King, who had been an hostage at Rome." Dr. David- son thinks this Book of 1 Maccabees was written about " eighty years before the birth of Christ," and therefore eighty also after the death of Antiochus. Perhaps Josephus may have been written 80 A.D., who says, " Our nation suffered these calamities under Antiochus Epiphanes, as Daniel saw and wrote man}^ years before." This is thus the oldest and most popular view, when people were not very critical. Tlie great Monk Jerome, who lived about the middle of the fourth century A.D., mentions this interpretation, but adds a SECOND opinion of commentators in or before his day — viz., that the whole was not fulfilled in Antiochus, but only part, as a type of a future Antichrist. But ]\Ioses Stuart strongly objects to any prophetic description or portrait being applied to I04 Pai't II. two persons, and I think with reason, K Antiochus does not suit the portrait in all its features, but onlv in some, it was surely meant for somebody else whom it does suit. Stuart also holds that the little horn of this and the former chapter is the same Antiochus. I have shown that it is impossible that he can be the little horn of the RoMA2f beast, but he of course maintains that Alexander's successors were the fourth beast. We shall meet that again in this chapter. Dr Pusey calls Antiochus the Old Testanient Antichrist, meaning he was only the imperfect type of a future Antichrist, but of course he has no proof that there will ever be any such- It is about 2500 years since Daniel saw this vision, and surely even a future Antichrist might have made his appearance by this time ! Keil and the orthodox Germans are of the same opinion, as opposed to rationalism, Bleek, &c. These two opinions have reigned till the eighteenth century, when Sir Isaac Newton rebelled and produced another, the third, which Bishop Newton has also adopted. That is, that the Romans having subduer Pusey and Moses Stuart to dispute about a trifle. " This last horn is by some taken for Antiochas, but not very judiciously. A horn of a beast is never taken for a single person ; it always signifies a Chapter VI I L 105 new kingdom, and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one. Antiochus reigned (8th) over one of the four horns, and the little horn was a fifth under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did not Antiochus. (I suppose he means he was neither less than other kings at first, nor so grei\t as many others, his father for instance after, which is true.) It is described great above all the former horns, and so was not Antiochus. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans, and he did not enlarge it. The horn was a )cing of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfullv, and pros- pered and practised ; that is, he prospered in his practices against the holy people ; but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Eomans, and afterwards routed and baflied by the Jews. The horn was mighty by another's power ; Antiochus acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the host of heaven, the Prince of princes ; and this is the character, not of Antiochus, but of Anticlirist. The horn cast down the sanctuary to the ground ; and so did not Antiochus, he left it standing. The sanctuary and host were trampled under foot 2300 days ; and in Daniel's prophecies days are put for years ; but the pro- fanation of the temple in the reign of Antiochus did not last so many natural days. These were to last till ' the time of the end,' till the last end of the indignation against the Jews ; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the sanctuary, which had been cast down, should be cleansed, and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed." The reader may form his own opinion of that passage, but Faber and I and many others think it conclusive ; but we do not think so favourably of his substitute. Georije Stanlev Faber writes thirtv- io6 Part II. four pages on the subject, and it is so important as to be well worthy of a thorough discussiou, but I can only quote a few sentences, which I must in justice do, for I acknowledge Faber as the finisher of this new interpreta- tion, the FOURTH opinion. " Thus have we ascertained three most important characteristics, by which the power in question may be clearly distinguished. Its geograph- ical characteristic is, that it should rise in the east. Its personal characteristic is, that it should be a spiritual or ecclesiastical kingdom, small at first, but afterwards becoming very great. And its chronological character- istic is, that it should stand up immediately after the completion of the great demonolatrous apostacy in the 3'ear 604. A power, thus definitely pointed out, cannot be very easily mistaken. The most cursory reader of history will anticipate me, in pronouncing it to be Mohammedanism, or the spiritual domination of the Arabian imposture. . . . Thus have we seen that the little horn of the Macedonian he-goat answers, in every particular which has hitherto been accomplished, whether geographical or chronological or circumstantial, to be the successful imposture of Mohammed. The result, therefore, of the whole inquiry must be this : that by the easter-n little horn is symbolised the spiritual kingdom of Mohammedanism." Let us now examine the chapter. It is composed of two parts, vers. 1-14, the prophecy, and vers. 15-27, the explanation. Vers. 1, 2, give us the time and place of the vision, — in Shushan the palace only in vision, — in the third year of the reign of Bclshazzar " the king." I have already spoken of the uncertainty of the history beyond Daniel himself, and Scripture, as all accounts greatly differ. Vers. 3, 4 give us the Persian ram, with two horns of unecpial height; the higher came up last; Chapter VIII. 107 explained ver. 20 as the two kings (or kingdoms) of Media and Persia ; the ram of course being the United Kingdom. The ram pushed westward to Greece, and, northward and southward, but no eastward is mentioned, for he could not go both east and west at the same time. None could stand before him, so he did as he pleased and became great. This is obviously merely preliminary, to define the persons and places till he shall come to the " little horn," the real substance of the whole chapter. Vers. 5-8 give us Greece, explained vers. 21, 2 2. The ram is slow and heavy, a clear contrast to the nimble- ness of the goat '' that touched not the ground," as he hurried " from the west on the face of the whole earth;" and he had a conspicuous horn between his eyes, only one, like a unicorn. No one can mistake this as Alexander the Great, the first king of Grecia, ver. 21. Vers. 6, 7. He attacks the ram with great fury, showing he had a motive for so doing, as if avenging an insult. The attack was completely successful, as " there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand." Vers, 8, 1 2. The goat accordingly waxed very great, but when he was at his height, " his great horn was broken," it does not say how ; only there came up four conspicuous horns instead of it, " toward the four winds of heaven," that means all the winds. This is all mere unmistakeable introduction to the great novelty of the chapter, " the little horn." These two visions of chapters vii, and viii. are ob- viously like twins. They resemble each other in having each a little horn, and occur in the same king's reign, two 3'ears only apart, and the first verse refers to the former, "at the first ; " but in all other respects they are distinctly different. The one horn was connected with ten horns of the fourth beast of prey, the other with four only of io8 Part II. the third beast^ and the animals are only two, and domestic. The whole four kingdoms having once been characterised as beasts of prey in seventh chapter, that did not need to be repeated ; so these two do not eat sheep, but rather defend them ; they contend not for meat, but for mastery. So far as we have gone, there- fore, there is no reference to Antiochus, and it is quite incredible to me that the writer intends to describe the same horn in such different circumstances. But none holds that, except Stuart and a few moderns, after Porphyry, whose views were shown even in the second chapter to be quite untenable. Keil, however, and Pusey, hold the former little horn to be a future or mythical Antichrist ; and this one to be its type, Antiochus, " the Old Testa- ment Antichrist," which is at least a faulty expression. Whatever Antichrist may mean, it must surely have some reference to Christ, so that an Antichrist near 200 years before, or Avithout, a Christ, seems plainly absurd. Ver. 9. No sooner has the 8th verse men- tioned the four horns instead of the one, than the writer connects with one of them his little horn, showing that all before was more or less preliminary. Even here there is a difference between the two chapters or horns. The Hebrew or Aramaic word is not the same, or rather the second is a compound of the first. The seventh chapter has simply the word " little," but the eighth chapter is " from little." Keil says, " Out of littleness, ajpavvo, i.e., aparvis initiis," from, narrow means, which applies to Mahomet better than any one else. Sir Isaac Newton mentioned this as an objection against Antiochus, but he did not see it applied also to his own solution ; surely Rome was not then little, when it conquered Macedon ; and instead of growing on one horn, it absorbed all the four. Not so Mahomet. He was truly little to Chapter VI I L 109 begin witli, and he waxed exceeding great, and grew upon only one. I differ with Faber and most others about the horn meant. They say Syria ; I say no, Egypt. Dr. Murphy's useful little handbook, which adopts the new interpretation, says, "It is natural to look for the new power in Syria," but why ? In the primary divi- sion of Alexander's kingdom, all admit that Arabia was given to Egypt. Keil says, '' Lysimachus had Thrace and Bithynia ; Cassander, Macedonia and Greece ; Seleucus, Syria, Babylonia, and East as far as India ; and Ptolemy, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia." Sir Isaac Newton, who lived and wrote before Gibbon, says : " Ptolemy reigned over Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Celosyria, and Palestine ; and Seleucus over Syria." But the fullest and most correct statement is that of the Greek historians. Robertson says, " The generals of Alexander, after much altercation and dispute, at length agreed to divide among them the provinces, &c., Macedonia, &c., to Antipater ; Thrace, &c., to Lysimachus ; Egypt, Arabia, and Libya, to Ptolemy ; Asia Minor to Anti- gonus." The last was the most powerful, and sought to subdue all the rest, but they combined against him, and in the battle of Ipsus, 302 B.C., Antigonus was slain ; and the rest, " after much controversy," &c. " Egypt, Libya, Arabia, and Palestine were assigned to Ptolemy ; Macedonia and Greece to Cassander ; Bithynia and Thrace to Lysimachus ; and Asia to the Indus to Seleucus." These are the four horns " to the four winds of heaven," twenty years after Alexander, and after the death of all his relations. Of course, Syria and Egypt soon became the chief, the two brazen thighs of the second chapter. Thus I allege that neither Syria nor Antiochus had the very slightest connection with this whole affair. I consider this important, for I mean to no Pai't II. show thatj except as king of one of the horns, Antiochus had no more connection with the first ten chapters of Daniel than Queen Victoria ; nor with the rest of Daniel, and of Scripture, except a few verses in the eleventh chapter, which I will notice in due time. This surely will dispose of Porphyry and all his followers, ancient and modern; besides Keil, Hengstenberg, Pusey, Matthew Henry, and the great bulk of interpreters for two thou- sand years back. But let us return to the ninth verse, which shows that this little one came out of one of the four, and those who suppose it to be Syria, must also suppose that Antiochus, the king, represented his kingdom at least during his reign, and then we have him both the mother and the son, a feat in natural history worth noting. And to show that the objections to Antiochus are innumerable, I may here note a curious idea of Moses Stuart in his attempt to make the little horn of last chapter the same as this, wherein he follows Porphyry and his German guides, he says, " To Daniel a further dis- closure was made in regard to those empires, &c. These were mainly the second and fourth dynasties, so named in reference to chap. vii. The third seems to be here introduced mainly because it stands between the Medo- Persian dominion and that of the fourth beast." That means that this goat rej)resents both the third and fourth dominions, he means Alexander and his successors, and the poor goat must be cut in two, and yet live ; a feat the Hebrew mothers thought above the power of Solomon, when he proposed to divide the living child as well as the dead one. That was instantly understood to be fatal to the living child, but Stuart and his friends not being mothers may account for their want of acuteness. It is also said that this " little horn waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward Chapter VIII. 1 1 1 the pleasant land — i.e., Palestine." But the way from the capital of Syria, Antioch, or even Damascus, must pass through, or by Palestine to Egypt, so that is a mere tautology, the south and the pleasant land being the same direction, a blunder that Daniel was incapable of. But the same tautology applies to the Newtons, as the way to the Euphrates or the East must pass through or near Palestine. Now, suppose Daniel meant Mahomet, the south and the east are quite distinct from Palestine ; which is almost due north ; the fortieth degree of east longitude from Mecca or Medina passes tlirough Asia Minor to Trebisond on the Black Sea, Palestine lying a little to the west of the line. Ver. 10. Dr. Murphy rightly explains the host of heaven as " the people of God ; " and the stars as " their j)astors and teachers." Now, both Antiochus and the Romans cast these down and trampled on them, but they did it profanely ; whereas Mahomet was raised up by divine providence like Nebuchadnezzar, for the very purpose of chastising these Christians for their idolatry. There is one God was his creed, and he would neither tolerate imasfes, saints, nor relics, which were then the chief objects of Christian worship. Mahomet had a commission from heaven, though he went beyond it, like Nebuchadnezzar, but the others were fighting against heaven. The reader must make out who Daniel meant, and the next verse helps us. Ver. 11.. [Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him] (better, from him) the daily sacrifice (there is no Hebrew for sacrifice ; it is only an interpretation applicable to Antiochus and the temple service) ; the revisers make it, " it took away from him the continual burnt-offering, but with no Hebrew for burnt- offering, that is even worse than sacrifice, and both have a view to Antiochus. Murphy, 1 1 2 Part II. who believes in Maliomet, avoids this glaring liberty with the text, and renders, " from him the standing service " ; right, but I do not like the word standing. Keil says : " The word much rather comprehends all that is permanent in the services of divine worship," [was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.] There are three clauses here, and every one is the subject of dispute. Porphyry and his followers in Germany make the prince of the host, the high priest, but Stuart leaves them and says, " doubtless God him- self, as the sequel clearly shows." Keil says, " obviously not the high priest Onias (Grotius), but the God of heaven and the King of Israel " ; but Murphy rightly, I think, says, " He who holds the stars in His right hand (Rev. i.) and is the Captain of the Host of the Lord " (Jos. v.). Every one seeks to support his own theory of interpretation, and the decision must be left to the reader. How did Mahomet magnify himself thus ? He made himself greater than Jesus, whom he made a prophet greater than Moses, but he himself was the greatest and last of the prophets. He said both Moses and Jesus referred to some one to come after them, the Paraclete or Holy Ghost, and that was he, while Jesus was only a man like himself, " the son of Mary." Antiochus did not place himself above God, nor yet did the Romans. The reader must give due weight to these facts of history. 2nd. This clause is applicable to all the three, in so far as Antiochus took away the daily ser- vice of the Jews for three years and ten days ; the Romans did the same by the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus, which still lasts ; and Mahomet also abolished Christian worship where he could. 8rd. The place and site of the sanctuary at Jerusalem was not touched by Antiochus. The temple was polluted by Chapter VIII. 1 1 3 broth made of swine's flesh, which to the Jews was unclean. This was a piece of paltry spite, but only hurt men's feelings ; but the altar of Jehovah was desecrated by being made a heathen one, and dedicated to Jupiter Olympius, the king of the Grecian gods, so-called. I simply deny therefore that Antiochus fulfils this clause ; hence Jerome, Pusey, Kiel, and others reckon him only a type of a future Antichrist. Keil says, " as Kliefoth has justly remarked, the type and representative, lying as yet in the far-off future." I fear it is very far off! Murphy says, " By the command of the Caliph Omar, the ground (place or site of the temple of Solomon) Avas prepared for the foundation of a mosque (Gibbon). Thus the stated service of the God of revelation was removed, and that of the Allah of Mahomet was set up in its stead, and there it remains to this day." I leave the decision to the reader with confidence. Ver. 1 2. [And a host was given against the daily by reason of trans- gression ; and it cast down the truth to the ground ; and it did (or practised) and prospered]. The Revised Version places the first clause in the margin, and takes something like the old margin into the text to suit Antiochus better ; but I do not think it an improve- ment. The old margin is quite intelligible, " the host was given over for the transgression against the daily sacrifice." The revised text is, "And the host wa"s given over (to it) together with the continual (burnt- offering) through transgression." The reader, I hope, sees there is no Hebrew word for hurnt-ofering. The host (meaning the Jews) was given over to Antiochus, is quite clear, but not true ; and what do they mean bv giving over the continual burnt-offering ? How can one give a continual burnt-offering to a man ? Was Antio- chus to be worshipped as a god by getting the burnt- H ) 1 4 Part II. offering ? They must surely mean that he was to abolish this daily offering, but how that can be called giving over a continual burnt-offering to him I do not well see. Neither version can fit the Romans any more than Antiochus, so I will give my meaning as applied to Mahomet, which I reckon Mahomet's commission from heaven to chastise the apostate Christians for their transgressions in their daily worship, as Nebuchadnezzar was called God's servant, for he got a similar commission against the Jews, because of transgression. The literal, and I think the only right meaning is, " An army or host was given " (by providence to Mahomet) to punish the mani- fold idolatries, worship of saints, images, and relics of the Christian Church of that age. Such an army cannot apply to Antiochus nor the Romans. These had all national armies before Antiochus was born or Rome invaded Asia ; but Mahomet was deprived of his father at ten years of age, his mother was long dead, so at that age he was without father or mother, sister or brother, and an uncle took pity on the helpless orphan. His father had left only five camels and a female slave ; and surely this was a small enough beginning. If Provi- dence had not helped him, he could not have revolu- tionised the world. Gibbon says, " Our eyes are curiously intent on one of the most memorable revolutions which have impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe ; " and this was the work of the penniless orphan of ten years of age. His first approach to a host was at twenty-five ; he was entrusted with the caravan of a wealthy widow to the Syrian markets, and made successful exchange of goods so as to increase her store ; and she soon after married him, giving him a home of his own. Then he went every summer to a cave for private meditation on things human and divine. Chapter VIII. 1 1 5 and felt strongly inclined to oppose the religious errors of the Arabs, Jews, and Christians, and proclaimed his simple creed of two clauses, which Gibbon calls an " eternal truth and a necessary fiction," namely, God is one, or " there is only one God, and Mahomet is the Apostle of God." This he proclaimed for many years with no success, his wife and friend, slave and servant, being his whole flock. At length the Arabs would have slain him as attacking their old established religion, and he fled from Mecca for his life, but was received by a party at Medina, where he added the regal and sacerdotal office to that of the prophet. He promised his followers plunder and paradise ; told them that when their hour was come they would die in their beds, as well as in a field of battle, but till then "they were immortal." " The sword (he said) is the key of heaven and of hell ; a drop of blood shed in the cause of God (meaning his own cause), a night spent in arms is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer ; whosoever falls in battle his sins are forgiven ; at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion and odoriferous as musk : and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim." He had thus the help of religious fanaticism as well as of providence. His followers are thus described as locusts in the Apocalypse. " I saw a star (the papacy) fallen from heaven to the earth : and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the pit, and there arose a smoke out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace ; and the sun and air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth ; and unto them was given power as the scorpions of the earth have power,'' &c. Mahomet collected 313 followers, 70 camels, and 2 ii6 Part II. horsemen, to plunder a caravan of his Mecca foes, and they met him with 850 foot and 100 horsemen, and Mahomet gained a great victory, with 70 captives, in his first battle at Beder. He thus practised and lyrospered." The Romans also prospered, but not Antiochus ; he failed in Egypt, Asia, and Jerusalem. In the previous verses the meaning is clearly defined : ver. 10, "the host of heaven," ver. 11, "the prince of the host," must mean " the holy people " and Christ their prince. But in ver. 12 the writer changes the word by dropping the " the." Good Hebrew scholars say the context sometimes requires the article in English though not found in the Hebrew, and they infer that is the case here, because they think the author would not change the meaning in the 12th verse after the 10th and 11th. Now, I infer the very opposite, that the context does not allow the same meaning in the 12th ; and the author shows this by changing the word. How can he change the meaning when he wishes to do so, except by changing the word as he does here ? But this is of less moment ; it is in the next clause that the mischief lies. The margin of the Old Version says, " the host was given over because of trans- gression against the daily." The Revised says "together with the continual (burnt-oflfering) through trans- gression." I object to "burnt-offering," as there is no Hehreiv word for it, and if Daniel had wished to say so, he could have done so himself, and would have done it. Besides, such Avas impossible, when Daniel wrote in the third year of Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar was appointed by Providence and called God's servant for the very purpose of abolishing Jewish worship in Jerusalem, for their sins, when he destroyed the Temple. Also there has been none possible since Titus destroyed the Temple, Chapter VI 11. 117 but there has been a daily service, and the revisers could have said service as well as burnt-offeringr • but they obviously wished to make the text lit their theory of Antiochus, instead of the theory being made to fit the text ; but the rest of the verse won't fit either. " Prospered " will not fit him, and " a " host will not, though it is the proper literal translation ; and who are the transgressors ? Antiochus himself was the greatest, and the Apostate Jews who forsook the law of their God ; but not the faithful, who are called " the host of heaven" in ver. 10, and who have "the Prince of the host" on their side, ver. 11. Perhaps I should also tell the English reader that "the continual " or "daily" has no necessary connection with " burnt - offering " ; for in Exodus and Numbers we have burnt-offering without continual, and continual without burnt-offerino- • we have continual incense, and the word used as an adverb, "continually." On all these grounds I reject the revisers' translation where they seem to make a new book for their own use. If Daniel saw that " burnt- offering " was not suitable, the way to show us that was to do as he has done. Also, I may add, I think instead of "the host together with the continual," he should have said "the continual together tvitJi the host," for the less should be dependent on the greater, not the greater on the less. If Mahomet was the little horn, what was the trans- gression against the daily ? Gibbon will tell us what every reader of history knows : " The use and even the worship of images was firmly established before the end of the sixth century ; they were fondly cherished by the warm imagination of the Greeks and Asiatics. The Pantheon and the Vatican were adorned with the em- blems of a new superstition." "The devout Christian ii8 Part 11. prayed before the image of a saint ; and the pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and incense again stole into the Catholic Church." " The style and senti- ments of a Bysantiue hymn will declare how far their worship was removed from the grossest idolatry. ' How can we with mortal eyes contemplate this image, whose celestial splendour the host of heaven presumes not to behold ? He who dwells in heaven condescends this day to visit us by His venerable image. He who is seated on the cherubim visits us this day by a picture, which the Father has delineated with His immaculate hand, which he has formed in an ineffable manner, and which we sanctify by adoring it with fear and love.' " " In the beginning of the 8th century, in the full magnitude of the abuse, the more timorous Greeks were awakened by an apprehension that under the mask of Christianity they had restored the religion of their fathers ; they heard with grief and impatience the name of idolaters, the incessant charge of the Jews and Ma- hometans, who derived from the law and the Koran an immortal hatred to graven images, and all the relative worship." Mahomet's commission was thus directed against the daily worship by reason of transgression, or apostacy of the whole Church. Vers. 13 and 14. The twie. question and answer. [Then I heard one holy one speaking.'\ — The speaker is called Palmoni (a certain one), which some reckon a proper name, and means, as in the old margin, " The numberer of secrets, or the wonderful numberer." What may this numberer have been speaking about ? Daniel does not tell us, and perhaps he did not hear so distinctly as to comprehend what was said, but surely it must have been about this subject of the time, or why did it take place in the hearing of the prophet ? Chapter VII I. 119 Observe the question is : [" How long shall be the VISION concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation (or that maketh desolate), to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot. (And the answer is) Unto 2300 evening-mornings ; then the sanctuary (and of course the host) shall be justified "]. I reject cleansed, as an interpretation to suit Antiochus, not a translation, and both versions put the literal "justified" in the margin. The reader will see I also reject the continual of the R.V. which had no existence when the vision happened, and did not continue after Titus, I also remark that in the five verses, 10-14, host occurs five times, and sanctuary three, and daily three. The first three (vers. 10 and 11) have the article, and are unmistakeable without it : ''the host of heaven " cannot mean any hostile host. The 4 is the disputed case of ver. 12, where I agree with Stuart, Murphy, Reuss (une Armee), Zockler, &c. The latter says it " does not signify the host, as De Witte, Lengerke, Havernick, Kranich. &c. hold. The correct view was held by Jerome, Luther, &c., and among moderns by Hitzig, Kampt, and Ewald, who notices the contrast to ver. 10, where it stands in a different sense.'' Keil says, " according as we understand ' host of heaven,' — i.e., Israel, or some other host. The latter is supported by absence of the article and feminine." Hitzig says, " A Hebrew could not understand otherwise than as 'a' warlike expedition against the daily." The next case is ver. 13, "to give both (the) sanctuary and (the) host," but there is no article. The meaning is quite clear that it must be the same meaning as in vers, 10 and 11, but why not the article ? Stuart says, " it would have made the word an echo of the host nearest to it, — i.e., ver. 12, but that is not the right meaning. The I20 Part II. ■writer therefore omits the article, and throws the reader back, by means of the preceding context, on vers. 10 and 11." That seems reasonable, and I accept it. The vision, therefore, relates to four things — the daily, ti'ansgression (or apostacy), the sanctuary, and host tiudden duwn ; and as to the answer, we want a proper starting point. There was no sanctuary or daily then, and the host of heaven was suffering for the idolatrous apostacy of their fathers. The full vision, therefore, must wait for the restoration of Church and nation from Babylon. Under Cyrus they were allowed to go back to Judea and build the Temple (sanctuary). Being stopped by enemies, they were again authorised to go on by Darius, King of Persia, not Darius the Mede, but had no authority to build, and wall in, Jerusalem. This was granted in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. 1 1 . This is the copy of the letter — ver. 12: " Ar- taxerxes, King of Kings, unto Ezra the priest, a Scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time ; ver. 13, I make a decree that all they of the people of Israel, «fec., which are minded of their oivn free ivill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. Ver. l-i. Forasmuch as thou art sent of the King, and his seven Councillors to enquire concerning JuDAH AND Jerusalem, accord- ing to the law of thy God, which is in thy hand ; And to carry the silver and the gold, which the King, &c, ; ver. 25. And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set Magistrates and Judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the law of thy God, and teach them that know not ; ver. 26. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the King, let judgment BE executed speedily UPON HIM, WHETHER UNTO DEATH, OR TO BANISHMENT, OR TO CONFISCATION OF Chapter VIII. 121 GOODS, OR TO IMPRISONMENT." This is the first proper decree for the restoration of the nation of the Jews, as well as the Temple (sanctuary), and it is dated 457 B.C., which subtract from 2300 = 1843. Is there anything important that then took place " to justify " " both the sanctuary and the host " ? Yes ! Lord Aberdeen, Foreign Minister of England, thus writes to Sir Stratford Canning, our Ambassador at Constantinople, 19th April 1844 : "You have brought to a successful close a question of which the importance cannot be too highly rated." At length, 21st March 1844, the question of religious executioiii, was " happily, and to all appearance, con- clusively settled," by the following official declaration : — (Translation) " It is the special and constant inten- tion of his Highness the Sultan that his cordial relations with the High Powers be preserved, and that a perfect reciprocal friendship be maintained and increased. The sublime Porte engages to take effectual measures to pre- vent henceforth the execution or putting to death of the Christian who is an apostate." Declaration of his High- ness the Sultan to Sir Stratford Canning, 22nd March : " Henceforth neither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians IN any WAT be persecuted for their religion." I call that the extinction and death of the little horn of the Greek Empire. This statement of the Grand Vizier, 24th August 1843, will explain the laiv that was thus cancelled. " The laws of the Koran compel no man to become a Mussulman, but they are inexorable both as respects a Mussulman who embraces another religion, and as respects a person not a Mussulman who, after having of his own accord, publicly embraced Islamism, is convicted of having renounced that faith. No consideration can produce a commutation of the 122 Part II. capital panishment to which the law condemns him with- out mercy. . . . Such executions were obligatory under the law considered by Mahommedans divine, ... a law pre- scribed by God Himself was not to be set aside by any human power." One can easily conceive what a terrible engine of torment that law has been for 1200 years to those ill-informed young persons who do not know their own minds on the subject of religion, and who in an hour of danger, to save their life, may have professed Islam, and in calmer moments repented. It was ob- viously made in a barbarous age, when life was of small moment. It clearly annihilates all religious freedom and sincerity. Such a change brings in a new era to multitudes of the human race. It is the pioneer to freedom of thought and the extinction of religious per- secution, which is a principal object of Daniel and the Apocalypse to bring about. The letter began with the fiery furnace, and for 2500 years has reigned with terrible force, and is not yet fully dead. Still the eastern horn has not been half so dreadful as the western, and it is also near its end. The causes that ultimately led to a result so beneficial to the human race are worth preserving. " In August 1843 an Armenian youth, who after (under fear of punishment) becoming a Turk, had returned to his Christian faith, was put to death. This called for the interposition of our government and its serious remonstrances, and produced in November 1843 some promises of terminating such affairs without capital punishment. In December, however, a young Greek, who had become a Mussulman, having returned to his creed as a Greek Christian, at Biligik, near Brussa, was executed. This taking place in the midst of the corre- spondence, called forth Lord Aberdeen's decisive letter of 16th January 1844. Thus we are indebted to the faith- Chapter VIII. 123 fulness of Greek and Armenian martyrs for this remark- able change," as beneficial to Turkey herself as to any one else. For the first time she can hold up her head as a civilised power. But " it required the united efforts of the five great European Powers, Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, and England." In looking back upon the last six verses, none of them seems to fit Antiochus. Certainly the ninth does not in three particulars ; he was neither very little nor very great, nor will the pleasant land fit. I need not go over the whole, but as certainly the fourteenth does not, the 2300 days, and yet they all fit Mahomet well. Vers. 15-18 are preparatory to an explanation. He felt he did not understand the meaning of all he saw, but some kind person unseen asked another to help him. This person seemed to be walking on the water, as the voice came from between this side and the other, saying, [" Gabriel, make this one understand the vision "]. This shows that they saw him though he did not see them, and they knew he did not under- stand. The speaker, though not quite near, read his thoughts. That must have increased his wonder, and when the one he saw came near, he felt he was in heavenly company, and fell on his face, in alarm. Gabriel tried to encourage him, saying, ['' Understand, Son of man "], showing he knew him to be only a weak man, while he himself was from the unseen world. The vision relates to a distant period, the end of some- thing called [" the time of the end "]. This remark did not strengthen him much, as he lay on the ground in a deep sleep. But Gabriel touched him, helped him up, and set him on his feet, and then he was able to listen. Ver. 19. The explanation now begins: ["I will make thee know what shall happen at the last end of the 124 Part II. indignation "]. This must mean God's indignation against His people for their idolatries and apostacy. They were at present scattered in Babylon, far from home, in con- sequence of that indignation, of which, no doubt, they would willingly see the end. That end, on which he seems to lay stress, will not come till a certain time already fixed. Ver. 20. The ram has two horns, to show that it represents a union of two kingdoms. Vers. 21, 22. The rough goat is only one, like the unity of the metallic image at first ; but four parts, instead of two, follow, like the four heads of the leo- pard. This four may be taken either literally, or like the four winds of heaven, all points of the compass. And since the four come in the place of the one, on the head of the same animal, and out of the same nation, this effectually sets aside the modern, and Stuart's, theory of these four representing another dynasty, the Seleucidae. Their prejudices prevent them seeing that he would require to cut the goat in two, and make both parts live. Besides, if all the four have not as much 'power as the one, how should any one of them have ? And as every dynasty wrests the dominion from his predecessor, when did Syria conquer, and wrest the dominion from Alexander the Great ? It is humiliating to see men, who might have more sense, hugging such notions, and in vain, too ! Vers. 23-25. These three verses take up the little horn again, but they are not more favourable to Antiochus. I do not see a syllable that can apply to him, except he shall destroy luonder fully , which was only wonderful in its baseness. As to Mahomet, he came in the latter time of the Greek Empire, while Antiochus was about the middle of the Syrian kingdom. I formerly asked who were the transgressors in the time of Antiochus ? He Chapter VII I. 125 did not punish the transgressors or apostates, but the godly. But, as to Mahomet, ask Gibbon : " The Christians of the seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism : their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that dis- graced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and a7igels, the objects of popular veneration : and the Collyridian heretics, who flourished in the fruit- ful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a Goddess^ "The prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men." I would rather express these views in the language of another, that no one might be able to say I misrepresented them. Antiochus was the opposite of a fierce coimtenance ; he was fawning and flattering and deceitful ; and what sentences did he understand ? And yet all this suits Mahomet. Ver. 24. ['' Not by his own power"]: I have explained already, both God and the bottomless pit helped him. He destroyed wonderfully, and yet he prospered. He destroyed mighty Christian nations. Ver. 25. He had great natural sagacity, and succeeded where many would have failed, while Antiochus's best friends can only accuse him of low cunning and sneak- ing cowardice in attacking men unarmed, and women and children on the Sabbath day. Both could magnify himself in his heart, and Mahomet, by fair promises, robbed some of their Christian principles, from which it was death to retreat. Antiochus knew nothing of the God of the Jews, but Mahomet knew that of both Jew and Christian, and professed to be greater than Jesus, whom he acknowledged only as the Son of Mary, and, as he would not worship the Son, he was not likely to worship the Mother. He had a gi'eat mission to attack 126 Part II. idols and saints, but he went greatly beyond it ; and his great power will disappear like snow, or the drying up of a river; he shall be broken without hand. Ver. 26 again refers to the vision as true, but distant for many days, which cannot relate to Antiochus. Ver. 27. Daniel was exhausted with his strong emotions, and was sick for days. After he recovered he did the king's business, but was deeply impressed with the vision, and also with its darkness. No mortal could properly under- stand either of these little horns beforehand. Few in this age can appreciate the importance of the great change which Turkey would never have granted, had she not been politically weak. It is the work of circumstances — i.e., of divine Providence, not of man ; and distant ages will acknowledge its greatness. The Euphrates is dried up to make way for the kingdoms of the East. The same is true of the civil power of the Pope, but the spiritual slavery which began first is still most powerful and delusive, " but he shall be broken without band." PART THIRD. Thkee chapters were revealed in the reign of Nebu- chadnezzar, and he retired from the world with credit ; now other three are to be devoted to Belshazzar and the close of the whole Babylonian Empire. I have already said heathen historians are hopelessly contra- dictory, but inscriptions cannot lie, and they put to shame the carelessness and ignorance of the historians. This is clear, that conspiracies and murders in the palace followed soon after the death of the great king ; and with these Daniel could have no sympathy, so he neces- sarily fell into the shade ; but when man forsook him, the spirit of inspiration visited him, and gave him those two splendid chapters we have just finished, the bands of iron and of brass. I must notice here a clear proof of the inspiration and genuineness of the book. If it be a novel, as the wise men of Germany tell us, the author must be an egregious fool to begin with Hebrew in the first year of Cyrus, and pass to the second of Nebuchadnezzar in Chaldee, then to give us the iron hoop in Chaldee, and the brass one in Hebrew, then back to Chaldee for Belshazzar's feast, and the lion's den, and then back to the Hebrew for the ninth chapter. Never w^as novel written thus before, but no fool could write the book. There are plenty learned fools among his critics, and again I defy any one of them, or all to- gether, to produce such another novel ; and till then I feel warranted to consider the book inspired, seeing all 128 Part III. the changes exactly suit the circumstances of Daniel. To have written the eighth chapter in Chaldee might have cost him his head, as if he was teaching treason, — he had doubtless enemies ; but his critics can give no rational reason for the chancre. Chapter V. Vers. 1-4. The Feast — The King's Folly AND Profaneness. — [" While he tasted the wine (and when the eating was over, and the guests half- way), he commanded to bring the gold and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem ; that the king and his princes, his wives, and his concubines might drink therein. Ver. 3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God at Jerusalem ; and ver. 4. they drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone."] Vers. 5, 6. The Writing. [" In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote "] the doom of the king and kingdom of Babylon. The time of this was long before fixed, but this act of profaneness and pagan triumph applied the match. We have here once more the old, old problem of predestination and human responsibility ; both are true, but none can reconcile them. Ver. 6. [The king's countenance was changed, and his knees smote one against another ; ver. 7. The king cried aloud, Bring in the astrologers : ver. 8. Then came in all the king's wise men ; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the in- terpretation thereof Vers. 9, 13. Then the queen- Chapter V. 129 mother heard the commotion of the King and his lords, and came into the banquet house. The Queen spake and said — Send for Daniel, and he will show the inter- pretation. [Then was Daniel brought in before the King. Then the King said, Art thou that Daniel of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the King, my father, brought out of Jewry ? Ver. 16. I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts; now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and a chain of gold about thy neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.] Vers. 17-24. The Rebuke. [Daniel said. Thy gifts to thyself, and thy rewards to another (I don't need thy bounty, and am too old to profit by thy generosity ;) yet I will read the writing to the King, and make known to him the interpretation. Ver. 18. As to thee, O King, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, a king- dom, and majesty, and glory, and honour : ver. 19. and all people, nations, and languages trembled before him ; whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive ; and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he put down. Ver. 20. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him ; ver. 21. and he was driven from the sons of men ; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses ; they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven ; till he knew that the Most High God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and He appointeth over it whomsoever He will. Ver. 2 2. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knevvest all this ; ver. 23. but hast lifteth up thyself against the Lord of 130 Part III. heaven ; and they have brought the vessels of His house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them ; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know ; and the God in whose hands thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified ; ver. 24. then was the part of the hand sent from Him ; ver. 25. and this is the writing that was written, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uphar- SIN. Ver. 26. This is the interpretation, Mene, God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it ; Tekel, thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting ; Peres, thy kingdom is divided (from thee), and given to the Medes and Persians. Vers. 29-31. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel in scarlet, &c."] The King in that painful hour showed one redeeming point — he kept his word. Yet [in that night was Belshazzar the King of the Chaldeans slain ; and Darius the Mede took the] (vacant) throne. I have purposely quoted nearly the whole rebuke, that the reader may see distinctly the accusations against this King and kingdom, and all the more so as I have all along looked upon Nebuchadnezzar, the Golden head, and the tree of the 4th chapter, as representing the whole image. The blessings and transgressions of the head are likely to be continued, or even intensified, in his successors. This is one successor, and in the same kingdom, and he has been weighed and found wanting, and doomed to perish and pass away. He is accused of Nebuchadnezzar's pride and religious persecution, his over- weening confidence in his own visible but senseless gods of wood and stone, and his contempt of the gods of those of his subjects who differ from him, such as the God of Heaven. He is also accused of undervaluing the Chapter V. 131 bounties of the Most High God, the God of Providence, and blindness as to the lessons of the past, or the dangers of the present, forgetting that the Most High alone ruleth in the kingdom of men. That is, idolatry, pride, and persecution on the one hand ; and disregard of the God of Providence on the other. These faults must inevitably lead to Heaven's condemnation ; weaken- ing the empii'e on the one hand, and bringing down the curse of Heaven on the other ; and yet these faults have universally prevailed in the whole history of this metallic image. The first two empires have been the least oppresssive, Babylon and Persia ; Alexander, the first King of the Grecian dynasty, favoured the people of God, and persecuted none ; while his successors in Egypt, and especially in Syria, exceeded all before them, but fell far short of Pagan Rome ; the three years of Antiochus being brief, compared with the three centuries of the other. But the deepest intensity of Evil has been seen in the two little horns, in the Eastern less than in the Western, the two bands of iron and brass. The days of all are therefore numbered, and, weighed in the balances, all have been found wanting ; but there is hope for humanity in the kingdom of the Stone and the Mountain. This chapter, therefore, teaches us a noble lesson, that evil shall not always reign, and that pride must have a fall. Ever and anon we ma}' bear the echo of the prophet's voice — Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Though this chapter contains useful lessons, it must not be misunderstood. It was not the cause, but only the occasion of the downfall of the kingdom of Babylon. That downfall had been long before predicted as the punishment of pride and cruelty to many lands. In Isa. xxi., we have this day anticipated when he says, 132 PcWt III. " Fallen, fallen is Babylon ; and all the graven images of her gods He hath dashed to the ground." So in the 13th and 14th chapters we have fine poetic descriptions of its terrible overthrow. Belshazzar could not be blamed for what incurred the condemnation of Isaiah. But to come nearer this catastrophe, we have in the dream of the 2nd chapter a clear intimation of the end of all the kingdoms of the four metals. Nebuchadnezzar was the golden head, but he was told that the dominion should in time be taken away, and descend to the feet and toes. The appointed hour has now arrived, and the moment to intimate this great event is amid the jollity and follies of this last feast. The reader must be struck with the apparent hai'shness of Daniel's rebuke ; but he is always faithful, and he is at pains to make the grounds of this terrible decree quite clear. He accuses Belshazzar of neglecting all past warnings to Nebuchad- nezzar. He tells him that the God of Heaven, '' who removeth Kings and setteth up Kings," had set up his father Nebuchadnezzar as the golden head of a great metallic image of four mighty empires of secular dominion. He had given him gloiy and honour and earthly majesty. But when his heart was lifted up with vanity and self-praise, and his mind hardened in pride, so that he presumed to persecute the consciences of God's people, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and driven from the sons of men, and " his dwelling was with the wild asses, he was fed with grass like oxen, and wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and appointeth over it whomsoever He will. And thou, Belshazzar, knowest all this, and hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven, and profaned the vessels of His sanctuary, de- spising him and praising thy gods of gold and silver, wood Chapter VI. 133 and stone, who see not, nor hear, nor can help you, and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, thou hast not glorified, and hence this terrible message of the downfall of thy kingdom." That is plainly such an address as kings are not wont to pay for, and hence Daniel's refusal of pay. He must have seen at a glance when he entered the hall, that the message was one of doom, but he did not know when it might arrive, and how his explanation might be re- ceived. He only knew that he must speak the truth, and few men care to pay for unpleasant truth. Besides, he may have thought that Belshazzar's time for presents was nearly over ; but the King was so impressed with the solemnity of the occasion that he insisted on keeping his promise, which Daniel saw no longer any reason for refusing. This will show why I make this the third part of Daniel's prophecies. It is the contrast to the second chapter, which was the beginning of the Chaldean Empire, and this is its close. The intermediate chapters partly explain the cause of this hasty close. Chapter VI. need not detain us long, it is so similar to the third. It is important as showing that even Daniel saw and felt that the second empire persecuted the consciences of men, and was properly exhibited as a beast of prey. The truth, however, had made some advance since the 3rd chapter. Nebuchadnezzar never seemed to imagine that anyone could object to worship his image except on the ground of treason, but his eyes were opened to the fact that some men have a conscience, and prefer to die rather than disobey 134 Part III. their conscience and their God ; and he made great progress in acquiring some knowledge of the God of Heaven. But Darius was perfectly aware of the God of Daniel, and even his enemies were persuaded he would not violate his conscience, or their plot would have been useless. And iu the end all men saw that Daniel's God could defend him, but not so those many gods of his accusers. Those who object to this miracle must do the same to all Elijah's, and that of the dis- obedient prophet whom a lion was sent to kill, and stood over the carcase till the other prophet came to see what he had done (1 Kings xiii. 28). The Hebrew Bible begins the 6th chapter with the last verse of 5th, and the Germans are puzzled what to do with the " and." Some think it is to join the 5th and 6th chapters, but it can only join two parts of one sentence. " Belshazzar Avas slain, AND Darius took the kingdom." What can be simpler ? It was stupid to make two verses of it, but far worse to have one sentence divided between two chapters. Zockler says the conjunction need not join the two chapters, as the 2nd chapter also has a conjunc- tion, and it does not join anything. This is doubly wrong. It shows he is not aware the 2nd chapter pro- perly begins with ver. 4 in Chaldee, and ver. 1 is joined to first chapter by " and," as both were written at the same time, the date being " first of Cyrus," and in Hebrew. But both chapters are vitally connected, the tirst with the second, and the fifth with the sixth. Vers. 1-3 connect chapter six with five, as they make arrangements for the future government of the new empire, where not merely a king was changed but a whole empire, and Daniel was esteemed for what he had done in the 5th chapter and the whole old empire. Jealousy of foreigners m high place led to a plot against Chapter VI. 135 him (vers. 4-9), and the unsuspecting King was en- trapped, as the Persians consider the King the Vicar of God. The whole narrative is so plain it needs little explanation, and that will follow. Vers. 10-17. Daniel's integrity as well as piety becomes visible to all. He continues his prayers as if nothing had happened, and now his enemies think they have gained their end. He is accused, condemned, and cast to the lions, much to the regret of the King, who finds he has been entrapped, but cannot revoke the decree. He only says : [" May thy God whom thou servest continually deliver thee "] ; not " He will deliver thee," Keil's translation. Vers. ] 8-24. His enemies are disappointed, and receive the same punishment. Early in the morning the King is at the den, and finds Daniel safe. His God had stopped the mouths of the lions. They are God's obedient ser- vants, sometimes better than men, even than prophets (1 Kings xiii. 28). Some critics suggest that the accusers alleged the lions had been well fed the night before out of partiality to Daniel ; but I suspect that only a guess from the event, for Darius next ordered them to be cast in, and with them, what shows the barbarity of the age, their innocent wives and children ; and them the lions immediately crushed to death and devoured. Ver. 24. [" The lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones, or ever they came to the bottom of the den "], but I do not know what " the bottom " implies. Vers. 25-27. The Decree. The King not merely exercised stern justice and something more, according to the custom of the age, on Daniel's enemies, but proclaimed to all the kingdom his admiration of this deliverance that [" Men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel." Ver. 28. " So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the (future) reign of Cyrus the Persian."] That last 136 Part III. verse could not have been written till the time of Cyrus, forming part of Daniel's editorial notes. Keil and some others allege an interval of more than twenty years between 5th and 6th chapter, but if he finds that in his Bible it is not in mine. Daniel knew no King of Baby- lon but Belshazzar, at whose death the empire was trans- ferred to the Medan King. This chapter, showing persecution of the conscience, was necessary to justify the second empire being called a bear, or beast of prey, attacking the consciences of men, of which we shall have superabundant evidence in the next two empires, even without the terrible little horns. We now only require Chapter IX. to complete the illustration of the metallic image. In the second Daniel explained the first and fourth kingdoms pretty fully, and the second and third have had the whole eighth chapter to themselves, develop- ing the terrible horn from little. A horn is an instrument of attack with which some animals are endowed. It is used only for hurt in this book, never for mere good, and therefore the very name is evil, but the iron one is much worse than the brazen. Having seen these terrible evils, we now come to the kingdom of the Stone. We had something of it in the second chapter, but its vast importance is worth more notice. Sir Isaac Newton has well said that " in this vision of the image composed of four metals, the foundation of all Daniel's prophecies is laid." (They) " are all related to one another, as if they were but several parts of one general prophecy, given at several times. The first is the easiest to be understood, and every following pro- Chapter IX. 137 phecy adds something new. And to reject his pro- phecies is to reject the Christian religion, for it is founded upon his prophecy concerning the Messiah." This testifies to the unity of the book, as well as the importance of this chapter. We have largely discussed the four metallic empires, with further additional notices, and we have in this chapter to put the copestone on the grand building whose foundation was shown to Nebuchadnezzar. He saw the stone grow into a mountain ; and that stone I have interpreted by the help of other Scriptures, as meaning both the kingdom of the Christians and its King. The set- ting up of the kingdom refers to Christ's preaching, or First Advent, and the destruction of the metallic image and the mountain means the Second Advent, or John's millennium. The next chapter where this king- dom is mentioned is the seventh, and there the stone is represented by Christ's favourite title the " Son of Man." This must be the Second Advent, for. He comes not from earth, but from heaven, " in the clouds," and He receives " the dominion " which has been abused by Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, including the two dreadful little horns, the two bands of iron and brass, by which the growth of this dominion as a splendid tree in chapter four was retarded and prevented ; but it shall be so no longer, for the horns perish with the beast that wears them, whose duration is limited to three and a half times, and any further Antichrist, or little horn, is a delusion and a snare, because without foundation. The horns are not living, independent animals, but only the offensive weapons of the one great and dreadful living animal, with teeth of iron and claws of brass ; and when the beast is consigned to the burn- ing flame, "a lake of fire burning with brimstone" 138 Part III. (Rev. xix. 20), the horns are cast in along with " the beast and the kings of the earth, and the false prophet," &c., and they shall never come out. So much for Pusey's and Keil's expected future Antichrist ! He that sits on the "white horse " (Rev. xix. 11-16), this Son of Man, shall hold fast what He once receives. Dan. vii. 14. [" dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that ALL people, nations, and languages, should serve Him : His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom, which shall not be de- stroyed."] See also ver. 27, and as to the little horn, [" the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away liis dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end."] Ver. 26. Let not the reader be astonished that I have found this " Son of Man " sitting on " a white horse " in the Apocalypse, for the latter is only a continuation of these prophecies of Daniel. If the second and seventh chapters contain the First and Second Advent of this glorious personage, the ninth chapter, now before us, contains some further important information about His work. It is composed of two parts, a prayer and a prophecy, closely connected. The first three verses contain the date, searching the Scriptures, and His reso- lution to pray, " with fasting and sackcloth and ashes." The prayer is vers. 4-19, and the prophecy is the answer to this earnest prayer, vers. 20-27, especially from 24. This is a very instructive prayer. Confes- sion of sin and general unworthiness, along with earnest supplication for a particular object, its chief burden ; but it begins with adoration, and finds room for thank- fulness for past mercies — " hast brought thy people out of Egypt. The great and dreadful God, keeping the Covenant, and mercy to them that love Him. . . . We have sinned, and committed," &c. Chapter IX. 139 The fact that this aged statesman and prophet was searching the Scriptures so anxiously in regard to the period of the restoration of his church and nation shows how much he was interested in the subject, and this is the time the Spirit selected to make to him, for our sakes, another most important communication about the work and time of the Son of Man, Messiah, the Prince. When he ascertained that the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah had nearly elapsed from the time of his own captivity, he set his face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication. Ver. 4. And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession. It was no unknown God to which Daniel prayed, but one he had served with constancy and regularity three times a day for more than threescore and ten years ; but yet he does not venture to pray without also making his confession. Adoration, confession, and thanksgiving prepare the way for his humble supplications. It is interesting to see how such a man of prayer will conduct his case. He said : [" O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments"]. There is profound reverence and humility here, but also great demands on the part of those who would approach such a God, — they must love Him, and keep His command- ments, if they expect mercy at His hand. This is a covenant-keeping God, and He has a right to expect a covenant-keeping people in the seed of Abraham. But the Jews in Babylon had fallen far short of all that, as well as their fathers, or they would not have been there. So he must look from God to himself and the people (ver. 5), and now he says : [" We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from Thy precepts, and from 140 Part III. Thy judgments : " ver, 6. " neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets, which spake in Thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land "J. Here is national trans- gression sufficient to account for their present captivity, but he still goes on to accuse them. Ver. 7. ["0 Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us con- fusion of faces as at this day ; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, near and far off, through all the countries whither Thou hast driven them, because of their tres- pass that they have trespassed against Thee."] There is a wealth of detail there that takes in all, and if the present Jews could take it to heart, it might almost convert them. Of course it applies to more than Jews, but it shows how keenly the prophet felt and here con- fesses the backslidings of his nation. He further con- trasts the people and their God, leading up to the threatenings of the law of Moses. Ver. 11. ["Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy laiv, even by departing, that they might not obey Thy voice ; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, because we have sinned against Him. Ver. 12. And He hath confirmed His words ... by bringing upon us a great evil ; for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem."] This detail of their just and threatened punishment suggests a door of mercy, but he has still another charge against them. Ver, 13. [" All this evil is come upon us, as it is written in the law of Moses : yet made ive not our pi^ayer before the Lord, our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand Thy truth. Ver. 14. Therefore the Lord hath watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us : Chapter IX. 141 for the Lord our God is righteous in all His works which He doeth ; for we obeyed not His voice."] This is a clear detail of past national sins and punishment, but now he passes to the acknowledgment of past national deliverances. Ver. 15. ["And now, Lord, our God, that hast brought Thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten Thee re- nown as at this day : we have sinned, we have done wickedly."] (Confession is still prominent, but now he passes to supplication.) Ver. 16. [" O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, / beseech Thee, let Thine anger and Thy fury be turned away from Thij city Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain : because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Thy people are a reproach to all about us. Ver. 17. Now, therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant, and his supplications, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake."] Those who persist in applying this book and this chapter to Antiochus and his times are here again plainly refuted, for the sanctuary was not desolate in his day, and this prayer has not the most distant relation to him or his doings. The most earnest part of the prayer is in the close"^ Vers. 18, 19. ["0 my God, incline Thine ear and hear ; open Thine eyes, and behold our desolation, and the city that is called by Thy name ; . . . O Lord, hear ; O Lord, forgive ; O Lord, hearken and do : defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God : for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name."] Now all this earnest prayer is suggested by " the Word of the Lord to Jeremiah that he would accomplish seventy years (which were nearly run) in the desolations of Jerusalem " (ver. 2). The man that can apply these words to Antiochus or his times must be wilfully blind ! 142 Part III. Next comes the answer to this prayer, ver. 20-27. It was immediate. [" While I was speaking, and pray- ing, and confessing my sin, &c. Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel . . . touched me about the time of the evening oblation. ... I am now come to give thee skill and understanding ; . . . there- fore understand the matter, and consider the vision (ver. 24). Seventy weeks are determined upon thy 'people and upon thy holy city."] Daniel calls it God's city, and now Gabriel calls it Daniel's city, &c. This was the subject of his prayer, and now he is told an important arrangement has been made whereby the people and city shall be restored and rebuilt, and six events shall take place. [" Seventy weeks are determined to finish trangression, and make an end of sins ; and make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlast- ing righteousness ; and seal up vision and prophet or prophecy, and anoint a Most Holy."] Some arrange these particulars in two classes of three each, but I do not see how they can make sense. It is difficult to see the difference between the first three, transgression, sin, iniquity ; but the last three are plain enough. Keil translates, " to shut up the transgressions," " to seal up sin," but can any one do so ? His comment only makes bad worse, it " does not denote the finishing or ending of the sins ; the figure of sealing stands here in con- nection with the shutting up in prison," but he does not tell us how to shut up either the sin or the transgres- sion, in prison ! The context tells us Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, and " everlasting righteousness " brought in. This must belong to the kingdom of Heaven, for nothing else is said to be " for ever " and " everlasting," chap, vii. 18, 27. This is the kingdom which the God of Heaven is to set up in the time of the Romans (chap. Chapter IX. 143 ii. 44), and the King of it is here said to be " Messiah, a Prince." These two words are literally translated in Luke ii. 11, the message of an angel, probably the same Gabriel, to the shepherds, " unto you is born this day a Saviour, ' Christ, a Lord.' " This same Gabriel appears with a message to Zacharias and Mary in tlie previous chapter (i. 19, 1^), and no other name is given in chap. ii. These things, and the whole context, convince me tlmt here we have the abolishing of the Old Testament economy, and the commencement of the New ; ceremonial trangressions shall be abolished, and even moral sins be taken away ; the Jewish great day of atonement for iniquity dies out by the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, through the death of the Anointed ; also the visions and prophetic office of Old Testament sealed up or ended, and a Most Holy One anointed, or set apart to His office, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, like a dove alighting upon Him. This is a ringing out the old covenant, and ringing in the New. Isaiah's first words are : " the vision which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem." Vision and prophet ceased with Malachi, about 400 B.C., but the first three depend on the death, or cutting off of Messiah. In the next verse (25) we have the seventy weeks divided into three parts, of seven, sixty-two, and one week, and the starting point of the period, which we have already seen was in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 B.C., from the commandment to Ezra to restore and build Jerusalem, also what shall take place in the seven weeks, " street built and wall in troublous times." After thi.s, and the sixty-two weeks (ver. 26) Messiah shall be cut off, and none for Him. Commentators very generally, I think justly, object to our phrase "not for himself," and the Revised Version has " and shall have 144 Part III. nothing," but what that means I cannot tell ; the margin has, " there shall be none belonging to Him," but I am no wiser, except that they make our old " not " into " none," as I do. Dr. Murphy makes it, " and nothing to Him," but what does it mean ? Reuss translates cor- rectly, " ei mil a lui" which I have borrowed ; but his interpretation is vile. He thinks the Messiah that was cut off must be the Jewish High Priest Onias III., who was murdered by a servant of Antiochus, but this is the mere guess of the modern rationalists to suit their theory. If the learned Professor had not been too great a man to notice such a humble book as John's Gospel, he might have found out very easily who the Messiah was that was to be cut off; Chap. iv. 25, 26 : [" The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh which is called Christ. Jesus saith unto her, I that sjjeaJc unto thee am He."] But that does not suit modern theory. Keil divides interpretations into three classes. 1. Most of the church fathers and the older . orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ in the flesh, His death (cut off) and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. (The Prince that shall come, Titus, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.) That is the traditional theory, which, of course, I think correct. 2. The moderns refer the whole passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, which I think blasphemy. How can Antiochus, or any man, bring in everlasting right- eousness. 3. Finally, some of the church fathers, and several modern theologians, have interpreted the pro- phecy eschatologically, as an announcement of the de- velopment of the kingdom of God from the Exile on to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the days ; but what ground have they for all this ? I say none ! The reader may easily see here Keil's own far-off Antichrist. Chapter IX. 145 He confesses as much in a note. The seventy is di voided into seven till Christ, sixty-two till the apostacy of Antichrist, and one the rise and fall of Antichrist." Again, I say, where is your authority for this, for Daniel says nothing about it. I have said this Antichrist in the indefinite, unknown, and probably impossible future is a mere delusion. The modern theory is worse than a delusion ; it is a clear falsification of Scripture and of history, such as denying that Christ is the Messiah : and I suspect some of them of intentional deception, but it would take too much time at present to prove this. 1 have not yet explained Reuss's oione for Him. Well, when Pilate offered to release Jesus, none would cry or vote for Him. Pilate's wife was the only one the Evan- gelist names as friendly, but she vt^as not there to vote, and His disciples even all forsook Him and fled through fear ; so when the mob cried for the release of Barabbas there was literaWy none for Him. Ver. 27. [" And He shall confirm the (new) covenant with many for one week ; and in the midst of the week He shall (by His death) cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and on the wing of abominations (the eagles of the standards of the Roman army, which the soldiers worshipped) there shall be (desolation or) a desolator."] The desolator here may either be the army that followed the idolatrous eagles, or the general who commanded them, or the soldier who threw the brand into the Temple, contrary to the order of Titus to spare the beautiful house. This angel had told Daniel of the destruction of both city and sanctuary, and nothing could save it. There is still another peculiarity here which I do not remember any interpreter has noticed. In the 26th verse there are two ends ; after "the end thereof" there is still another end ; and in verse 27 there is " the consumma- K 146 Part III. tion," which seems to be another end. The end thereof is probably the end of the city, including the sanctuar}^ and the next end will be the end of Jewish warfare and worship, — that is, the end of the Jewish Church ; but in the next verse there is " until the consummation," what can that be ? Sir Isaac Newton suggests the end of the national existence also, under Trajan, when the rebellion under Barchochaba necessitated the second destruction of Jerusalem or Elia, and the banishment of every Jew from the spot under pain of death. That at least gives a meaning to all the ends. After the sixty-second week, that is in the seventieth and last week, Messiah was cut off, the time not being further specified ; but in the 27th verse we are told that in the middle of the week sacri- fice and oblation were made to cease, legal sacrifice being fulfilled in Christ's death ; and the destruction of the city without a date is connected with the cutting off of Messiah. The consummation again of the national existence is connected with the crime of '' the many " in rejecting the Gospel covenant, which was offered to them exclusively during the last week, one week only, before the calling of Cornelius, when the Gospel is offered equally to all nations, and the consummation of the national existence is determined to be poured upon the already desolate Jewish rebels. I have thus, I hope, satisfactorily explained most part of these last chapters, but every one professes to do the same on his own principles. Let the reader judge how far each is satisfactory ; though I cannot take time to bring the views of many before him, I have mentioned Keil's three divisions of the traditional, the Epiphanes, and the Antichrist, and I have given some knowledge of all the three ; but the full number of discrepancies is legion, so that I will content myself at present with a Chapter IX. 147 more minute detail of the views of two most illustrious Englishmen, Sir Isaac Newton and Dr Pusey, to both of whom I am deeply indebted. These two differ very decidedly in the 25th ver. of chapter ix. Newton, who wrote nearly 200 years ago, ahvays thinks for himself, and can always give a feasible reason for his opinions, though I do not think him always right. He holds that this passage relates to both the first Advent of Christ in the flesh, and the Second in glory ; while Pusey keeps to the traditional First Advent only. Newton says the prophecy of the " Son of Man" coming in the clouds of heaven relates to the second coming of Christ (chap, vii.), that the prince of the host (chap, viii.), relates to His first coming ; and this prophecy of Messiah (chap, ix.) in explaining them, relates to both comings, and assigns the times thereof. He then mentions that the seventy weeks of verse 24, from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, " the 490 years are ended with the death of Christ." So far so good, but mark his reasoning on the 25th verse : " Know also and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to cause to return and to build Jerusalem, unto the anointed prince, shall be seven weeks. The former part of the prophecy (ver. 24) related to the first coming of Christ, being dated to His coming as a prophet ; this (ver. 25), being dated to His coming to be prince or king, seems to relate to His second coming. If divers of the Ancients, as Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus the Martyr, and Apollin- arius, Bishop of Laodicea, applied the half week to the times of Antichrist, why may not we, by the same liberty of interpretation, apply the seven weeks to the time when Antichrist shall be destroyed by the bright- ness of Christ's coming ? " That is, two blacks may 148 Part III. surely make a white : if Irenseus, &e., used unwarranted assumptions, why may not we do the same ? We have surely as good a right as Irenaeus to go wrong 1 Having thus proved that these seven weeks refer to the Second Advent, all the rest is simple enough. " This part of the prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled (I fear it will ever remain so), I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it." The reader, I think, will admit that there is something ingenious in this. But for one slight mistake or oversight his proof would have been triumphant; and that is that the 7 weeks, 62 and 1 of the three last verses, are the very same 70 of the 24th verse, and cannot be applied to a different object without some notice to that efiect in the text. It is remarkable also that these seven weeks are all he applies to the Second Advent, besides the seventh chapter. Dr Pusey, on the other hand, applies the whole of this passage to the one Advent, but he adds the C2 weeks to the 7, making C9, which from the 7th of Artaxerxes, leads him to the baptism of Messiah by the Baptist. But Sir Isaac was prepared for this : " Had that been Daniel's meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, a way of numbering used by no nation." There is obviously considerable force in that last remark ; but the former, I suspect, is conclusive that Daniel would not have used two terms where one could do, if he had not had some object in view, that no commentator seems to have observed any more than Pusey. Then what was that object 1 Daniel, or rather the angel Gabriel, had, I believe, two objects in view ; first, to cast a kind of veil over the whole, that no unfulfilled prophecy be so clear that any one may fulfil or falsify it ; and second, he meant to use the number 7 twice. Every number is Chapter IX. 149 used twice except this, and this is required twice also. The 70 of ver. 24 is repeated in the parts of the following- verses, and each number, that is, the 62, and the 1, are also used twice. The Masoretes saw this, and put an athnach or emphasis under the 7, which Pusey sees, but does not so understand it. He says the Masoretes are wrong. This is the easy refuge of all who are wrong themselves. I wonder Pusey used it, as he had seen it so often in others. They are always perfect and infallible, and the author only is wrong. For instance, Zockler here observes : " If it be conceded that all the remaining assuinptions are correct, it must be acknowledged that the prophecy is not consistent with itself." Of course the fault is and can only be in the prophecy, not in the interpreter, nor in any of his assumptions. I am sorry that Pusey has even once adopted this style. I think the Masoretes wished to attract the attention of the reader, and to intimate that there was something peculiar about that figure, something like " de capo " in music. The sentence would then read thus, " From the com- mandment, &c., to Messiah shall be 7 weeks, and 62 weeks ; (in the 7) the street (or temple court) (Ezra x. 9), shall be built again (restored), and the wall, though in troublous times. And after the 62 weeks Messiah shall be cut off." The word "street" seems a kind of guess, it means any road or open space, which in a mercantile city would be called the market-place or forum, but in Jerusalem I think it must mean the court or place of concourse. The court would denote the finishing of the Temple, as the walls finish the repairing of the city. I50 Part III. General Remarks on Chapter IX. I have now reached the close of what I reckon the first edition of the prophecies of Daniel. The other three chapters were added four years after as a special favour to Daniel, who was greatly distressed apparently about the state and prospects of his returned country- men in Jerusalem. These nine chapters seem complete in themselves, and are all dependent on the dream of the second chapter, which they illustrate and develope. But what is remarkable, I have not been able to find the least allusion to Antiochus Epiphanes, who seems to the rationalists of Germany and elsewhere to constitute the chief substance of the book. The reader must be aware I have carefully examined every sentence and every clause, but without finding the slightest trace of Antiochus, even in the eighth chapter. This is what I may call the new interpretation, suggested as to this eighth chapter by Sir Isaac Newton, and followed up by G. Stanley Faber. The theory is not of my inventing therefore, but of my earnest approval and support ; and I really could nut approve of the inspiration of this book interpreted on the old lines. But to me now it seems a very complete and precious inspired unity. Its unity is beyond dis- pute now, though once the supporters of Antiochus denied it. Every chapter, we have seen, is more or less connected with the second, and that was not the inven- tion of Daniel, but a dream of King Nebuchadnezzar, for which surely no man could be responsible. But many of the prophecies it discloses have long been fulfilled, and some are still fulfilling after a space of 2500 years. We must either deny the prophecies or grant the in- spiration. I, who believe the prophecies, have no alter- native as to inspiration ; but I repudiate everj'thing Chapter IX. 1 5 1 about Antiochus in these nine chapters. The mode of proof adopted by his supporters is rather curious. They begin with the eleventh chapter, where they do find a reference to him in a few verses about the middle, and then they insist that all the rest of that chapter and the next must relate to him also. We have their word for it, but nothing more. They then come back upon the ninth chapter, and insist that they find him there and in the eighth. Still we have only their word for it, and too many hasty interpreters are deluded by them. Now I refuse to mix up the eleventh chapter with those before it, until I have carefully examined it, as I have done all the rest. Daniel himself seems to have thought that these nine chapters were intelligible alone, as he has carefully edited them in the first year of Cyrus, probably to send a copy to Palestine with the returning captives. He refers to Cyrus in the first chapter and the sixth, one written in Chaldee, and the other in Hebrew, probably about that date, and he thereby puts his own stamp and seal upon them. The unity of Daniel with the Apocalypse is not yet so fully apprehended, but it must come, for I make bold to say it is as much a carrying out of the King's dream as the next three chapters are. Some of the Germans have some idea of this, for I find Keil saying, " to form a well-founded judgment regarding the appearance of this last enemy (the little horn), Ave must compare the description given of him in Daniel vii. 8, 24 with the Apocalyptic description of the same enemy under the image of the beast out of the sea or out of the abyss. Rev. xiii. and xvii. So far well, as this shows he finds the same enemy in Daniel and in the Apocalypse ; but he also says of the seven heads and ten horns of chapter xvii. : " The five fallen are Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Medo 152 . Part III. Persia, and Greece (Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Christ.), and not Assyria, Chaidea, Persia, Grecia, and the kingdom of the Seleucidae, as Hofmann, with Ebrard and Stier, affirms." Now, how all these learned writers could find all these countries in the 7th chapter of Daniel, and the 13th and l7th John, surpasses my comprehension, as there is not the very slightest shadow or syllable of any one of them to be found there. All these writers seem to me to be deplorably ignorant both of Daniel and the Apocalypse, or they would never dream of finding any one of these countries as heads of the fourth least of Daniel, the Roman Empire as he allows ; or in the same enemy of the Apocalypse. Keil himself is very much at sea about the " the beast that was and is not," though he is right about the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven as in Daniel and the 19th chapter of the Apocalypse. Man clearly enough denotes His humanity, and the clouds of heaven His divinity. The cloud was the vestment of Jehovah with the twelve tribes in the wilderness, so that a cloud is the appropriate emblem of the divine presence. I have shown in the Apocalypse that the beast that was and is not is Daniel's " little horn " (chap, vii.), and now I consider that Daniel's " Son of Man " is the rider on the white horse in the opened heaven ; and all this shows that the Apocalypse is merely a carrying out or further development of the prophecies of Daniel. Some writers have supposed that the rider on the white horse of the first seal was also Christ, but these forget that Daniel's four kingdoms iveve all secular; and that is clearly part of the fourth kingdom, or the iron legs of chapter second. Some critics wonder why Daniel did not name the fourth beast of chapter seventh, but they need only look to chapter xii. of Apocalypse to see it named : " a great red dragon with seven heads and Chapter IX. 153 (only one tail, but) ten horns," and no little one. The head denotes civil government, and Rome had seven forms, but only one religion, " and the prophet that teaeheth lies, he is the tail" (Isa. ix. 15). This animal we must suppose Daniel saw, but did not choose to name it. Some expected a date of the time of Messiah's birth, but Daniel left that to John also, as if the two books were written by the same person ; and he had an opportunity of describing a true church in contrast to the false one of chapter xvii. See Rev. xii. 1, 2 : " There appeared a great wonder in heaven : a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars ; and there appeared another wonder in heaven : a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his head. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born," &c. Can any one fail to read in that tableau, Herod and the young child ? I need not continue this line of argument, which cannot please Stuart, or modern scientific critics, for there is not a word about Antiochus. I think it would be equally superfluous after this, to say a word at present about unity, inspiration, authen- ticity, prophecy, or miracle, and I reckon a fulfilled prophecy the greatest of all miracles : those who have any doubts on these subjects must adopt some other interpretation than mine. And if my aim were simply to explain this book, or to ascertain its true meaning, I might now be content to pass on to the last three chapters ; but I intend something more than that. I believe that the Antiochus theory has done much mischief, leading some to doubt or deny its authenticity or inspiration, and, therofore, I will do what I can to banish the whole theory from the nine chapters now 154 Part III. and for ever. For this end I must examine some of the arguments which are supposed to justify such an inter- pretation. These may be divided into two classes : the arguments of those that like Stuart and Bleek, as in my prospectus, find him everywhere as the chief or only persecutor of the people of God, or of those who like Dr Pusey and Keil, find him only occasionally as a type of their supposed Antichrist of the future. These last will have to give us some good reason to suppose (1) that there is any further Antichrist to be expected ; (2) that there are any such t3rpes, excepting always those relat- ing to Christ and His great work. Stuart denies all such types, and I agree with him, but we shall see. (3) They must show that Antiochus was intended to be such a type ; and (4) that with the first-class, there is any clear prediction or description of him in these chapters. 1. Let us see what Dr Pusey can tell us about Antiochus in these nine chapters. He says, having called Antiochus the Old Testament Antichrist (p. 89), " We Christians look for an Antichrist yet to come." That is not exactly true, unless he reckons me and many others no Christians. I reply, we look for no more Antichrists ; he does so, but shows no ground for it, and that to come cannot be Antiochus, who is long past. In p. 88 : "The vision closes with the extinction of this Antichrist of the Old Testament ; he shall be broken without hand," chapter viii. 25, 14. I object to the language here. Whatever the word Antichrist may mean, it must surely relate to Christ in some way or other, but how an Old Testament Antichrist or perse- cutor (Antiochus) can be related to Christ I cannot see. But apart from this, though it is the usual meaning of the eighth chapter for the last 2000 years, it has no authority. It began probably in the time of the Maccabees, when men were everv moment in danger of Chapter IX. 155 their life ; they had no time for nice distinctions or criti- cal interpretations, but there has been plenty time since to correct mistakes, though none has attempted to do so till of late. Faber says on this subject: (p. 186, volume 11.) "It is easy to show that the second little horn (chap, viii.) cannot be the symbol, either of Antiochus or of the Roman Empire. Until the time of Sir Isaac Newton, it was the general opinion of commentators, both ancient and modern, that the little horn of the he- goat was the symbol of the individual King, Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet is this opinion so crude, so abhorrent from analogy, and so irreconcilable with the whole tenor of the prediction, that we can scarcely refrain from expressing our wonder how it ever came to be started, much more how it was so commonly acquiesced in. 1. Throughout the prophecies of Daniel, a horn never denotes an individual King, but always a kingdom or sovereignty, &c. 2. Such an exposition introduces a palpable confusion into the whole hieroglyphic. An- tiochus, as King of Syria, was the existing representative of the Syrian horn of the he-goat. To make him, at the same time, a distinct little horn, is in fact to con- found the little horn with one of the four horns, 3. The character of the little horn does not ansiver to the character of Antiochus, &c. (Stuart says, " whose reign and character correspond well with the iron and clay " of the second chapter. How doctors differ !) 4, The chronological termination of the little horn's reign does not corresj)ond with the chronological termination of the reiorn of Antiochus. We are twice assured that the vision reaches to the time of the end. Hence it follows that the time of the end is the epoch of the little horn's destruction without hand ; the close of the latter three- and-a-half times ; and Antiochus died many centuries 156 Part III. before even the beginning of that jDeriod. 5. The number mentioned in the vision can by no management be made to quadrate with the times of Antiochus. Even when analogy has been violated by understanding the 2300 as natural days, and even when the accurate phraseology of the angel has been wholly disregarded : still by no contrivance can these days be made to corre- spond with the history of Antiochus. The term of 2300 natural days amounts to more than six-and- a-quarter years ; but from the (first) profanation of the temple to the feast of dedication there elapsed rather more than five years ; from the latter profana- tion to the same feast three years and ten days ; and from sacrificing on the altar of Jupiter Olympus to the same feast, which all commentators . . . acknowledge the terminating point of the profanation, exactly three 3^ears," &c. I have given these long extracts to show that I deserve none of the credit of this iienj inteiyretaiion, which was begun by Sir Isaac Newton, and estabhshed, as we see, by Faber at much greater length, and I have only had to read and recognise the accuracy of the statements which I mean to emphasise, and to banish so far as I can Antiochus from this part of Daniel. When the eighth chapter fails, everything must follow or fail with it, for Pusey himself shows that the horn of the seventh cha^Dter is quite diflferent from that of the eighth. None but M. Stuart and his guides dispute this. The Jiorns are different in the 7th chapter ; we have ten horns with one after, and among them, and three destroyed before, not by, the little horn ; in the other only four, with one sprouting. The chronology is different, 3^ times and 2300 days; but especially ^Ae horn itself has nothing like it, no equal in history — a Chapter IX. 1 5 7 mouth speaking great and blasphemous things, a stout look, and two human eyes in a horn. If one saw even in a dream a cow with a horn that spoke, and a pair of human eyes staring in one's face, he would exclaim it was the devil himself in the body and horn of the cow. The interpretation is equally unique. There is no one thing in the whole history of the human race that can fit this formidable, awe-inspiring description, except the Papacy. Now the horn of the 8th chapter is not the least like this ; bad enough magnifying himself to the Prince of the host, the Prince of princes, taking away the daily worship, and desolating the place of the sanctuary ; still no mouth, no eyes ; no person of even average intelligence could mistake the one for the other. Pusey, of course, believes in Antiochus, but any one's mere say is powerless against Newton's and Faber's facts ; and he does not attempt to show his Antichrist in the 7th chapter any more than Antiochus in the 8th, The Future Antichrist. — Keil, indeed, makes the attempt, but he only exposes his weakness by attempt- ing to falsify the facts. He saj^s (p. 275) : " The giving of the kingdom to the Son of Man goes before the appearance of the great adversary of the people of God — the little horn." This is either true or false, accord- ing to the meaning attached to the word kingdom. Keil is there quite confused, as I shall show. In p. 269 (Clark's translation) he says: "In the image of the monarchies of chapter ii. the everlasting kingdom of God is simply placed over against the kingdoms of the world, &c. In chapter vii., on the contrary, Daniel sees not only the judgment which God holds over the kingdoms of the world, to destroy them for ever, with the death of their last ruler (his future Antichrist), but 158 Part III. also the deliverance of the kingdom to the Messiah, coming in the clouds of heaven in the likeness of a son of man, &c. In both visions the Messianic kingdom appears in its completion. Whence Auberlen, with other Chiliasts, concludes that the beginning of this kingdom can refer to nothing else than to the coming of Christ for the founding of the so-called kingdom of the thousand years (taken from the Apocalypse, not from Daniel), an event still imminent to us. In favour of this view, he (Auberlen) argues — 1. That the judgment on Antichrist goes he fore the heginning of this king- dom (which kingdom ?). 2. That this kingdom in both chapters is depicted as a kingdom of glory and dominion, while till this time the kingdom of heaven on earth is yet a kingdom of the cross. (True.) (Keil tries to refute this, and adds) But the judgment on Antichrist does not altogether go before the beginning of this kingdom." True also, but irrelevant as an answer to Auberlen, who flatly contradicts your statement of the Son of Man going first. If these learned writers had consulted the works of a greater man than themselves, they would both have been saved this confusion. They do not seem to be aware of the grand distinction of Joseph Mede, which is essential to tlie right understand- ing of the book, that the Messianic kingdom consists of two successive parts — viz., the kingdom of the Stone or the cross, when the little horn is to persecute and wear out the saints, which Mede calls the regnum lapi- dis, and the second part which succeeds this he calls the regnum montis. Now, this is so plainly stated by Daniel that every school-boy may see it when his atten- tion is directed to it, and yet it constitutes the sole ground of controversy between these two able and orthodox Germans. If the orthodox cannot see their way and Chapte7' IX. 159 agree among themselves, how can we expect their rationalistic opponents to agree with them ? The latter seem to delight in nothing so much as in mischief, feign- ing and imagining all sorts of contradictions or so- called errors, and this case of discord suits them well. Undoubtedly, Keil cannot make out his point that the Son of Man receives His kingdom in its completeness before the appearance of the little horn, and so Auberlen refutes him, though he also does not see the whole case. He sees that the Son of Man receives a kingdom, the kingdom of the cross, regnutn lapidis, before the appearance of the little horn, but that is not the subject he mentions, the millennial kingdom of glory and dominion, the kingdom of the mountain, regnum montis. Both are partly right, and partly wrong, Auberlen had no right to introduce the millennium, and Keil has no right to consider, as he does, the judgment of the Ancient of Days as the final and literal judgment. If Keil could only comprehend that the Ancient of Days is the God of providence, and that the whole of Daniel refers only to the Messianic kingdom, not to the end of the world, he would understand the whole subject more clearly. In fact, I believe I am justified in contending that Joseph Mede, who wrote 250 years ago, knew more then of Daniel and the Apocalypse than all the Germans know yet. Keil, Auberlen, and Hengsten- berg seem to be the best informed, and yet they have all a good deal to learn. These are the so-called orthodox, and as for the self-styled scientific critics, they have made a mere laughing-stock of themselves, as any school- boy can easily refute them. They can never get over the famous 44th verse of chapter ii. As for Keil, in this very passage he refutes his own theory of a future Antichrist. He says (p. 270), " The kingdom of the 1 60 Part III. Messiah is thus already begun, and is warred against by Antichrist," &c. Then Antichrist is already come, and not future ; and the kingdoms of the ten horns must also be come, but this is contrary to p. 268, where he says, " The kingdoms represented by the ten horns belong still to the future." But a man will make many sacrifices for a favourite theory, and so he rushes to the Apocalypse for support. At p. 27G he says, "But to form a well-founded judgment regarding the appearance of this last enemy (the little horn, his future Antichrist) we must compare the description given of him in Dan. vii., 8,/. with the Apocalyptic description of the same enemy under the image of the beast out of the sea or abyss, Rev. xiii. 1, and xvii. 7 : . . . The beast with seven heads and ten horns speaks great things and blasphemies, and continues forty-two months, corre- sponding to the 3 1 times of Daniel. . . . The angel further says of the seven heads : Five (of these sovereign- ties) are fallen — i.e., are already past, one is, the other is not yet come, and it must continue a short space." Keil thus concludes : . . . " Finally, as in the Apocalypse, &c. So MAY also the prophecy of the seven heads, and the ten horns of the beast {cf. Daniel and the Apocalypse) PERHAPS yet so fulfil itself in the future, that the Auti- christian world-power may reach its completion in ten rulers who receive power as kings one hour with the beast — i.e., as companions and helpers of Antichrist, carry on war for a while against the Lord and His saints, till at the appearance of the Lord to judgment they shall be destroyed, together with the beast and dragon. " How indeed this part of the prophecy, relating to the last unfolding of the ungodly and AniichriMian world-poiver , shall fulfil itself, whether merely accord- ing to the symbolic meaning of the numbers, or finally Chapter IX. 1 6 i also actually, the clay ivill first 'make clear." Surely that is a most lame and impotent conclusion ! Prac- tically, it means that he cannot satisfy his own mind, but it is a pity he should satisfy any other minds. Thiit seems to me a most miserable foundation on which to build so great a prophecy of some grand, unknown Anti- christ ! Without this great unknown, they must admit that the Papacy is the little horn, and the author of the terrible mischief that this book records. Dr. Pusey belongs to this class. He was more afraid of rationalism than Romanism ; and we can all well understand how he should be unwilling to believe any evil of the Papacy. But facts are stubborn things, and the Holy Ghost makes no allowance for people's prejudices. Pusey was very much misled by the fact that the eighth chapter was almost universally ascribed to Antiochus, whom he saw it very imperfectly fitted, and so he clung to him as a mere imperfect type of something greater to follow. As he could not see Mahomet in the eighth chapter, so he could hardly be expected to see the Papacy in the seventh, and thus one error led to another. Still I deny that there is any reasonable ground to expect any future Antichrist or little horn ; all the horns are long since come, and they cannot well evade this fact, or find the eighth chapter a satisfactory portrait of Antiochus. Of the moderns, Pusey says, " Such interpreters can hardly believe themselves " (p. 157). Of the future Antichrist he is as uncertain as Keil, for he says (p. 78), "The latter part of this being still future, we cannot explain certainly. This, however, will be made clear when the time comes." Will it ever come as you wish ? Let us next see what the Stuart school are saying on this important subject. In speaking of the ten toes ot chaitter second he says, " Let the reader turn to chapter i62 Part III. vii., where lie will find ten horns of the fourth beast, as meaning ten kings who are to precede the little horn, which beyond all reasonable doubt nymbolises Antiochus Epiphanes." Now, as there are no horns at all, little or big, in the second chapter, is it reasonable to thrust them before the reader's notice before he has reached the facts of the case ? The object is plain enough — to prejudice the reader beforehand in favour of his own opinions. It satisfies me that either he is very en- thusiastic and cannot wait, or that he has not much confidence in the justness of his cause, or he would leave it to speak for itself. And he does make it speak plain enough, Avith Avhat success we shall see anon. Mean- while, let us see wliat Zockler says on this secoud chapter (Lange's Com., p. 78). Yer. 42. ["And as the toes of the feet are part of iron and part of clay."] " That Daniel, while mentioning the toes, already refers to the ten kings of tJte Seleucidm, who are represented later (chap. vii. 7, 24), as the ten horns of the fourth beast cannot be certainly shoivn." And yet he proceeds to assume that they are perfectly certain, for the theory requires it ! Ver. 43. [" They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men "] i.e., the several kingdoms, or rather their rulers (or according to Moses Stuart, their chiefs) shall seek to establisii harmony by means of marriage. This clearly refers to the Seleucidae, although he has just said it cannot be certainly shown. I liave shown that Reuss admits there were ttuo such marriages, for the third does not fit them, and this is what they consider the iron and clay mingling them- selves with the seed of men, dragging those irrelevant marriages mentioned in the eleventh chapter into the second. On vers. 44, 45. The fifth, or Messianic king- dom. ["And in the days of those kings;"] hence, while Chapter IX. 1 6 o these kings, the Seleucidie, Lagidae, and other Diadochi, are still reigning (there seenas no uncertainty now) [" the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom."] On " God of heaven" compare on vers. 18 and 37." Now observe, having said the God of heaven sets up a kingdom while the Seleucidfe and Lagidce are still reigning, he asserts what is not true, what is false history ; it was in the days of Augustus Caesar that Christ was born, and the kingdom set up under Tiberius and Pontius Pilate, and Zockler could not be ignorant of that ; so having written what seems to me very like a deliberate falsehood, he tries to throw dust in the reader's eyes by slipjjing away to remark on " the God of heaven," a totally different subject, where there is no difficulty. Such are the means the party adopt to lug in Antiochus even into the second chapter, where there is not a syllable about him. " The days of those kings," or kingdoms, plainly enough means the Kings of the gold, silver, brass, and iron kingdoms just mentioned, but they try to make their readers suppose it means the Kings of the 8th chapter, the four horns or heads of Alexander's successors ; an evasion which serves no purpose, and which any intel- ligent person may easily see through. To refresh the memory I must reprint a paragraph from ray prospectus, which will show the state of the case. " Bleek has fallen (sa3'S Keil) into a strange expedient of comparing the prophecies of Daniel, going backward from chap, xii., for tlie purpose of showing that, as chaps, xii. and xi. 21-45 speak only of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (not true) ... so also in chaps, ix., viii., vii., and ii. the special pre-intimations of the future do not reach further than to this enemy of the people of God." The reader sees that Bleek (and all the moderns agree with him), for the purpose of throwing 1 64 Part III. (lust in the reader's eyes, begins at the end of the book, and pretends to find Antiochiis in every prophetic chapter stretching over a period of seventy years ; now I mean to make a clean sweep of all these fictions, as he is not to be found in any one of them except the xi. 21-32. I reverse Bleek's process, for I begin at the beginning, and in chap. ii. 44, I find, as I have quoted from Zockler, thus : [" And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed," &c.] No one, I suppose, doubts that this is the Messianic kingdom of the Stone, and our very Sabbath scholars know when that was set up, — in the reign of Tiberius, third emperor of Rome, which begun in 14 A.D., and in the fifteenth of Tiherius, A.D. 29, came John the Baptist, preaching the kingdom of Heaven is at hand, near, but not come. Pilate said, "Jesus, who is called Christ, Messiah"; and he wrote, " This is Jesus, the King of the Jews," and Matthew says (chap, xxi.), " Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, thy Kmg comcth to thee riding on a colt, the foal of an ass." Still, we don't find the kingdom till Pentecost, nineteenth of Tiberius, 33 A.D. Now, Antiochus died 164 B.C., and the kingdom of Macedon, one of the Diadochi, ceased to exist in 168 B.C. Add 33, and we have 201 years before the Pentecost. How then can Zockler, or any one, say the Diadochi were still reigning, or that Pilate knew Antiochus, with two centuries between ? And yet the whole modern theory requires all this ! They cover violations of history by plain falsehood and reckless assertion, and this they call scientific criticism ! Every schoolboy can see what learned German professor, Moses Stuart, and others cannot see. Dr Pusey saw that this 44th verso proved that the Romans were the fourth kingdom, because reigning when this kingdom Chapter IX. 165 was set up ; but he did not see that the converse was equally true — that the whole modern theory had col- lapsed, as a clear violation of history. If the Roman was the fourth kingdom, then the traditional theory is true, and all the others are necessarily false. That disposes of the kingdoms ; but this verse also contains clear prophecy, though written by Antiochus himself, of events 200 years later ; but the Stone was also supernatural in itself and all its doings, lasting for ever ; so the moderns have prophecy, miracle, and civil history violated, all in this verse, and all against them. Will any one ever again venture to follow or defend them ? Some will say much, almost anything, in support of a favourite theory ; but this never had any solid founda- tion — like a soap-bubble vanishing into thin air while you are looking at it. The whole Book of Daniel repudiates Porphyry, Antiochus, and all modern wraug- ling about the kingdoms. This second chapter demands the traditional interpretation, and does not care who may cut the he-goat in two, or who the Persian ram, preferring the sense of Solomon's harlots to the whole bundle of learned German professors. Two of the Diadochi perished 200 years too soon, and the third, Syria, was made a Roman province by Pompey the Great in Qb B.C., which, with 33, makes 98 years, or near a century before Zockler's time ; and Egypt was seized by Augustus B.C. 30, which, with 33, is above half-a-century too soon for modern scientific criticism ! Will they now confess themselves refuted by the stern logic of historical facts ? or will they leave it to me to tell the world that it has turned out a complete failure, — that it never had an inch of ground to stand upon — was the mere effect of Porphyry's malice, giving their silly hearers sound instead of substance, the emptier the louder, like an empty barrel ! 1 66 Part III. This mode of treating the subject, searching every word and clause to find out the meaninor, and then returning upon opponents, must require some repeti- tion ; but the subject is so important as to justify a good deal of repetition. It matters little whether these professors believed themselves or not, if only others were so enlightened as not to believe them. This must come, sooner or later, for magna est Veritas, et preirdehit ! I hope it will now be seen that Antiochus has no right to appear in the second chapter, so I may turn to the seventh. Their object here is to assume or assert that the little horn of the seventh is the same as that of the eighth chapter, and as the latter has been very generally admitted to be Antiochus, so that the seventli chapter must be the same if there is only one ; but Keil, Pusey, and many others, from the days of Jerome, main- tain they are very different, and the man is blind who does not see so. The differences are very great, though there is some resemblance, like two sisters ; but it is the differences, not the resemblance between two persons that proves them to be different. Keil and Pusey, &c., call the horn of the eighth chapter Antiochus, that of the seventh Antichrist of the future. I call them both Antichrists, the one the Papacy, and the other Mahommedanism. I have already refuted the position of Stuart and the moderns, that there is only one little horn, by saying that the horn of the seventh chapter is unique ; there is none like it in creation, never was, and never will be, a horn with a blaspheming mouth and human eyes ; this constitutes a difference which no assertion, assumption, or reasoning can ever evade ; and the person that docs not see it, is either willingly or judicially blind. There are many more differences. The very text of Daniel is different. He culls the one little, Chapter IX. 167 the other from little, a compound of the former word. Then the horns are different, ten and four ; the little one of .chapter vii. is an eleventh, but of chapter viii. only a sprout on one of the other four. Thou the time is incurably different, 2300 days can never make three and a-half years. But theu they have a way of their own of dealing with numbers. Zockler says, "All the expositors are in the end obliged to assume a merely approximate correspondence of the numbers, the author's general usage, which employs numbers in an ideal sense, that this interval is exactly forty-five days is wholly imaginary." " While the representatives of the opinion that the 2300 are but half as many days fail to estab- lish an exact correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfilment, those who rerard the language as desif^nat- ing 2300 days succeed no better." " Wieseler himself afterwards recognised the untenable character of this method of rcckonincr." At the risk of tiring the reader I think the following too grood to omit : *' The number ten is hardly to be strained to represent ten specified Kings ; but like the number four in ver. G it is rather to be taken in a symbolic sense, as indicating a multi- plicity of rulers, or an indefinitely large number" — a few thousands perhaps, and on the three plucked up by the roots ; "Here also the definite number three is hardly to be strained to signify precisely three." Words are to have a new meaning, because they can't suit the theory I I hold that to be first-class nonsense. I beg leave to quote here a sentence from Keil which I mean to make use of " The one of the four horns from which the little horn grew up is the Syrian mon- archy, and the horn is King Antiochus, as Josephus, and all interpreters acknowledge on the ground of 1 Mac- cabees i. 10." This is a very unjustifiable statement ; 1 68 Part III. it is uot true, and if it were, it has no support from the book of the Maccabees. To convince the reader of what I say, and to save him trouble, I shall quote the passage in 1 Mace. i. Vers. 7-12. " So Alexander reigned twelve years and then died. Ver. 8. And his servants bare rule every one in his place. Ver. 9. And after his death they all put crowns upon themselves ; so did their sons after them many years ; and evils were multiplied in the earth. Ver. 10. And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiocluis Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the King, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the 137th year of the kingdom of the Greeks. (Not a word of Daniel's lior'tis there, big or little !) Ver. 1 1. In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying. Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us ; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow. Ver. 12. So the device pleased them well." We see here the source of tlie Jewish troubles, which sprung from apostates among themselves, who Avished to adopt the Greek religion ; but the writer seems to have no idea that Daniel had anything to do with it. He mentions also the death of Antiochus, but not connected with Daniel or a horn, and also the fiery furnace and mouth of lions, but not as connected with Antiochus. The book ends with the priesthood of John Hyrcanus (son of Simon, grandson of Mattathias), who died 105 B.C., so it seems to have been written about 100 years B.C. Now, Josephus does speak of Daniel in connection with Antiochus, but whether that is the private opinion of Josephus, or that of tiic Jews of his day we cannot discover. He knew little of the Christians. His antiquities are supposed to have been written about 93 A.D., and toward the end of the third century Porphyry borrowed from Josephus his Antiochus Chapter IX. 169 theory, which has been adopted by modern Germans with little alteration, but I do not know that it was at all current before Porphyry. It is quite plain that this tenth verse of 1 Maccabees i. proves the very opposite of what it is quoted to prove, which shows Keil is guilty of unpardon- able carelessness. One can hardly know what to believe when respectable writers show themselves so reckless. Perhaps I should quote Josephus also, as it is my first notice of the Antiochus theory. " Out of them arose another lesser horn,, which waxed great ; and God shoived him that it should fight against our nation, and take their city by force, and bring the temple worship to confusion, and forbid tJie sacrifices to he offered for 1296 days." He could hardly get that in Daniel. The explanation is : " From among them shall arise a certain king that shall overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, ?a\(\ forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years' time. And indeed so it happened tliat our nation suffered these things, under Antiochus Epip- hanes, according to Daniel's version, and what he lurote many years before they came to pass." This clearly applies the little horn of the eighth chapter to Antiochus, but it also contains a noble testimony to the antiquity and authenticity of the whole book, which he wrote many years before they came to pass. Josephus, there- fore, shows no sympathy with the modern creed. But the reader will observe this is not an accurate quotation from Daniel. The number in the eighth chapter is 2300 days till the sanctuary hi^ justified ; but in chapter twelve there occurs the number 1290, which has nothing to do with Antiochus, who did not forbid sacrifices "for three years' time," or 1290 days, but for ever. His avowed object was, along with the apostates, to abolish 170 Part III. the whole Jewish Church and nation for ever, and incor- porate them with the people and religion of Syria. (See ver. 41 of 1 Mace. i.). "Moreover, King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people (ver. 42), and every one should leave his laws ; so all the heathen agreed, according to the commandment of the King. (No one ever learned that in Daniel !) Ver. 43. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed to idols, and profaned the Sabbath. Yer. 44. For the King has sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt- offerings, &c." It is clear that Antiochus and the apos- tates thought to defeat the God of Abraham, but in " three years' time," the King Avas dead, all his armies routed, and the Maccabees victorious, and the sanctuary cleansed which he had sprinkled with swine's broth, and the altar of Jehovah on which he had sacrificed to Jupiter Olympius, was renewed. This is Josephus' three years' time in the Maccabees, but not in DanUl. We see the carelessness of all these writers. I have thus shown that neither Keil nor Josephus is supported by the book of ^laccabees or the Jews, for what they allege about Antiochus being the little horn of Daniel. But what say the Christians ? We know that before Josephus was born in the first year of Cahgula, A.D. 37, the attention of the disciples had been drawn to " the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet," and the Christians generally seem to have understood the warning, so that none were supposed to be in Jerusalem during the siege. They fled to Pella, and were safe, before the siege began. Paul too speaks of the man of sin, whose description he seems to borrow from Daniel xi. 3G ; but he cannot be Chapter IX. i 7 1 revealed till some "let" is taken out of the way, sup- posed to be the Roman Paganism ; and the Christians are well known to have prayed for the continuance of the empire, as expecting great trouble from this man of sin, when the " let " was removed. Again, John speaks of the Antichrist "that cometh," for although every Jew was virtually an Antichrist, yet the Christians expected something worse in the future. It is clear, therefore, that this Old Testament Antichrist, or little horn in the past, was the direct opposite of all the Christian notions during the first century. I hope the reader now sees that Pusey and Keil have no authority from Daniel, the Maccabees, the early Christians, Christ or His Apostles, and the Scriptures old or new, for their Antichrist of the past, of the Old Testament, or the Antiochus theory, which seems to owe its existence to Josephus, no great Biblical critic. In the second, third, and fourth centuries, the Christians discussed Antichrist, but Eusebius, Apoll- inarius, and others opposed Porphyry, and probably his Antiochus theory. So does Jerome in the fourtb century, but he mentions several interj)retations, and Keil's typical one among the rest. When that \vas first broached I do not know, but all such typical or double meanings are vigorously opposed by Stuart, and there I agree with him. I think it absurd to apply a portrait or accurate description to two persons, one whom it does not fully fit, as the type of some one else whom it does fit, as the anti-type. I am satisfied in the meantime with having expelled Antiochus from the first ten chapters of Daniel ; and the little horns from the books of the Maccabees, and nearly the whole first century of the Christian era ; but I am willing to hear what Stuart can allege in favour of his theory of only one little horn, namely, Antiochus. Let us see. 172 Part III. In his introduction to chapter viii. (p. 22G), he says, " To Daniel disclosure is made in regard to those empires concerned in favouring or annoying his country- men. These are mainly the second and fourth dynasties ; the third seems to be here introduced mainly because it stands between the Mcdo-Persian dominion and that of the fourth beast." Now, there are various blunders here. 1. There is no fourth beast in the eighth chapter, nor in fact any beast at all. Only two domestic animals, representing Medo-Persia and Greece, the second and third empires or dynasties, the silver and the brass. The ram represents the Kings of Media and Persia, ver. 20 ; and the goat represents Alexander the Great, and his four successors, ver. 21; he tran.slates, "The he-goat is a King of Greece ; and as to the large horn between his eyes — this is the first King." Now observe " the goat is a King, and the horn is the first King" — i.e., the first King of a King ! Surely that is nonsense ! To make sense the word King must mean kinrjdom or sovereignty, the one implying the other. He tries to shove Alexander into a corner as the third dynasty, though he was the sole founder of it, ami no heathen prince ever favoured the Jews so much as he. But he has a purpose to serve. He wishes us to take this goat to mean the fourth dynasty also, representing his four successors, Syria, Egypt, Macedon, and Thrace. This is to exclude Rome from being the fourth empire, as I have shown in the second chapter when the kingdom of the Stone was set up. Antiochus belonged to Syria, but not to Pome. Nebuchadnezzar built up his golden empire with long war and hard labour ; so did Cyrus, the Persian, or silver empire; Alexander laboured twelve years and defeated Darius in three oroat battles, to build up the Greek empire of brass ; but when did Chapter IX. i 73 Syria or Egypt meet Alexander in battle and defeat him, so as to snatch the third dominion from him, and form the fourth ? Every one knows that this is a clear violation of historical facts that Stuart and modern scientific critics must submit to, in order to support a false theory. Stuart trusts much to the word plucked up in ver. 4 of chapter xi., and certainly the generals plucked everything from the natural heirs, his two sons, two wives, mother, and brother. Darius' daughter, whom he married, was murdered, because supposed to be Avith child, and likely to produce a lawful heir. But these Grecian tigers, who could kill all Alexander's heirs, and cut each other's throats, could not build up a great empire like Babylon, Persia, Greece, or Rome. But suppose I grant it for the sake of argument, then Stuart must cut up the goat into t^vo cmiyircs, third and fourth, and still keep the goat alive. Solomon's harlots knew that could not be done ; so the real mother relinquished her child to her rival rather than kill it ; but Stuart not being a mother, this may account for his blindness. It might be bad manners to send these learned pro- fessors to Solomon's harlots to learn the first elements of common-sense. Still this is not all. The fifth kingdom was to be that of the Stone, and to be given to the saints of the Most High, and the Romans conquered and succeeded Alexander's successors, so they must be saints of the Most High — viz., Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, &c. Does anybody believe that ? Stuart and his friends must make new history as well as a new Daniel, to suit his own theory. Still all this does not prove that Antiochus has any connection with Daniel or the little horn. This is meant to prove that there is only one little horn, but I find only untenable assertion. But to go on : "In chapter vii. no account is given of 1 74 Part III. the manner in which the third beast jyerishes, and the fourth arises ; but in ver. 8 here we have one specifically given." Now, no beast "perislies, and all arise equally out of the sea ; and ver. 8 only states two facts which are quite irrelevant ; how the great horn (Alexander) was broken by the hand of God, not of man, and four took the place of it, to the north, south, east, and west ; but that does not prove anything to the purpose. " In chapter vii. the little horn is merely said to arise among the other ten horns of the fourth beast ; here it is stated that it arose out of one of the four dominions of the last empire." The word last has already been refuted, but the difference in the number of the horns, and of the whole narratives, clearly proves to my mind two different little horns ; with none of which Antiochus seems to have aught to do. " In chapter vii. we have a designation of tlie time during which the desolations of Jerusalem and the Temple shall take place, ver. 5 ; while in chapter viii. we have a different designation of time." Aye, so different as clearly to relate to a differ- ent suhject ; while in chapter vii. 25, there is not the most distant reference to either Jerusalem or the Temple, but only of speaking against the Most High, and wearing out His saints. Such reckless and unfounded assertions can prove nothing but a hopeless cause. " If the reader (he says) should think it strange that the same subjects should be repeated as in the case with the fourth dynasty in chapters ii., vii., viii., xi,, and above all with the de- scription of the little horn or Antiochus," &c. More false assertion, as the reader knows there is not a word about either Antiochus or any horn in the second chap- ter where Stuart interprets the iron and clay of one marriage of a King of Syria and one of Egypt, but Antiochus was not that King. It is really disgusting to Chapter IX. 175 call that proving anything, but falsehood. In chapter vii. there is certainly a little horn and ten others ; of which Stuart thus writes : " That the little horn means Antiochus may, after all that has been said, be taken for granted ; (it seems to be all taken for granted), and as he was a Syrian, so were the ten Kings Syrians, whom he succeeded, inasmuch as he came from the midst of them. We have then only to inquire whether there were (why, he has just said it, what then is the use of inquiring ?) ten Kings who actually preceded him in this dynasty." Did ever any one see such reasoning or proof ? He first asserts there were ten Kings Syrians, insinuating that the ten horns or ten toes were Syrian Kings, and then he gravely proposes to inquire if there were actually ten Kings who preceded him ! But who authorised him to limit the Kings of Syria to ten, like the ten toes ? as there were nearer twenty ! But, neglecting all this, does he not see, or does not the reader see, that the Syrian Kings were successive, one at a time, and a second only after the former is dead ; while the ten horns and toes were contemporaneous, existing all at the same time ? I wonder he has the assurance to trifle with his readers in that style, and consider it proving anything ! I shall only add when M. Stuart or any one else can show me a race of human beings who are born only with one toe, like the Kings of Syria, and who do not get a second till the former is dead or cut off, I will return to this argument, but not till then ! We have already seen he cannot show us Antiochus in the eighth chapter, but even if he could or thought he could, he would only show that Antiochus was his own mother. If Syria was the horn on which the little horn grew, as we are often told, then Antiochus, as eighth King for eleven years must represent Syria 176 Part III. during his reign, and to that extent must be the mother of the little horn that grew out of it. Here is another wonderful piece of natural history which we may safely leave to Stuart and those who agree with him, the whole moderns. But what of the ninth chapter. He is honest enough to acknowledge that " Antiochus does not indeed appear in a special manner, in chapter ii." That is, he does not appear at all there, and if he had not acknowledged this, other people would. But he still tries to edge him in somehow. " He is virtually there, in the crushing power of the fourth dynasty." As I hold the fourth dynasty to be that of the Romans, we may all be said to be there virtually. But as he holds the Syrians, &c., to be the fourth dynasty, and as it is past, I ask where and when did Antiochus appear in Daniel's second chapter, for virtucdly will not do. " His fall is involved in that of the dynasty," ii. 44. " That verse predicts and explains the setting up of the kingdom of the Stone, which " shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms," that is a prediction of something- future, but no time is mentioned, and there is nothing said of the fall of Antiochus, or any one else, and if there were, when did it, or will it take place, for unless he can tell us this, he or we cannot be sure that Antiochus will be living at the time, and we know that dead men cannot fall ; so if he knows no more than that, he had much better have held his tongue. The reader must see that this is mere trifling, as there is no Antiochus there. " He next refers to the 7th and 8th chapters, assuming that Antiochus is the two little horns, which we have denied, and our assertion is as good as his ; and then he comes to chapter ix. He says, " The identification of the same tyrant in all these prophecies and visions, is altogether certain. How comes it now . . . that the Chapter IX. 177 present chapter should be discrepant from all the rest ? " Very plainly, for all these former chapters treat of tem- poral kingdoms, but this is spiritual ; Christ's kingdom is not of this world. He adds, " If the exclusively Messianic interpreters are in the right, then Antiochus is not all the subject of the prediction in ix. 25- 27." This assumes, what he mentions elsewhere, that verse 24 is Messianic. He could not well do other- wise, for he could hardly make Antiochus "bring in everlasting righteousness," &c., but I must notice his translation which is copied in the margin of the Eevised Version. I do not accuse the revisers of copying from M. Stuart, but I must conclude that both have been digging in the same quarry ! There may be many of the revisers who may be guided by the strong intellects of Germany, as many changes seem to me to be in the interests of rationalism. I have given my interpretation on the passage ; let us see theirs. " Seventy weeks ... to restrain transgression, and to seal up sin." Is it at all likely that the Almighty would send an angel to tell Daniel that Christ would come to do what every policeman, magistrate, and civil government in the world is doing every day, what they can, to restrain transgression. Every punishment has that in view ! If they had wished to turn the whole into ridicule, they could hardly have chosen a more inappropriate expression. To seal up sin is not much better in my eyes, " to anoint a holy of holies," margin, "or a most holy place;" why a place? I have called it a person, ver. 1 2, Christ ; but Stuart says, " The phrase never designates persons." He is wronw, as usual, but he has the assurance to quote the very passage in the same page that proves his mistake, " the tabernacle and all its furniture was anointed," Exod, M 178 Part III. xl. 9. Yes, to ver. 11 is the furniture, and from vers. 12-15 is the anointing of Aaron and his sons. Ver. 15. [" And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto Me in the priest's office : for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."] Now, why should not the everlasting Priest be anointed also ? The object of the next three verses is still more apparent. Stuart, "ver. 25, mark well and under- stand ; from the going forth of a command to rebuild Jerusalem unto an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks ; (the revisers have a colon here in the text, and Stuart's prince in the margin) and sixty-two weeks shall it be rebuilt." That is neither sense nor grammar : the sixty-two weeks are isolated, or have no concord. Some supply " during," but Stuart fairly confesses he can make nothing of the seven weeks or forty-nine years. He holds the building took 434 years, or 62 weeks of years, but then he begins them with Daniel's captivity, so that Jerusalem was both abuilding and not requiring it till its destruction ; and then it was both being built and lying desolate during all the rest of the captivity ; and yet he seems to think it was worth the Almighty's while to send His angel Gabriel to tell Daniel such nonsense for our edifica- tion. He can find neither beginning nor end of any command to restore Jerusalem, and he examines three out of the four such. 1. Cyrus, to rebuild the temple and restore the worship ; 2. when this was stopped, it was renewed again by Darius, who fought the Greeks at Marathon, and lost. Then Artaxerxes, his grandson, in his seventh year, gave Ezra full civil powers to restore Jerusalem, appoint magistrates, &c. ; and the last to Nehemiah, in his twentieth year. Whether he Chapte7^ IX. i 79 ignores the seventh of Artaxerxes, the principal one, by ignorance or design, I do not think it worth while to inquire. It is much more important to notice that this interpretation undermines this grand Messianic prophecy, on which Sir Isaac Newton says Christianity is founded, and whoever rejects it, rejects the Christian religion. And what do they give us for it ? An anointed one, a prince, is shown us in the person of Onias, a Jewish high priest, who was deposed by Antiochus for a higher bribe from his brother, and afterwards murdered. This is Stuart's Messiah, a prince, but he was no prince, and never anointed, as the peculiar oil was lost at the destruction of the Temple, and never made after the Exile. If this intei'pretation serves no other purpose, it at least gets rid of Christ as the Messiah of Daniel. What meaning the revisers attach to their translation I do not know, but my idea of a good translator is that he endeavours to communicate faithfully his author's meaning, and I suppose most authors have a meaning, but what they can mean by the forty-nine years puzzles me as well as Stuart. The latter opens ver. 26 thus: ["And after sixty and two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off, and there shall be none for it (the people), and the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a prince that will come destroy ; but his end shall be with an overwhelm- ing flood."] He remarks : " Two things are made very plain by the first part of this verse — viz., that the period of sixty-two weeks stands by itself, separated, in the view of the writer, from the preceding seven weeks." That is very plain in the 25th verse, but not in this, and there is doubtless an important reason for making the time = A + B ; but the next clause, " and none for it (the people)," is wholly inadmissible. None what ? i8o Part III. The clause is clearly elliptical, but people won't do. Murphy says, "and nothing to him." Still meaningless. The revisers say, "and shall have nothing." Still the same. Nothing will make sense but a Messianic meaning; let them turn to Luke xxiii. 13-23, where Pilate makes three earnest efforts to release Jesus, but the multitude, ver. 1 8, " cried out all at once, away with this, and release unto us Barabbas. Ver. 23. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He should be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed," but none (voted) for Him ! No voice for mercy to Him ! As to the anointed one (who) shall be cut off, Stuart says, "The Messiah I must therefore regard as 'the Lord's anointed' high priest, Onias HI, conspicuous for his piety and steadfastness, who was displaced from office by Antiochus, and his heathenish brother put in his place. Soon after Onias was obliged to flee to Daphnae for a refuge from the malice of his enemies ; thence he was drawn by false promises, and murdered by the governor of Antioch." This, then, is Stuart's Messiah ! an honest and ill-used man, but oh, what a contrast to Jesus, the Man of Sorrows ! I almost hear someone crying, " Aivay with him, release unto us Barabbas." He calls Onias the " Lord's anointed," but he does not venture to apply to him the second Psalm. Antiochus is Stuart's prince, but even he dare not say " he destroyed the city and the sanctuary." But he tries feebly to put some face on it. " The word does not necessarily mean a total destruction, but such a luasting as mai's the object concerned, and renders it compara- tively useless." A miserable attempt to explain away a very plain statement ! But Antiochus, whom he refers to, did not even produce a wasting to mar, he only offered a pig on Jehovah's altar ; and making pork broth, Chapter IX. i8i he sprinkled the Temple with it to disgust the conscien- tious Jews ; and that hardly made it comparatively useless. After three years, when Judas Maccabaeus had conquered all Antiochus's armies, they removed the pro- faned stones to a corner, and, getting fresh stones, made a new altar, and then consecrated the whole, when it was as good as ever ; so Antiochus did not give a total destruction to anything but the pig ! Now contrast with this what Titus, the prince that came, the son and heir of Vespasian, the Roman Emperor, did. He certainly, or at least his army, was the means of most effectually destroying both the city and the sanctuary ; they did not only wiar it with swine's soup. Ver. 26. [His end with a flood.] Stuart says " Whose ? The obvious grammatical answer is, the Prince that comes. One need but compare viii. 25, res'pccting Antiochus." I have already shown that viii. 25 does not refer to Antiochus, and now I deny that his death was like a flood. Proof is unnecessary, as all the world knows it : he did not destroy city and sanctuary. A more impor- tant question is : Whom do the revisers refer to ? The Old Version is " end thereof," meaning its end, that of city or sanctuary. But the revisers seem to think that not correct ; so whose do they mean to substitute ? They can only mean, as Stuart says, "the Prince that comes." Titus, not Antiochus, surely. Now, nothing is said about this prince in the context, to make his end or death of any consequence to the reader. It is not he that is said to destroy the sanctuary, but his people ; and I think it very improbable that an angel should be sent from heaven to tell us that one man should die of such a very common disease of which millions have died before as well as since. Titus is said to have died of a fever, or perhaps by poison 1 82 Part III. through means of his brother Domitian. But I am thoroughly convinced that the revisers are wrong, and that the old translation is alone correct ; the destruction of the sanctuary being intended, and I hope a sentence or two from Josephus will make that clear. " So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the Temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house ; but as for that house, God had for certain long ago doomed it to the fire ; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages. It was the tenth day of the mojith Lous (Ab), upon which it was formerly burnt by the King of Babylon ; although these flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them ; for upon Titus's retiring, the seditious lay still for a little while, and then attacked the Romans again, when those that guarded the holy house fought with those that quenched the fire that was burning in the inner court of the temple ; but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward the Jews made a great clamour, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it ; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered anything to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it. " 6. And a certain person came to Titus and told him Chapter IX. 183 of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after the last battle ; Avhereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as it were, ran to the holy house, to have a stop put to the fire ; after him followed all his commanders, and after them the several legions, in great astonishment; so there w^as a great clamour and tumult raised, as was natural on the disorderly motion of so great an army. Then did Cassar, both by calling on the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by giving a signal to them with his right hand, ordered them to quench the fire ; but they did not hear what he said, though he spoke so loud, having their ears already dinned with a greater noise another way ; nor did they attend to the signal he made with his hand neither, as still some of them were distracted with fighting, and others with passion ; but as for the legions, they came running thither, neither any persuasions nor any threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one's own passion was his commander at this time ; and as they were crowding into the Temple together, many of them were trampled on by one another, while a great number fell among the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered; and when they came near the holy house, they made as if they did not hear Caesar's orders to the contrary, but encouraged those before them to set it on fire," &c. — Jewish War, Book VI., Chapter iv.. Sections 5 and 6. Christ predicted the same — " There shall not be left one stone above another that shall not be thrown down." I have now examined all Stuart's objections which I think worth notice, and find not one tenable allusion to Antiochus in these nine chapters, on which I may make 1 84 Part III. a few further remarks. There have been various modes of explaining this book of Daniel. First, that of the Jews and Christians who in every age have looked upon it as a divine prophecy, given in a dream to the King of Babylon, when he was raised up by providence to punish the Jews for their frequent idolatries and faithlessness to the covenant of God made with Abraham. That dream showed him a great metallic image of gold, silver, brass, and iron to represent four great empires, which should hold political dominion over the people of God in succession, till, when the fulness of the Gentiles had come in, the people or church of God should be delivered from all religious persecution and thraldom to any civil powers. That is called the traditional theory, handed down to us by successive generations ; and the second is that of Porphyry, a pagan Greek philosopher of the third century, who held that there was no prophecy in it, but only a forged history of the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, a king of Syria in the second century before Christ ; and that the whole book is ful- filled in this Antiochus. Various modifications have been made of these two theories, but it is plain if any fulfilled predictions have been found in history, the last theory must be set aside. Many writers profess to find such, so that the whole is reduced to a question of in- terpretation ; and the first inquiry must be how much, if any, can be fairly applied to Antiochus. I pro- fess I can find nothing to suit Antiochus and the followers of Porphyry, and I suppose all modern critics, Bleek, &c., can find nothing else. Moses Stuart is peculiar, for he professes to find the whole a true and divine prophecy, but solely occupied with the persecu- tions of this Antiochus. I have found enough to satisfy myself that Stuart is completely wrong, and, of Chapter IX. 185 course, all who hold they find Antiochus in these first nine chapters. I consider they explain and enlarge the metallic image, and so Daniel collected them all to- gether, and wrote the first chapter as a preface, in the first year of Cyrus, when he granted liberty to the Jews to return to Palestine and re-establish the worship of God in a new Temple at Jerusalem. The last three chapters were revealed and written two years later, and therefore had no connection with the explanation and true meaning of the former. I think I have said enough to show that Stuart and the Porphyry School have not an inch of ground to stand upon ; they are all at loggerheads among themselves, and refute each other ; and 1 think I have refuted all, and taught every schoolboy to refute them. I think chapter ii. 44<, convicts them of false history, and prophecy, and miracle, showing the book to be divine, while these nine chapters contain no allusion to Antiochus, though many traditionalists have long believed that the eighth chapter refers to him ; but Sir Isaac Newton and Faber have convinced me that this is a delusion, and that it refers to something vastly more important. They believe and teach that the first little horn of the seventh chapter means the Papacy, a dreadful persecutor of the true people of God ; and the other little horn of the eighth chapter means Mahommetanism, almost as destructive a persecutor of Christians. I agree with them, and desire to emphasise this new interpretation, which I think entirely revolutionises this prophetic book. If I have succeeded in expelling Antiochus from these nine chapters I have done a great work, which will bear good fruit. If the little horn of the seventh chapter means some terrible Antichrist, with human mouth and eyes, and a look more stout than his fellows, 1 86 Part III. surely that of the eighth chapter is not much behind it ; and both are much more worthy of being the subject of a divine prophecy than that insignificant persecutor, the wicked King of Syria, who gets as much notice in the eleventh chapter as he deserves. If once it is understood that there is no Old Testament Antichrist, no Antiochus in the eighth chapter known to Daniel, no one will be likely to look for him anywhere else out of the eleventh chapter, and then both little horns will have to be accounted for. It could be no small matter that rendered Daniel sick for days, and unable to do the King's business, when he was so astonished at the vision which none understood. And how many are there that do not understand it yet ? A power that (ver 10) ["waxed great to the host of heaven, and cast down of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamped upon them (when ver. 12), a host was given him against the daily because of transgression, and he cast down the truth to the ground and prospered."] This is by far too magnificent for any Antiochus, and must force the intelligent reader to think. There is something Messianic to comfort the reader in the seventh chapter, an everlasting kingdom shall be given to the saints of the Most High, but in the eighth there is nothing to relieve the gloom except that the pre- sumptuous horn [" shall be broken without hand."] I reckon the seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters a magnificent illustration of the second, preparing the way for the Apocalypse ; and I wonder how any one could ever reckon the horn of the seventh chapter the terrible Antichrist, and that of the eighth chapter only Antiochus. Here the prophecies of Daniel might have stopped, as complete in themselves, and probably would, but for Daniel's great anxiety on considering the ravages Chapter IX. 187 of the two little horns, and that even Messiah was to be cut off, with perhaps bad news from Palestine. So the aged saint, four years after the last vision, betakes him- self probably a second time to prayer and supplication, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes, and a heavenly beincr is once more sent to comfort him, and review the subjects already communicated, with some additions. Nay, the great I Am, the Angel of the Lord or Messiah the prince, condescends to visit him as the man clothed in linen, which we will see in the next chapters. But here the intelligent reader will naturally ask, Why should there be such a diversity of interpretations? Simply because so few commentators take the trouble to think. They generally follow each other like sheep ; just allowing themselves to think and say what some one else has said before them. But why think with this man rather than with that ? Some great name has impressed his sentiments on their mind, which he, in his turn, has derived from some one else ; and so the most absurd notions pass current as veritable truth ; and commentators themselves are astonished at each other's absurdities, but none sees his own. And so much truth lies concealed. How few, for instance, would think of seeing in chapter ii. 41 ["the kingdom shall be divided"] a hint that the empire would then be divided into Eastern and Western, with two capitals, Constantinople and Rome ? Or in the next verse, that partly strong and partly broken, should mean that the empire should be weakened by being broken up into ten kingdoms ? PAET FOURTH. CHAPTERS X.-XII. The first verse is a sort of preface, written in the third person, and ver. 2 begins the account of the vision, while chapter xi. begins the prophecy, and chapter xii., ver. 4, gives the conclusion of the whole book. This is the last and the longest, and I may say the most difficult of Daniel's great prophetic revelations. The former were often a vision and explanation in one chapter ; here the symbols are awanting, and the whole is verbal explanation, but still not mere history, only brief pictures of certain coming events. Ver. 1 gives the date, and Daniel's impression of the truth and im- portance of the whole. Of course, he had seen and heard all before he sat down to write, and had means of knowing that the whole was true ; but the simple fact of the vision must have assured him that it was a mes- sage from God, a supernatural vision and prophecy, and that was enough to convince him of its truth ; and in turn he seeks to convince his readers of its importance before they begin to read. The Revised Version here is better than the Old. Instead of " the time appointed was long," they read, " even a great warfare." Stuart renders it, *' the message was truth and the warfare great." The trials of life may be compared to a war- Chapter X. 1 89 fare, but those of the saints of old were often very great and terrible. If we find any truth in what follows, it will be a clear proof of the inspiration of the whole book, A fulfilled prophecy is the greatest of miracles. Of course, the clearest proof may not convince some people, as one may deny that the sun shines if he thinks fit, but those that wish to know the truth will honestly ask themselves, Is this true ? and if so, what lessons does it teach ? I write thus, because some intelligent persons tell me they do not believe in this book. I do not wonder at their disbelief, if they believe in the common inter- pretation ; but the new interpretation is satisfactory and essential to me, and Daniel himself seems willing to let the inspiration of the whole book and his own integrity depend upon the following prophecy rightly explained. Let us hear his story of the great vision. Vers. 2, 3. [" In those days I Daniel was mourning three whole weeks (weeks of days, or three times seven days, the paschal feast being only one seven). I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all till three whole weeks were fulfilled."] This shows his sincerity at least. Something heavy must have been pressing on his heart. It reminds us of his abstinence from the food and wine of the King's table in the first chapter. This was somewhat different. A 8])ecial fast, for which the troubles in Palestine and gloomy predictions of the three former chapters can sufficiently account where one truly believes them. Ver. 4. The fast being ended, he seems to have resumed his usual duties ; and on the twenty-fourth of the same month he, with others, was on the banks of the great river Tigris, or Hiddekel ; when (ver. 5) ["I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen (a priestly robe), whose loins were 190 Part IV. girded with the fine gold of Uphaz ; ver. 6. his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude."] In Rev. i. 13 a very similar vision appears to John in Patmos, [" one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the breasts with a golden girdle ; his eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burnt in a furnace ; and his voice as the sound of many waters."] A certain commentator is quoted by Dr. Robinson as saying, " we find that (these) descriptions, though resembling each other, are not to be confounded, the latUr having every divine attribute, while the former has none." The reader can judge of the value of that criticism for him- self. I maintain I see no material difference between them. I confess I cannot conceive the Apocalyptic vision to represent the risen Saviour in glory appearing to His beloved disciple in the one case, taking a deep interest in the character and concerns of His infant church, in a garb borrowed or imitated from a forgery or fiction, — the one being a pure emanation from hell, borrowed by the Saviour now in heaven, and exhibited to the world as the highest manifestation of divine condescension. His hovering on the water of the river reminds me of him who walked on the Sea of Galilee ; and his two atten- dant angels remind me of him who talked with Abraham, and sent his two attendants to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. If I am mistaken in the pictures, I am willing to hug my own delusion. Vers. 7-9. The next three verses describe the impression on Daniel and others. ["I Daniel alone saw the vision ; for the men that were with me saw not the vision ; but a great Chapter X. 191 quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide them- selves. Therefore I was left alone and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me. . . . Yet heard I the voice of his words ; and when I heard . . . then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground."] This Avas like Paul on the way to Damascus. The impression on the men with him is very remarkable. Though they saw nothing they fled, struck with terror through the idea of something super- natural, while he himself was completely prostrated ; but the mind was not so much so as the body. He fell on his face to the ground, as if in a profound sleep. The supernatural fills with a sense of danger, for conscience makes cowards of us all. This is the more remarkable as it was not intended to frighten but to comfort and instruct him. The only way to get rid of the divinity of all this is to deny it. All lies ! This is neither ordinary miracle nor prophecy, but only supernatural impression, where Nature speaks, and cannot be made to falsify. The first care is to remove this terror before he can listen to the prophecy, so what caused it must now cure it. Ver. 1 0. [" A hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and the palms of my hands."] The margin adds " tottering " or shaking. From this verse to the nineteenth we have the various means used to strengthen and encourage him. He is thrice touched here, and ver. 16. " the similitude of sons of men touched my lips," and in ver. 18, another touch. He is twice called " a man greatly beloved," vers. 11, 19 ; he is addressed in 11-14, told to stand up, which he does, still trembling. The speaker says he has " been sent " to him, that his prayer has been heard, and that he should not fear twice, 12, 19, "be strong" twice, 19 ; in ver. 15 he "set his face towards the earth and was dumb," but by the touch 192 Part IV. of ver. 16 he could say to [" him that stood before" him " O, my Lord, by reason of the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, aud I retain no strength. For how can the servant of this my Lord talk with this my Lord ? Straightway there remained no strength in me, neither was there breath left in me."] He was strengthened by the third touch, and the address [" man, greatly beloved, fear not; peace be unto thee, be strong, yea be strong; " (and then he said), "let my Lord speak ; for thou hast strengthened me "]. All this shows remark- able patience and condescension on the part of the illustrious visitor, and is well worth being told. Keil observes that in regard to the statement in ver. 1, " the thing was true," " Hitzig finds an intimation that betrays the writer's standpoint, when the thing was realised, Daniel not being able to say it was true before it happened." I think if he had not, after all this condescension, known that he was in the hand of a benevolent and supernatural being, he must have been an enormous ass ; but it shows what Hitzig is ! I hope there is not his second in the whole world ! Is it possible for ignorance and prejudice to go farther ? Ver. 20. Then said the heavenly messenger [" Knowest thou wherefore I am comeunto thee ? "] We are to take the answer for granted, as he had plainly told him in the 14th ver. ["I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days "] ; which clearly implies predictions. This must have been the burden of his mourning in the recent twenty-one days ; so he adds [" I will now return to fight (contend) with the Prince of Persia ; and when I go forth, lo, the Prince of Greece shall come. But I will tell thee that which is noted in THE SCRIPTURE OF Truth ; and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your Chapter XL 193 prince. I also, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. Chap. xi. ver. 2. And now I will show thee the Truth."] Does not the reader find in all this, as I do, that there is even more divine condescension here than in the Apocalyptic vision ? And can he envy the man that considers all this grand manifestation as mere forgery and lies ? But, before we go further, we may notice two questions that have been raised, 1. Is the speaker all along the man clothed in linen ? I think not. 2. Are these so-called princes, as Jerome has taught, the guardian angels of different countries, holy angels who fight with one another? Again, I think not. 1. This man clothed in linen is again mentioned only in the 12th chapter, ver. 6, and there he is upon the waters of the river, like Jesus walking on the sea ; but we are not told where he was in the eleventh chapter. This, however, is plain, that the great vision completely paralysed the prophet, both in body and mind. He is never mentioned more.. But this speaker stands before him in the simili- tude of the sons of men (ver. 16). He speaks also of the vision as the cause of his fear, and speaks with a common voice. 2. Guardian angels too, of kingdoms, and good angels fighting, seems to me to be a groundless imagination, founded upon one ambiguous word, the Hebrew Sar, a prince. In the eighth chapter Christ is called Prince of the host, and Prince of Princes. But Michael is also called one of the chief princes, and one speaks of the Prince of Persia and Greece. The word seems to be applied to any great person, whether on earth or heaven ; but Jerome and others wish to make the Prince of Persia the guardian angel of Persia, but is there any such ? Jerome makes his hare soup before he catches his hare. This angel or the speaker speaks 194 Part IV. of fighting with the Prince of Persia (vers, 1 3-20). That should settle it. What weapons do they fight with, who hears of or cares for wars unknown. They refer to Rev. xii. , where the dragon and his angels are said to fight with Michael and his angels ; but I have inter- preted that to mean the Roman emperors persecuting the Christians. The latter gained the victory by not fighting, but only dying rather than renounce their faith : they loved not their lives unto the death, and thereby defeated all the machinations of the devil, or heathen gods. Michael and this angel, probably Gabriel, did what they could to incline the Kings of Persia and Greece to be favourable to the Jews ; the rest is speaking like men 'more humcmo ; or as God has feet and eyes. Chap. xi. 2. We now come to what is noted in the Scripture of truth, or God's decrees. [" Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia ; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all ; and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece."] This is very brief but very correct, so much so that enemies call it history after the event, not prophecy ; but this only shows they do not know what history or prophecy is. Keil says correctly history goes straightforward, but prophecy is like the rising sun which gilds the mountain peaks, but leaves the intervening valleys to the natural shade. The peaks here are Cam- byses, son of Cyrus, Smerdis, a supposed brother, but an impostor, as the real brother was murdered ; third is Darius Hystaspes, who fought and lost the battle of Marathon against the Greeks. The fourth is Xerxes, son of Darius, who fitted out the largest army on record, and passed the Hellespont from Asia to Europe by two bridges of boats in four weeks. Herodotus says he had Chapter XI. 195 2,317,610 men, and the camp followers were supposed to be more, near 5,000,000 in all. They were stopped some time at Thermopylae by Leonidas, and his gallant band, who died to a man. Justin says, " We may praise his riches.for though rivers were drunk up by his army, yet his wealth was unexhausted. He lost the sea fight of Salamis, and his general Mardonius lost the battle of Platea the following year, when Xerxes had gone home in disgust. Greece having been named, the prophecy leaves Persia as already routed, and goes on to Greece and Alexander, one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived. He undertook the conquest of the world at the age of twenty, with a small but well- trained army, defeated the Persian King Darius in three battles, with an army of 1,000,000, and colonised as he went along. He founded many cities, Alexandria in Egypt, &c., and finished his work and his life in twelve years and eight months." This is the mighty king of ver. 3 : ["Who shall wield a great dominion, and do according to his will."] Ver. 4. [" His kingdom shall be broken (by his death at Babylon on his way home), and divided toward the four winds of heaven (that is, all the winds, into about thirty at first, but they attacked each other, and reduced them to four, north, south, east, and west), but not to his posterity (his whole family were murdered by the chiefs, his half-brother Philip, his two wives, two sons, and his mother, that these treacherous Greeks might reign alone), nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled."] No, for they could not preserve the king- doms that he made, and if all united were not equal to his dominion, of course, no one could be so, not even Antiochus. The reader will remember that in the second chapter, verse 39, the silver and copper kingdoms have but half a verse each, but then they had the whole 1 96 Part IV. eighth chapter to themselves, the ram and hc-goat, so now the review of the past visions is brief, but very- complete. Also, the eighth chapter stopped with the death of Alexander, and the division into four horns, and then, passing over the history of the horns, came to the little horn which grew on one of them. So here it takes up the history of the horns to the time of the Maccabees. Ver. 5. [" The King of the South (Egypt) shall be strong, and of his princes (Alexander's perhaps), and he (another surely) shall be strong above him, and have dominion, — a great dominion."] Syria, the largest kingdom of the whole successors of Alexander. These two, Egypt and Syria, contended long for the mastery, as we shall see, but they could not extinguish each other, far less rule the whole world, or equal Nebuchadnezzar or Alexander. Palestine lay between Egypt and Syria, and shared to some extent in the calamities of each, but reaped none of the benefits. Still this was only contending for temporal dominion, and not like the fiery furnace and lion's den, a religious persecu- tion ; and what is noteworthy, the seventh chapter has represented all the four great metallic empires as wild beasts, preying on God's sheep and lambs ; but so far as we have gone there has been nothing of that in this third empire, as Alexander was kind and even partial to the Jews. That persecution must come, or the prophecy of the beast of prey is falsified. And such a beast as it was too, a leopard or 'panther, a larger species of the cat kind : Dr Pusey says, " the panther is about one-third less than the tiger, which lives further east. It is said to attack men, and every animal but the lion, and is more destructive than either lion or bear, for they kill and eat till they have enough, but the panther has a savage delight in blood, and if not driven away, it will Chaptei' XI. 197 kill a whole flock, which it cannot eat, as if intoxicated with the mere sight and taste of blood, in which it de- lights to wallow after it has had enough to eat." This is the horrid brute the Jews must yet encounter ; I warn the reader that it is coming, or the vision will be falsi- fied. There is none of it in the eighth chapter, except the little horn, then future. This kingdom of Egypt was the first to be established, as Ptolemy was appointed over it by Alexander, and was governor at his death, and his family continued to reign from B.C. 323 to 30, when Augustus made it, the last of Alexander's do- minions, a Roman province on the death of Cleopatra, famous for her beauty and her tragical death, by the poison of an asp, applied by her own hand to prevent her falling alive into the hands of the conqueror. Augustus was so mean as to murder her illegitimate son to Julius Caesar, through fear of a rival. The next last to be made a Roman province was Syria by Pompey in B.C. 65. The first, Macedon, was conquered by Paulus Emilius B.C. 170 or so. The fourth Pergamos shortly after. These are called the kingdoms of the Diadochi or successors, on whose partial history we now enter. Ver. 6. [" And at the end of years (after the lapse of many years) they (Syria and Egypt) shall join themselves together : the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement : (this was, that Antiochus Theos, the third king of the north, should divorce his wife Laodice, and declare her two sons illegitimate, and marry Bernice the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, " but she shall not retain the strength of her arm (that is, her power to make peace), neither shall he stand, nor his arm ; (either her father or her husband, two years after the former died, so nothing happened to him, but Antio- 198 Part IV. chus was induced to turn Bernice away, and take back Laodice, She was afraid he might change again, so she had him poisoned, and her son placed on the throne. Thus he lost the power of his arm). [" But she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and the child she bore, and he that strengthened her in those times."] I suppose this last must be her brother who succeeded to the throne of Egypt. She fled to Daphnse, a sacred grove or city of refuge, to be under the protection of the Deity, but Laodice had her murdered and her child and all her friends. This is certainly wonderfully like his- tory, but not too hard for omniscience. It was likely to breed more wars than it prevented. Vers. 7-9. [" Then shall stand up out of a branch of her roots (her father's house) one in his stead (her brother), who shall come with (or to) the army, and shall enter into the fortress (or fenced cities) of the king of the north, and shall deal (or do great things) against them, and shall prevail. A.nd shall carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes (or rather graven or molten images) and with their precious images of silver and gold, and for years shall remain aloof from the king of the north. But he (the king of the north after two years) shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south, and shall return to his land,"] having done nothing. Ptolemy, we are told, was greatly incensed at the cruel treatment of his sister, and invaded Syria, killed Laodice, and proceeded as far as Babylon. But he had to return home because of a sedition in Egypt, or he might have taken all Asia. He plundered the kingdom of Seleucus, took 40,000 talents of silver and precious vessels, and 2500 images of their gods (among which were those Cambyses took out of Egypt to Persia), for which he got the title of Euergetes, the benefactor. Vers. 10-19. The sons of Chapter XI. 1 99 this defeated king, Callinicus, grandsons of Laodice, now come before us. The oldest, weak in body and mind, reigned three years, and was poisoned by two of his generals. The younger was the third Antiochus, after- wards called the great, with whom began the decline and fall of the successors, whom Stuart and some others absurdly call the fourth dynasty. Now, observe the wonderful accuracy of the prophecy, which no historian would have thought of. [" But his sons shall be stirred np, and assemble a multitude of great forces ; and one (he) shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through : then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress. Ver. 11. But the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and come forth and fight with him, with the king of the north : and he (also) shall set forth a great multitude, and the (first) multitude shall be given into his hand."] Multitude is twice men- tioned, one to each, and we know that Ptolemy had a great victory at Raphia, so we are indebted to the help of history. Ver. 12. [" When the multitude shall be taken away, his heart shall be lifted up ; though he shall cast down tens of thousands he shall not be strengthened by it. Ver. 13. For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army, and with much riches."] Antiochus was forced to begin warfare early at fifteen, and he was unsuccessful ; but he went to Asia and got practice with inferior nations, and returned to attack Egypt again. Ptolemy had a great victory at Raphia, but he failed to make a good use of it, so he could not become strong. He died B.C. 205 or so, and was succeeded by a child of four years. " Antiochus, 200 Part IV. says Stuart, " had just returned from his splendid con- quests and triumphs in Persia, Bactria, and Asia Minor, and was at the very height of his power and wealth." But the reader may say, Why waste time on such purposeless wars ? So thought the spirit of prophecy in the eighth chapter, but Daniel was so distressed to know more of what should befall his people, that the prophecy here returns to it ; and we must remembc r that Epiphanes is regarded by the great men of modern criticism, and what Stuart rejoices in as historico- grammatical exegesis, as the subject of most of Daniel, and especially from ver. 21 to the end of chap, xi., so that it is important to refute such nonsense. Now, we have ten verses here on the subject of his father, a much greater man than he, more respectable and in- fluential, so his history becomes important. I have already said that with him begins the decline and fall of the successors, the last of the Grecian or third empire. Also, these wars were much more important to the Jews of that age than to us. Palestine lies between Syria and Egypt, as a sort of football between the contending armies, and whoever lost or won, the Jews always lost peace, comfort, sometimes property, or even life in wars with which they had no connection ; so now some of them try to mix themselves up with them, and thus they open the door to Epiphanes. Ver. 14. [" In those times many shall stand up against the king of the south ; even the violent of thy people shall lift themselves up so as to fulfil the vision, but they shall fall. So the king of the north shall come and cast up a mount, and take the fenced cities : and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, nor shall there be power to withstand. Ver. 16. But he that comes against him shall do as he pleases, and Chapter XI. 201 none shall stand before him, and he shall stand in the glorious land, and destruction shall be in his hand. Ver. 17. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and equitable conditions with him ; and he shall do so : and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her, but she shall not stand, neither be for him. Ver. 1 8. And he shall turn bis face to the isles, and take many ; and a captain shall cause his reproach to cease, besides he shall turn back his reproach on himself Ver. 19. Then he shall turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land : but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found."] This is a very full description of the life of Antiochus the Great. His first attack on Egypt was a failure, but the Jews were greatly distressed, " as a ship in a storm," says Josephus, " tossed on both sides, in the middle be- tween Antiochus' prosperity and its change to adversity." But worse than even that, Ptolemy came to Jerusalem and tried to enter the Temple, and greatly offended the Jews who had long been friendly with Egypt, and he went home in wrath and slew many thousands of Jews in Alexandria, and thus disposed them to seek the friendship of Antiochus when he came home from his successful wars in Asia. Ptolemy Philopator being dead, Philip of Macedon agreed with Antiochus to assail Egypt, and many dissatisfied Jews joined in the same, after the general of the King of Egypt, Scopas, was defeated near the source of the Jordan, and fled to Sidon, was besieged and had to surrender to Antiochus. The dissatisfied Jews are called robbers, an ambiguous expression, as it may denote those who rob the Jews ; but in Ezek. xviii. 10 it is clear it means worthless persons, the violent, or given to change, and this because it was the real turning point to their future sufferings under 202 Part IV. Epiphanes. The same characters effected the destruc- tion of city and temple under Titus or Vespasian. The ambition of Antiochus rose with his success, and that proved his ruin. Palestine was now entirely in his hand, but the Romans had entangled Philip III. of Macedon, and he wanted to attack the Romans too, so he proposed a treaty with Egypt, and offered his beauti- ful daughter Cleopatra in marriage to the young King, hoping through her to make Egypt a province of Syria, but his plans oozed out, and this drove the King and Queen of Egypt to seek the protection of Rome, which sealed its fate. It was no longer independent. The Syrian attacked the isles of Greece, and coast towns of Asia Minor, &c., and this sealed his fate, for the Romans were too heavy for him ; besides the prophecy showed that the copper kingdom should yield in due time to the iron one, and this was the watershed. A captain, Lucius Scipio (Asiaticus) caused his reproach to cease. The reproach was this : " his scornful and contemptu- ous declaration to the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, that " Asia did not concern them, and he was not subject to their orders." But Scipio turned the tables on him. He had a brilliant victory (heaven being on his side) near Magnesia, at the foot of Mount Sypilus in Lydia, B.C. 190, which enabled him to force Antiochus to an immediate peace on very severe and humiliating terms. Peace was granted " in B.C. 188, on condition of the surrender of all his dominions west of Mount Taurus, and of his elephants and ships of war, and the payment of 15,000 Euboic talents in twelve years, as the expenses of the war, and twenty hostages, including his son Epiphanes, for the due fulfilment of the treaty." This part of his history is well told by Bishop Newton, whom I willingly quote as Chapter XI. 2v.y3 M. Stuart has spoken, I fear, sneeringly of his 'profound work, a work of which Stuart was utterly incapable of either conceiving or executing. He says, " Antiochus fitted out a formidable fleet of 100 large ships of war, and 200 smaller. With this fleet he turned his face to the isles of the Mediterranean ; subdued most of the mari- time places on the coasts of Asia, Thrace and Greece ; took Samos, Eubaea, and many other islands. This was a great indignity offered to the Romans when their con- federates were thus oppressed, and the cities which they had lately restored to liberty were enslaved. But the Roman generals repelled the injury and caused his reproach to cease. The Consul Acilius routed him at Thermopylae, and drove him out of Greece B.C. 191 ; Livius and Acmilius defeated his fleet at sea ; and Scipio finally obtained a decisive victory near Magnesia at the foot of Mount Sypilus, where Antiochus lost 50,000 foot and 4000 horse, and 1400 were taken prisoners, and he himself with difficulty escaped. By these means he and his successors became tributary to the Romans, so truly and effectually did they not only " cause the reproach offered by him to cease," but caused it to turn back upon him. He did not long survive this disgrace. He ' then turned his face to the fort of his own land ' (and next year perished in) trying to rob a rich temp'e at Elymais (his object was discovered and) he was assaulted by the inhabitants of the country, was defeated, and he and all his attendants were slain." Thus " he stumbled and fell, and was no more found." This long- history of a great king I ask the reader to compare with that of his son Epiphanes, who will soon appear. Yer. 20. His eldest son, Seleucus IV. Philopator, suc- ceeded him ; but he found himself no longer an inde- pendent king, but a mere tax-gatherer for the Romans. 204 Part IV. The father had paid one instalment of the money claimed by Rome, but the rest was a heavy burden on the crown and country ; so Seleucus seems to have lost heart, and entrusted everything to his prime minister or treasurer, Heliodorus, whom he sent to plunder the Temple of Jerusalem, but he failed somehow. Perhaps be thought if he was to steal he might do so for his own behoof, and not for a useless master ; so, shortly after this attempt at sacrilege, he had the King poisoned, hoping to mount the vacant throne. The true heir, Demetrius, had gone as a hostage to Rome, in room of Epiphanes, who was unwilling that the murderer of his brother should reign ; so he hastened to Eumenes, King of Pergamos, and sought his aid to oust Heliodorus, which he did ; but this begins the history of the great bogie of the commentators. Seleucus reigned 1 2 years, and died 175 B.C. Ver. 21. Dr Murphy says, "Ver. 21-30. This is the only passage in the book of Daniel that refers to Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, and nicknamed by Polybius, Epimanes " (or the mad man). This of Dr Murphy is the strongest testi- mony I have met with in favour of the new inter- pretation. Dr Robinson, author of the Homiletic Com- mentary, says, " Dr Cox remarks that in this (eighth) chapter, according to Faber, whose interpretation ap- pears to be, on good grounds, now universally adopted, the prophet records the history of the Mahometan im- posture." This statement of Dr Cox is modified by Dr Robinson, but even his statement seems over sanguine. He corrects " universally " into " extensively adopted," which is going a great length for one who does not adopt it. I am sorry I have not seen Dr Cox's work, and Robinson gives no reference ; but I shall notice Faber, Murphy, and the Newton s on this passage iu the eleventh chapter. 1 agree with them substantially as Chapter XL 205 far as ver. 30, but not in 31, 32. On ver. 21, Dr Murphy says, \^' A vile jyerson i\ he was despised l)e- cause, though possessed of some ability, he played the part of a buffoon." Yes, and much worse than that (see Newton) ; but the reader will see enough as we go on. [" The}^ shall not put (give him) the glory of the kingdom.] This, if it means Judea, as in ver. 20, was wrested from him by the Maccabees." I prefer the ordinary meaning here, that no one honoured liirw on the occasion, and he [obtained the kingdom by flatteries.] I cannot always prefer Murphy's translation to the Re- vised or even the Old Version. Ver. 22. Newton prefers the Septuagint translation: ["And the arms of the over- flower shall be overflown from before him."] The mean- ing is quite plain : [" and shall be broken ; yea, also the prince of the covenant."] All authors that I have seen understand the High Priest Onias III. here, but that I have already rejected. A prince means a king or heir- apparent, as I showed in the case of Titus in ninth chapter. Now, I think it clearly means Demetrius, son of the former king, the murdered Seleucus IV. He was heir-apparent when he was sent to Rome as a host- age, and now he is the lawful heir of the kingdom and of the covenant the Romans forced upon his grandfather Antiochus the Great, who paid 1000 talents of war expenses ; and his father Seleucus had paid probably 12,000 in the twelve years of his reign ; and now to deprive the son and heir of the whole kingdom seems grossly dishonest on the part of the Romans, who surely had no right to keep him at Rome a hostage for an uncle that was defrauding him of his right. But the iron heart of Rome had no more honesty than Epiphanes himself. Ver. 23. [" And after the league (or agreement) with him he shall work deceitfully, for he shall come up, and 2o6 Part IV. become strong,"] but there is no deceit in coming up or becoming strong. But first. With whom does he make the league ? The last known was the Prince of the Covenant ; was this with Demetrius ? It might be so, if we had any knowledge of such, but history is silent : or, rather, was it with the Jews, a small nation ? For Murphy translates "he shall work deceit, and he shall go up and be strong in a small nation," surely meaning the Jews ; now, here we do know both of agreements and deception. He deposed Onias III. from being high priest, and appointed his brother Jason in 175 B.C., the first of his reign, for the latter offered 360 talents more of tribute than that paid by Onias, and he broke this again, and deposed Jason for a greater bribe by his brother Menelaus ; and after all these agreements he robbed the temple of 1800 talents of sacred deposits which Heliodorus had failed to obtain. All this he did violently, as the Jews were too weak to resist him. That is the best interpretation I can think of. Ver. 24. ["He shall enter peaceably the rich places of the province, . . . scatter the spoil, and he shall forecast his devices against the strongholds (of Egypt) for a time,"] Then in ver. 25, He shall attack Egypt. This was in the fifth year of his reign, 171 B.C. So the twenty-first verse gives us his despicable character, a vile person, not worth the honour of the kingdom, yet he obtained it by flatteries. Ver. 22. How he overwhelms all opponents, even his nephew Demetrius, the prince of the league of the Romans, with his grandfather and father. Then (ver. 23) his treachery and greed with the small nation, when he shows himself strong. Yer. 24 gives us his actions and devices till he is ready to attack his other nephew in Egypt. Ver. 25. Having got one kingdom from one nephew by dishonesty, he forecasts devices ChapteT" XI. 207 to get a second from a second nephew, with the tolerance of the E-onians. [" He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army : and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great army, but he shall not stand ; for (some) shall forecast devices against him. Ver. 26. They that eat of his bread shall betray him : his army shall be defeated, and many slain."] Ver. 27. He got Ptolemy into his hands somehow, and [" at one table they shall speak falsehood "] and try to out- wit each other. His sister Cleopatra had died, 173, and Ptolemy VI, was declared of age at fourteen, and Antiochus sent Apollonius to congratulate him, but really to see how the ground lay, as the young King's guardians had demanded Coelo-Syria and Palestine, ac- cording to Cleopatra's marriage contract. " On learn- ing that he was viewed as an enemy, he proceeded to put the forts on the frontier in a state of defence," which virtually began the war with Egypt. He took some strongholds in 171, again in 170 he conquered all Egypt except Alexandria, and got the young King into his power. But the Alexandrians outwitted him by declaring his younger brother king in his stead. Ver, 28. ["He then returned home from Memphis, 'with great riches ; and his heart against the holy covenant.' "] This is called holy to distinguish it from the former league and Prince of the Covenant. He visited Jeru- salem on his way homo, and did much mischief This was his first deliberate attack on the Jews, though he had been oppressing and breaking his arrangements with them from the beginning. This is the prophecy and 1 Mace, gives us the history. Chap. i. 16 : " Now when the kingdom was established before Anti- ochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might 208 Part IV. have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he enterefT into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, am) elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemy, King of Egypt : but Ptolemy was- afraid of him, and fled ; and many were wounded ta death." The prophecy adds that some that ate his bread Vjetrayed him, when he had the strongest array. Observe how the history and prophecy agree. Ver. 20. "After he ha