which, by omitting a conjunction, alters the sense of the Hebrew text; but even so we gain little ground: the king of the north is not mentioned till the next verse, and then we find that he is not to be Seleucus, nor the immediate successor of Seleucus, but Antiochus Theus, the third king of Syria. Is not this a puzzle rather than an explanation? On this principle, however, on the assumption that the kings of the south and north are the kings of Egypt and Syria, the interpretation proceeds to the thirtieth verse. To scrutinize it verse by verse would weary the reader. They who feel interested in the subject can consult the original authorities, and see whether the interpretation is true to the history of those times. A few further remarks, however, may be allowed because the subjects are of consequence. The first book of Maccabees 2

a

a

According to the book of Maccabees, the Romans were allies and good friends of the Jews. Tacitus, however, recognizes no such alliance or friendship. If we were to attempt to correct Roman history by the book of Maccabees, we should be laughed at; yet we admit this same book as an authority in interpreting Scripture. When the Jews acknowledge this

is referred to as an authority. Now if that strange work is to be depended upon, we must admit that Antiochus Epiphanes placed the abomination that maketh desolate. But the interpreter tells us that it was placed by Hadrian. The date assigned to the fulfilment of the thirtieth verse

is about 168 B.C. The date assigned for placing the abomination, which is mentioned in the very next verse is the year of our Lord 132; an interval of nearly three centuries. But is not this latter date contradicted by the highest of all authorities, the words of our Lord? "When ye, therefore, see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place; (whoso readeth let him understand;) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." Do

book as an authentic and true history, it will be time enough for us to acknowledge it. At present we seem liable to the reproach in the fable of Phædrus.

Quantæ putatis esse vos dementiæ,

Qui capita vestra non dubitatis credere,
Cui calceandos nemo commisit pedes?

a Maccabees, Chapter i. verse 54.

not these and the following words imply, that the disciples of our Lord, that Christians would be in great and immediate danger when the abomination of desolation stood in the holy place? It seems, however, that when Hadrian erected a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, in Jerusalem, the Christians suffered little or nothing; although their enemies, the Jews, suffered greatly. Most of the Nazarenes "renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century."

66

By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices," adds the same historian," they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, and more firmly cemented their union with the Catholic church." "

Again: Hadrian is said to have taken away the daily sacrifice. The lamb and every other sacrificed animal were but types originally. What virtue do they

a Gibbon, Vol. ii. chap. 15. Bp. Horsley, in his controversy with Dr. Priestley, says, "it is a notorious fact that Adrian was not unfavourable to the Christians. The Church, in his reign, obtained a respite from persecution." See Remarks upon Second Letters, pp. 367, 8.

possess now? What virtue did they possess in the time of Hadrian? "This is my body.". "This is my blood," said our blessed Saviour, when he gave the bread and wine to the Apostles. What had Christians to do with any other type? Did not the lamb, which was but a type originally, cease to be even a type when the sacrament of the Lord's supper was instituted?

Lastly, the words of the angel are very expressive. But thou O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book to the time of the end"

"Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." Can we expect to understand this prophecy, if the time of the end has not arrived? In the fortieth verse it is said, "and at the time of the end the king of the south shall push at him, and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind."

Here, therefore, we have a test of the correctness of an interpretation. Is the

king of the south the king of Egypt? Is the king of the north the king of Syria? Why have the commentators stopt short? Can they have been right in the explanation of the former verses? Could they have opened what was closed up and seal_ ed?

Let us try a different plan.

Egypt was always to be the basest of the kingdoms; and even Arrian bears witness to the fact, by observing "the Romans-taught, as I think, by the example of Alexander, to be on their guard with respect to Egypt-never appointed its proconsul from the senatorian, but from the equestrian rank." We will take the fact without the

comment.

The prophecy has been strictly fulfilled; the heathens bear testimony to its accomplishment. Why is the king of Egypt to be the king of the south? When the notice of Alexander is so brief", why

a Life of Alexander, p. 147. Arrian, Lib. iii.

b According to Photius, or the author who borrowed his name, Arrian wrote ten books about the successors of Alexander; and yet, if we may judge by the remarks of the critic, Arrian made very little progress in their history.