tests, there is at least a very high degree of probability that it is the true date of the commencement of the 1260 days.* In this year, the saints were given into the hand

:

their deficiency by informing us, that they will begin to be delivered at the time of the end or at the close of the 1260 years, when all the predictions relative to the wonderful events comprehended within the three times and a balf shall have been fulfilled. On these grounds we may safely, I think, conclude, that the 1260 years did not expire in the year 1789, because the Jews did not then begin to be restored: and, even if their restoration should commence in the year 1819 as Mr. Bicheno expects, such an event would be no demonstration of the rest of his system; on the contra❤ ry, it would confute it, because it would prove that the 1260 years, instead of expiring in the year 1789, expired in the year 1819.—I thirdly object to his computing the 1290 years and the 1335 years from the year 529, on the ground that the abomination of desolation, mentioned in Dan. viii. 13. and xii. 11, is the Papacy. That these two periods are to be dated from the same era as the 1260 years, cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted in this point therefore Mr. Bicheno and I perfectly agree. We both likewise agree, that all the three periods are to be dated from the setting up of the abomination of desolation for neither can this position be reasonably doubted. We lastly agree, that one and the same abomination of desolation is spoken of both in Dan. viii. 13. and in Dan. xii. 11; and that this abomination cannot be referred to the pollution of the literal temple by the Romans as predicted (according to our Lord's own exposition) in Dan. xi. 31, because the numbers connected with it render such a reference impossible. Thus far we are perfectly agreed: but here we begin to differ. Mr. Bicheno maintains, that the desolating transgression, connected with the little born of the be-goat and with the numbers 1290 and 1335, is the Papacy, which he contends was set up by the code of Justinian in the year 529: I, on the contrary, most explicitly deny that this desolating transgression is the Papacy. Let the little born of the be-goat be Antiochus Epiphanes,the Roman empire, or any other power; it certainly cannot be the Papacy, because the Papacy never was a born of the be-goat or Macedonian empire. Hence it is evident, that the desolating transgression connected with the Macedonian little born, which was to take away the daily sacrifice and to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot, cannot be the Papacy: and, if it be not the Papacy, we have no right to date the 1260 years the 1290 years and the 1835 years from the year 529, unless it can be shewn that some desolating transgression, which afterwards became a born of the begoat and which fully answers to the prophetic description of it, arose in the year 529. This however Mr. Bicheno will find it no very easy matter to do: therefore the three periods cannot be dated from the year 529.-Here I might stop; for, if Mr. Bicheno's foundation give way, his superstructure falls to the ground of course: yet cannot refrain from noticing the strange era which he has pitched upon as the proper date of the larger number 2300, and consequently of the vision of the ram and the be goat. A computation deduced, not from the end of the 1260 years as it ought to have been, but from the end of the 1290 years (that is to say, from what he supposes to be the end of the 1290 years), brings him to the year A. C. 481, in which Xerxes set out to invade Greece; and this famous expedition he affirms to be specially predicted under the imagery of the pushing of the ram. Never surely was history more injudiciously brought forward as the interpreter of prophecy. Daniel tells us, that the pushing of the ram was so irresistible, that no beast could stand before him, and that none could deliver out of his hand, but that he did according to his will, and became great. Herodotus assures us, that the huge unwieldy armament of Xerxes was totally discomfited by the Greeks, and that the king himself was compelled to flee with disgraceful precipitancy into Asia. In fact the the pushing of the ram relates almost exclusively to the victories of Cyrus, which were achieved long before Xerxes

came to the throne.

I

My general conclusion is this: that Mr. Bicheno's scheme, though not deficient in ingenuity, rests upon no solid foundation. A very few years however, as I have already observed, will irrefragably decide the question between us.

* Mr. Fleming fixes the rise of Popery properly so called, that is to say, the com

of the papal horn in this year the Mohammedan transgression of desolation, which shortly after its rise became by the conquest of Syria a horn of the he-goat, was set up:* and a computation, deduced from this year, brings us precisely to the very year in which Alexander invaded Asia, one of the most proper dates that could have been assigned even a priori to the vision of the ram and the he-goat. Positive certainty indeed in such matters is the high privilege of God alone: yet a triple coincidence is not, I think, to be slighted. According to what is called the doctrine of chances, the improbability of an accidental triple coincidence bears a much higher ratio to the improbability of only an accidental double coincidence, than the number three does to the number two.†

I shall now proceed to compare the character of the he-goat's little horn with the character of Mohammedism, in order that their identity may be proved as well by eircumstantial as by chronological correspondence.

I. "For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desmencement of the spiritual empire of the Pope, to "that memorable year 606, when Phocas did in a manner devolve the government of the West upon Boniface the third, by giving him the title of supreme and universal Bishop :" yet he afterwards, with an inconsistency similar to that of Bp. Newton, dates the 1260 years from the year 758, when he supposes the Papacy to have been established. His own expression, "by steps he hath been raised up, and by steps must he be pulled down," might have shewn him, that the tyrannical reign of the papal born ought to be dated, not surely from the era of its meridian splendor, but from the very first year that it commenced, from the time when the saints were first given into the hand of the born. We date the age of a man from the day of his birth, not from the period of his adolescence: why then must a different mode be adopted in computing the duration of a spiritual catholic empire? Besides this objection to dating the 1260 years from the year 758, that era is equally unable to bear the tests proposed by the prophet as every other era which has been pitched upon, one only excepted, the year 606, which has been found exactly to answer to those tests, and which I have there. fore concluded to be the true date of the 1260 years. Mr. Galloway adopts the first conjecture of Mr. Fleming, rejecting very judiciously his subsequent inconsist ency. (Comment. p. 88, 129.)

The extreme accuracy of the prophet is highly worthy of our notice. He does not direct us to date the 1260 years from the rise of the be-goat's little born, but from the incipient pollution of the spiritual sanctuary and the setting up of that desolating transgression which afterwards became a born of the be-goat. (Dan. xii. 11.) Had we been directed to date them from the rise of Mohammedism as a born of the be-goat, we must have dated them some years later than the year 606.

What I mean is this, if the gravity of my subject will permit me to use such a mode of exemplification. A double coincidence I compare to throwing two aces with two dice; a triple coincidence, to throwing three aces with three dice. Now it is well known, that the chance against throwing the latter is, to the chance against throwing the former, much more than three to two.

olation continue, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"

1. We have seen, that the power symbolized by the little horn of the he-goat, whatever power it may be, is to flourish 1260 years, computing from its rise in the character of a desolating transgression; and therefore that the prosperous duration of this power is to be exactly contemporary with the tyrannical reign of the papal little horn. We have likewise seen reason to believe, that that tyrannical reign commenced in the year 606, when the saints were delivered into the hand of the Bishop of Rome; and consequently that we must look for the rise of the power symbolized by the he-goat's little horn in that same year. Accordingly, upon turning our eyes to the East, we found that Mohammedism arose in that very year; and we know, that no other power did then arise, which either afterwards became a little horn of the he-goat, or which at all corresponds with its prophetic character whence we concluded from this chronological coincidence, that that horn was designed to symbolize Mohammedism. Such being the case, our first inquiry must be, in what sense Mohammedism can be symbolized by a horn.

I have already shewn, that the language of symbols allows the same hieroglyphic to bear both a temporal and a spiritual signification. Thus we find, that a mountain is used to typify both the temporal kingdom of Babylon, and the spiritual kingdom of Christ thus likewise a beast indifferently represents a secular and an ccclesiastical empire: and thus, arguing from analogy, a horn denotes either a temporal or a spiritual kingdom.

Now we have seen, that the little horn of the Roman beast typifies the spiritual kingdom of the Papacy, which, small as it was at first, in process of time became a great empire symbolized in the Apocalypse by a two-horned beast. Such being the case, even if we had not been assisted by chronological computation in our inquiries, we should naturally have been led, merely by the analogy of symbolical language, to conclude, that the little

* Jerem. li. 25. Dan. ii. 35.

...........

horn of the Macedonian beast typified a spiritual kingdom likewise for it seems by no means agreeable to the strict accuracy of that language to suppose, that the Roman little horn means a kingdom of one kind, and that the Macedonian little horn means a kingdom quite of another kind.*

So again, with regard to local situation since the little horn of the Roman beast is to be sought for in the West, we may naturally, not to say necessarily, conclude, that the little horn of the Macedonian beast is to be sought for in the East.

Thus we find, that chronological computation, symbolical analogy, and local situation, all lead us to suppose that the religion of Mohammed is typified by the little horn of the Macedonian beast, We must next consult history.

Accordingly, as history, when viewed in connection with prophecy, has shewn us, that the little horn of the Roman beast means the spiritual, not the temporal, kingdom of the Pope; so history will likewise shew us, when viewed in connection with prophecy, that the little horn of the Macedonian beast means the spiritual, not the temporal, kingdom of Mohammed.

The desolating trangression, which Daniel identifies with the he-goat's little horn, was to arise in the year 606, at the commencement of the 1260 years, during which it was to flourish, and during which the Roman little horn was to reign over the saints. No power did then arise in the East except the religion of Mohammed; and the religion of Mohammed arose in that very year. As for the secular authority of that impostor either without or within the limits of the he-goat's late empire, it did not commence till several years afterwards. Hence we may conclude, agreeably to the analogy of symbolical language, that the horn denotes not the temporal dominion, but the religion of Mohammed. This conclusion, I allow, does not quite necessarily† follow from the premi

This affords another argument to shew, that the little born of the be-goat cannot be the Roman empire or the fourth great beast, as Sir Isaac and Bp. Newton suppose. + Because my first argument only proves, that the desolating transgression must be a spiritual power, not that the little born must, with which it was afterwards indenti

ses: but mark the sequel. The power symbolized by the horn, after it had arisen in the year 606, was to continue 1260 years. Consequently, as this date, and this period of years, exclude Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans from having any connection with the horn; so do they equally exclude the temporal kingdom erected by Mohammed. That kingdom, instead of being set up in the year 606 which the prophecy requires, did not commence, according to Sir Isaac Newton, till the year 637 and, after it had commenced, it lasted no more than 300 years: or, if we date its rise somewhat earlier in the life-time of Mohammed when he became prince of Medina in the year 622, still it will not have commenced in the year 606, and still its duration will scarcely amount even to one quarter of 1260 years. On the other hand, the religion or spiritual kingdom, of Mohammed arose precisely in the the year 606; has already continued nearly 12 centuries; and has every appearance of continuing, in some one of the countries where it is professed, to the very end of the 1260 years. At its first rise it was to be little, comprehending two or at the most only three persons, namely Mohammed and his two apostate associates:* but it was not long to remain so. The prophet informs us, that, small as it originally was, it soon "waxed exceeding great toward the South, and toward the East, and toward the pleasant land." Mohammedism accordingly, though it made its first appearance at Mecca, soon invaded the territories of the Syrian horn of the he-goat, thus becoming (agreeably to the prediction) a horn of the he-goat; and afterwards, exclusive of its propagation in other regions, spread itself over the whole Macedonian empire, in the same manner as the little horn of the Roman beast extended its influence over the whole Western empire. Thus did the great

fied. It is almost superfluous to observe, that a power may be at once both spiritual and temporal. My second argument therefore goes on to prove, that the desolating little born must itself be a spiritual power.

The Rabbinical tales, with which the Koran is so largely embellished, Mohammed is supposed to have learned from a Persian Jew: and for those parts of his multifarious work, which touch upon Christianity, he is thought to have been indebted to the Nestorian monk Sergius or Baheira. All the rest he himself was amply qualified to supply. See Prideaux's Life of Mohammed, p. 43–49.