The last prediction of Daniel, which is termed by its author' the scripture of truth,100 admits of an obvious and natural division at this precise conjuncture. The judicious expositor of that prediction, whom I have hitherto principally followed in this investigation, has accordingly divided it at this point, and has made each of the parts the subject of a separate dissertation.101 In the last of them he specifically treats of the rise and progress of the Christian Church, within the express period which was bounded by the pollution of the sanctuary,' at the one extreme, and the great day of judgment at the other. 102

6

Our Lord has so palpably followed the same course, that the two events have a connexion in his prediction which has occasioned a considerable difficulty,103 and which must appear to be forced, unless it is deduced from this accidental association with the prophecy of Daniel. In the question of his disciples, 104 which drew forth the prediction, it is implied, that their knowledge was not so limited, but that a slight intimation would give them some insight into his views, and enable them to follow

100 Dan. x. 21.

101 Newt. ubi supr. Dissert. XVI. P. I. p. 351. P. II. p. 396. 102 Dan. xi. 31-xii. 4. Newton ibid. P. 397. seq. 103 Newton ut supr. Vol. II. p. 11. 54. 104 Matt. xxiv. 3.

105

him in the transition. As the key to the subject might be found in Daniel, it is suggested in the reference which our Lord makes to that Prophet. Following his example, the divine teacher consequently fixes, as the limits of his prophecy, the abomination of desolation spoken of by the Prophet Daniel,' and the sign of the Son of Man.... 'coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.'106

It is thus little wonderful that we should find the same events in St. John not only comprised within the same limits, but, as far as the great apostacy was included in his subject, computed in the same term. We have already seen, that he divides the whole period to which his prophecies extend into two parts; the last of which, containing the defection of the Church, and including 1260 years, exactly corresponds in length with that which has been determined by Daniel.107 the antecedent part, including 666 years, he comprises the catastrophe of the last of the four prophetical empires; upon which a fatal blow would be inflicted, on the manifestation of Antichrist. The parallel is thus strictly preserved between the Jewish and Christian Prophet, though the scene

105 Matt. xxiv. 15.

106 Ibid. 15.30. Vid. Newt. ubi supr. p. 29. 54.

In

107 Comp. Dan. vii. 25. xii. 7. Rev. xii. 6. xiii. 5. Vid. supr. p. 29.

H

of their predictions is different; the one tracing the destinies of the Eastern Church, and the other those of the Western. 108 And it is perhaps on this account that the length of the earlier period, during which the Roman Empire should last, after the subversion of the Jewish polity and religion, though precisely defined by St. John, is not noticed by Daniel. He, however, accurately marks the basis from which it might be deduced, and suggests the retrogressive method of computing by which it might be elicited. In fixing the epoch at which the third of the prophetical empires would be divided into four kingdoms, he expresses it by a period, which, like that of St. John, would terminate with the close of the 1260 years, just at the time of the great consummation.109

108 Newt. ut supr. p. 433, 434.

109 See Dan. viii. 13, 14. Great difficulty has arisen with respect to the period of 2300 years, which the Prophet computes 'to the cleansing of the sanctuary.' It has been, however, justly determined by Bishop Newton, though he erroneously deduces this period, from Alexander's invading Asia, in 'A. M. 3670,' that 2300 years from that time will draw 'towards the conclusion of the sixth Millennium of the world, and about that period, according to an old tradition....great changes and revolutions are expected; and particularly, as Rabbi A. Sebah saith, Rome is to be overthrown, and the Jews are to be restored.' Newt. ubi supr. p. 348. If this event, designated by the Prophet as the cleansing of the 'sanctuary,' be fixed in A. M. 6000, and the retrogressive

The chronological test of the Evangelist's accuracy in his predictions consequently lies in the choice of the time at which the period of 666 years ends, and that of 1260 years commences, and which has been identified with A. D. 736. This year, as I have already intimated, falls within the time during which the papal chair was filled by Gregory III. The following account of his pontificate, which is extracted from an ancient chronologist, will fully establish the extraordinary prescience with which that year has been selected by the Evangelist. As the author was not only an ecclesiastic in the communion but a warm advocate of the Romish See, and wrote at a time when it not only remained

method of computing be adopted, 2300 years deduced from this basis will bring us to B. C. 300; the Nativity having occurred A. M. 4000, precisely 2000 of the 2300 years before A. M. 6000. On the death of Alexander, the fourth Monarchy was parted into five sovereignties; Thrace having fallen to Lysimachus, Syria to Seleucus, Macedon to Cassander, and Egypt to Ptolemy, as Newton observes (Ibid. p. 330); and, as he omits to notice, Asia Minor also fell to Antigonus, the natural son of Philip: vid. Helvic. Tab. Chron. p. 73. c. d. But after the battle of Ipsus, this kingdom was dismembered, and finally merged in that of the Seleucidæ and Ptolemies: vid. Usser. ut supr. p. 460. d. ad A. M. 3703. Simson Chron. ad an. A. C. 299. p. 33. The event, which thus fell B. C. 300, forms the proper epoch of the four kingdoms,' from whence the Prophet deduces the period of 2300 years to the cleansing of the sanctuary.'

uncharged but unsuspected of error by its votaries; 110 his testimony, if adverse, will not be rejected as prejudiced. Gregory, the third Pope of that name, 'born of a Syrian father, succeeded Gregory the 'second, and sat 10 years, 8 months, 24 days. A 'man clearly of singular learning and eloquence, 'sufficiently instructed in Greek and Latin, and a 'strenuous defender of the orthodox faith....Therefore, having entered on the pontificate, he directly ' held at Rome a Council of nearly a thousand Bishops,

6

in which (as was observed), he deprived Leo of his empire, and of the communion of the faithful, on ' account of his having demolished the statues and images of the Saints. And he declared, in it, that the "veneration of the Saints' [and] images was lawful, and

denounced against the violators of this ordinance 'the sentence of excommunication, as is found in """Canon de cons. Distinct. iii. cap. Perlatum." "111

110 Supplement. Chronicorum à V. P. Iac. Philip. Bergomate, ordinem Eremitarum Professo, conscript. Paris, 1535. Conf. ad A. D. 1492. fol. 411.

Bergom. Chron. ad A. D. 732. fol. 246. vers. Gregorius ejus nominis tertius papa, Joan. patre Syro natus sedit annis 10, mensib. 8, dieb. 24. Vir plane singularis doctrinæ et 'eloquentiæ, et in lingua Græca quam Latina sufficienter 'instructus, atque orthodoxæ fidei acerrimus defensor....Hic itaque pontificatu inito statim Concilium mille penè episcoporum Romæ, in quo quidem Leonem (ut dictum est) imperio simul ' et fidelium communione privavit, eò quòd statuas et sanctorum