the cause of the church, and Christianity became the religion of the empire. This prepared the way for the revelation of the "man of sin," or "the abomination that maketh desolate." "The end came 99 to one abomination, or persecuting power "spoken of by Daniel," viz.," the daily ;" then, in the 15th verse, our Saviour speaks of the coming up of the other "abomination," and of its standing "in the holy place," viz., the church; or, as Paul saith, " sitting in the temple of God." See 2 Thess. ii. 4. The mode of persecution is now changed; before, it was heathen, or pagan; now it is professedly Christian. Christians who lived previous to the coming up of this latter power, foresaw its rise, and were filled with terror at the thought. R. Fleming, of Rotterdam, writing previous to 1693, on "The Fulfilling of Scripture," says, on 2 Thess. 2d chapter, "The mystery of iniquity, even in the times of the apostles, did begin to work, and what for a time withheld his coming, the heathen empire of Rome, hath long since been taken out of the way, which caused some Christians, in those days, to wish the standing and continuance of that empire, from the terror they had of that adversary, who, according to the word, they knew was to fill his room.'

The end, then, spoken of by our Saviour, was the end of the "daily," or pagan abomination, under which the wars and persecutions had been carried on, spoken of in the previous verses.

Let me now show you the perfect agreement and harmony there is between Daniel, our Lord, and Paul. See Dan. xi. 30: "He shall return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant." Compare this with Matt. xxiv. 12: "Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold:" also 2 Thess. ii.: "There shall come a falling away first." Now, see again Dan. xi. 31: "They shall take away the daily." Matt. xxiv. 14: "Then shall the end come." 2 Thess. ii. 7: "He who now letteth [hindereth] will let, until he be taken out of the way." See again They shall place the abomination that

Dan. xi. 31: 66

maketh desolate." Matt. xxiv. 15: "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place." 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, 8—after the falling away, "that man of sin "

shall be revealed, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God. Then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Can there be any doubt here of the identity of the times and of the characters represented by these three witnesses, our Lord, Daniel, and Paul? The harmony is too perfect to be overlooked. It seems to me there can be no mistake--the agreement is complete. They are each, evidently, looking to the same events, and each explains and confirms the other.

The way is now prepared for an examination of

Verses 15 to 28. Our Lord here calls attention particularly to a desolation which was to extend down to, and be connected with, the signs of his immediate appearance, and notices this desolating power particularly, because it would have a more important bearing on the interests of his church than any other matter that was to transpire before his coming. From the application of this part of the chapter to the destruction of Jerusalem, I am compelled to dissent: because I have never been able to make such an interpretation harmonize with what appears to me to be truth.

1st. Our Saviour calls attention expressly to the "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet;" and adds, "Whoso readeth, let him understand." Understand what? Why, that the abomination I speak of is not the "daily," but the "abomination of desolation." What is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel? Clearly, not the pagan abomination, as our opponents would have us think, under Antiochus Epiphanes, who died 200 years before our Saviour directed his followers to look for that abomination as still future: nor was it the "daily

66

abomination," as most second advent folks hold; nor does a reference to the ninth chapter of Daniel prove that it is; for that chapter speaks of abominations, plural; whereas our Lord speaks of a particular abomination, singular, and cautions against a misunderstanding. It has often enough been shown that the daily," spoken of by Daniel, is not the Jewish sacrifices, but that it is the pagan, or continual abomination, and relates to a desolating power that should desolate the people and church of God till it should be "taken away," and there should come up, in its place, another power called the " transgression of desolation" [chap. viii. 13,] and "the abomination that maketh desolate," [chapters xi. 31, and xii. 11.] Though they were both desolating powers, they are designated by different names, as we have seen.

Now Jerusalem was not destroyed by the "transgression of desolation," or the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel," but under the reign of the "daily or pagan abomination. Then, the desolation, spoken of by our Saviour, was not the destruction of Jerusalem.

2d. The abomination of desolation was to be a "sign" to Christians; but it was to be so only when they should "see" it "stand IN the holy place." Where was the holy place at Jerusalem? Certainly it was not outside the city; for that is nowhere called, in the Scriptures, "THE holy place." The holy place was not only in the city, but in the temple at Jerusalem. But that was not the holy place at the time that wicked city was destroyed; for God had departed from that wicked people,—Christ had ascended into the true holy of holies, and the sacrifices which the Jews continued to offer in the temple were no better than the heathen sacrifices; because the very offering of them, after the death of Christ, was a daily denial and rejection of the Lord of glory. But admitting that within the temple was the holy place at the time of Jerusalem's destruction, the Christians did not see the Roman or pagan abomination "stand in "it at the time they fled out of the city

the Romans had not yet entered the city; besides, the Roman or 66 daily" "abomination never did "stand in the holy place," for that was destroyed, immediately on the taking of the city, by the burning of the temple. How then could that be a sign which in fact never took place, either before or after the Christians left Jerusalem?

3d. The connexion shows that the fleeing was of a more general character than of those in the city. "Neither let him that is in the field return back to take his clothes," v. 10. It looks like a general time of trouble to the church.

4th. Apply this description to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it appears impossible to reconcile it with what is said in verse 21: "Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." How can this be true, if our Saviour was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem? Surely the destruction of the old world by a flood was a greater tribulation, and also the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah; and a greater one is still to come, when "the elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up;" when "all the proud, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up."

5th. If Jerusalem's destruction is the subject of discourse, I cannot see the truth of the 22d verse: "Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

If all the Jews in Jerusalem had perished in the siege, there would have been "flesh" or persons "saved." If it be said, it means none of the "elect," or Christians, would have been saved if Titus had not, for a time, so far have withdrawn his army as to have given them a chance to escape—I reply, if every Christian in Jerusalem had perished, it would have been very far from cutting off all Christians, as churches had been planted almost all over the then known world, before Jerusalem was destroyed.

6th. Lastly. Our Saviour says, v. 29: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened," &c.; and he adds, v. 30, "Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven—and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

Now, as this was not literally true, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, we must resort to a figurative interpretation; (which would leave us in the wide fields of conjecture,) or understand our Lord as speaking of a different matter from Jerusalem's downfall.

I now ask if it is likely that our Saviour would speak so much at length, and particularly, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and only darkly hint at, if mention at all, a far more dreadful calamity to his church, viz., its desolation under Papacy? I think not.

It appears to me, that the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel" is none other than the Papal abomination. By its standing in the holy place, I understand its rising up in the church; and is none other than Paul's" man of sin " who "sitteth in the temple of God." Let us again look at the correspondence between our Lord's description and that of Paul. Our Saviour says, v. 12, "The love of many shall wax cold." Paul says, 2 Thess. ii. 3, "There" will come a falling away first." Saith our Lord, v. 15, "The abomination of desolation" shall be seen stand

66

ing "in the holy place." Paul says, the " man of sin" shall be revealed," "sitting in the temple of God." Can we mistake in the fact that Christ and Paul have their eye on the same desolation of the church?

When Christians should see this desolating power "stand in the holy place "—the church—" then let " all Christians, wherever that anti-Christian power should sway, "flee," and not stop to save "anything out of their houses," nor "return back" from their "fields to take their clothes "—then "wo to them that "have little children, &c., in those times of per