« הקודםהמשך »
interpretation, in this case, would make the prophecy
though every man should be proved a “ liar." All admit that Rev. 9th chapter is a description of Mahomedanism. Read the fourth verse of that chapter, and see if Mahomedanism stood up against the true church of God. “ It was commanded them [Mahomedans] that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but [mark it] only those men WHO HAVE NOT the seal of God in their foreheads." Here then is evidence, strong as the truth of God, that Mahomedanism was not to hurt the true church; and, of course, did not “ stand up against the Prince of princes" in any sense to answer the application of the text in Daniel to that power.
II. The next opinion I shall examine is, that it is Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the kings that ruled, for a time, over one of the "four horns," viz., over Syria.
To this interpretation I urge the following objections
1. Such an interpretation does violence to the whole subject. How is this vision like the previous, if Antiochus is the little horn?" We have seen that it exactly agrees with the previous visions hitherto ; and we see also that the little horn extends down to the end of this vision. If, then, Antiochus is the little horn, it is not like the other vision by more than two thousand years; for, Antiochus died 164 years before Christ was born.
2. This “ little horn," as I have said, ends the vision, v. 17:"For at [unto] the time of the end shall be the vision." What end? Evidently the end spoken of in the vision it is like, chap. vii. 26—"They shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy unto the end," 2 Thess. ii.: “ That wicked, whom the Lord
shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." The end, when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from hea
3. Again—This little horn was to extend to “ the last end of the indignation." Surely, none will pretend the death of Antiochus was the last end of indignation, even to the Jews. If they do, let them cease to talk of the great tribulation at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
4. The attempt to apply the 2300 days of this vision to Antiochus, has been a total failure. Those who make this attempt cannot agree among themselves how to reckon the time ; some of them maintaining that the days are entire days, and others, that they are to be reckoned half days, or 1150 days, because the expression in the original is 2300“ evening-mornings." But let them count as they will, they cannot match it with Antiochus. Professor Stuart admits that the time is 2300 entire days; but after attempting to match them with Antiochus he has totally failed. He reckons back from the cleansing of the sanctuary by Judas Maccabeus, after it had been polluted by Antiochus, and he finds what? Why, he finds the 15th of August, 171 B. C. !!! Yes, reader, he finds that marvellous day, but he finds no event to mark that as the beginning of the 2300 days. Perhaps he thought it would be taken for granted that it must begin then. Now if "Millerites, as they are called by their opponents, should attempt to make their theories pass by such an argument, we should scarcely get the people to hear us more than once, and they would justly accuse us of an attempt to impose upon them. Show us facts, from history, that the 2300 days begun when you“ guess they did ; till then we deny that there is a particle of proof that the 5th of August, 171 B. C., is marked with anything that could show that to be the beginning of those days.
Mr. Dowling, the mouth-piece of most of our opponents, makes 1150 days of the 2300; and when he has attempted to match that number with the history
of Antiochus, he comes out within about 55 days of making a fit. He admits he wants 55 days; and that he cannot make them out for want of not being "informed by any historian exactly how many days elapsed between the time Athenæus stopped the daily sacrifices and the 25th of the month Casleu, when Jupiter was worshipped in the temple." But Mr. D. supplies this defect in history, by a
guess ;" for he adds, “ Had we been thus informed, (IT) I have no doubt,  that we should find that time to be (IT) exactly (9) fifty-five days." " • If and if;" that is a fatal affair for Mr. D; the naughty historian should have been more particular. But, seriously, Mr. D. admits two facts that prove fatal to his argument. 1st. That he has no history to warrant his application of the days to Antiochus;
and 2d, that his argument is spoiled, unless he can be allowed to supply the defect by his " no doubt," i. e., his 6
guess. The fact is, the “ little horn," and 2300 days, never have been, and never can be made to agree with the history of Antiochus. The attempt may delude the uninformed, but cannot endure the light. I will here oppose a great name to great names. As my words, who am but an obscure individual, will not weigh much against such men as Prof. Stuart, &c., I will introduce Sir Isaac Newton. On Dan. viii. 9—12, 23 -25, he says
A horn of a beast is never taken for a single person: it always signifies a new kingdom; and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one. Antiochus reigned 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. His kingdom, on the contrary, was weak, and tributary to the Romans; and he did NOT enlarge it. The horn was a king of fierce countenance,
and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practised :' but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews. The horn was mighty by ano
ther's power; Antiochus acted by his own. The horn
5. Another fact fatal to the application of the 2300
But one other consideration, it seems to me, must
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination
The Junior Editor of the "Midnight Cry," in the 24th number of that paper, thus notices the absurdity of applying the little horn to Antiochus:
"First Absurdity. The four dynasties, dominions, or sovereignties, which succeeded Alexander's do minion,—of Grecia,—are represented each by its ap
propriate horn, one for Egypt, one for Syria, one for Macedonia, and one for Thrace and Bythinia. Now, Antiochus Epiphanes was but one of twenty-five individuals, who constituted the Syrian horn. Could he, at the same time, be another remarkable horn?
"Let us give the degrees of comparison, according to the angel's rules, and thus compare truth with
How easy and natural is the following gradation : Great. Very Great.
Exceeding Great. PERSIA, GREECE,
ROME. “ How absurd and ludicrous is the following ! Very Great.
Exceeding Great. PERSIA, GREECE, ANTIOCHUS.
“ Third Absurdity.—The Medo-Persian power is simply called 'great,' (verse 4.) This power, the Bible tells us, reigned from India to Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces. This was succeeded by the Grecian power, which is called · VERY GREAT,' (verse 8.) Then comes the power in question, which is • EXCEEDING GREAT.' Was Antiochus exceedingly (or abundantly) great, when compared with the conqueror of the world? item from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge answer : 'Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia, to levy tributes, and to collect LARGE SUMS, which he had AGREED TO PAY TO THE ROMANS.' Surely, we need not question, which power was exceeding great, that which exacted tribute, or that which was COMPELLED to
is Fourth Absurdity.—The power in question was • little at first, but it waxed or grew exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.' What can this describe but the conquering marches of a mighty power? Rome was almost directly northwest from Jerusalem, and its conquests in Asia and Africa were of course towards