the beginning of the 2300 days. On so settled a point as this, we need only mention such names as Horne, (see Int., vol. 1, p. 336, vol. 4, p. 191,) Prideaux, (see Connection, pp. 227 -256,) Clarke, (see Notes on ninth Daniel,) Watson, (Theol. Dic., p. 96,) William Howel, LL. D., (Int. of Gen. His., vol. 1, p. 209,) Scott, and Cunninghame.

The two remaining points are those, which, among that class of our opponents who in the main agree with us in the preceding, are the most seriously questioned, and respecting which less light is afforded by biblical expositors. And yet in our views of these we are sustained by the general views and reasonings of many expositors, and by the direct testimony of the most able writers.

6. The connection between the 2300 days and the seventy weeks. This connection we think plain, and in proving it we are much aided by the learned world. This aid is furnished both directly and indirectly—a few plainly testifying to the fact of the connection

-the many affording us one of the most decisive arguments proving it. The argument is based upon the literal meaning of the Hebrew word, which, in our version of Daniel ix. 24, is rendered "determined." That the word means literally, cut off, or cut out, we have the highest authority. This fact, viewed in the light of the circumstances in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, as stated in the ninth chapter, and the instruction given, must be

decisive proof of the connection between the two periods. Daniel had had a vision before this time, reaching to the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary. This he was told would be at the end of 2300 days. At the time Gabriel appeared to him, he was earnestly praying for the restoration of his people, and the cleansing of the sanctuary, having previously ascertained from books that the seventy years of captivity had expired. The angel, having received orders to fly swiftly, appeared to Daniel, and stopped him in the midst of his prayer, and gave him further instruction. He directed him to "understand the matter, and consider the vision." A reference to that would teach him that the object of his prayer could not then be granted, the end of the 2300 days being far in the future. The angel then assured him that seventy weeks were cut off for his people and city, during which time Jerusalem should be rebuilt, with the walls, and at the end of which an atonement should be made for sin by the death of Messiah; and after that the city and sanctuary should be destroyed, and remain desolate until the consummation or completion of the time, and that which was determined should be poured upon the desolate. Now, as this was evidently an explanation of the vision of the 2300 days, and as the seventy weeks were cut off from, or out of, it; and as the instruction of Gabriel reached beyond the termination of those weeks, to

the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and onward, during a long period of desolation, to the consummation or completion; the inference seems irresistible that the seventy weeks are not only a part of the 2300 days, but the first part of them. This being so, the commencement of the two periods must be the same. But I will here allude to authorities for thus rendering the word. It will not be too much for me to say, that this is nearly or quite a settled point among the best scholars. In an old work, entitled, "A six-fold commentary on Daniel," published in London, A. D. 1608, I observe it is rendered cut. out.

Dr. Gill, a distinguished divine and scholar, thus renders the word, and quotes many of the first critics, who agree with him.

Hengstenberg, who enters into a critical examination of the original text, says,—" But the very use of the word, which does not elsewhere occur, while others, much more frequently used, were at hand, if Daniel had wished to express the idea of determination, and of which he has elsewhere, and even in this portion, availed himself; seems to argue, that the word stands, from regard to its original meaning, and represents the seventy weeks in contrast with a determination of time (en platei) as a period cut off from subsequent duration, and accurately limited." Christology of the Old Test., vol. 2,.p. 301. Washington, 1839.

Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, gives cut off as the definition of the word; and many others of the first standing, as to learning and research. And, besides, several versions have thus rendered the word.⁕ And we might add, that this is admitted to be the true rendering of the word, by our best Hebrew contemporaries, such as Bush and Seixas, though opposed to our views.

We also have the direct testimony of

*A Hebrew scholar, of high reputation, makes the following remarks upon the word which is translated "determined," in our version. The verb chathak (in the Niphal form, passive, nechtak) is found only in Daniel ix. 24. Not another instance of its use can be traced in the entire Hebrew Testament. As Chaldaic and Rabbinical usage must give us the true sense of the word; if we are guided by these, it has the single signification of cutting, or cutting off. In the Chaldeo-Rabbinic Dictionary of Stockius, the word "chathak" is thus defined:

"Scidit, abscidit, conscidit, inscidit, excidit"—To cut, to cut away, to cut in pieces, to cut or engrave, to cut off.

Mercerus, in his " Thesaurus," furnishes a specimen of Rabbinical usage in the phrase chǎthikah shelbasar— a piece of flesh," or "a cut of flesh." He translates the word as it occurs in Dan. ix. 24, by " præcisa est"—was cut off.

In the literal version of Arias Montanus, it is translated "decisa est,"- -WAS CUT OFF; in the marginal reading, which is grammatically correct, it is rendered by the plural, "decisae sunt"—were cut off.

In the Latin version of Junius and Tremellius, nechtak is rendered "decisae sunt"—were cut off.

Again, in Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel, (which is the version used in the Vatican copy of the Septuagint as being the most faithful,) it is rendered by suvsTuinçav, "were cut off," and in the Venetian copy by Terμvrat, “have been cut." The idea of cutting off is pursued in the Vulgate; where the phrase is "abbreviatae sunt," have been shortened.

Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the SINGLE SIGNIFICATION OF CUTTING OFF TO THIS VERB."

Prof. Bush, the learned Joseph Wolfe, and others of our day, that the seventy weeks are a part, and the first part, of the two thousand three hundred days. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, who is the highest authority in the Presbyterian church, in a recent discourse "On cleansing the Sanctuary," says,

"I undertake to show-that Daniel's 'seventy weeks' is the beginning, or first part of the two thousand three hundred days,' allotted for the cleansing of the sanctuary: that Daniel's 'time, times, and a half' is the last or concluding part of the two thousand three hundred days." This may be deemed sufficient on this point.

7. The rise of the little horn of Daniel seventh. We believe that Papacy, symbolized by the little horn, rose by virtue of the decree of Justinian, and not that of Phocas, or any other ruler, or power. This decree, though issued A. D. 533, did not, as we conceive, go into full effect until 538, when the enemies of the Catholics in Rome were subjugated by Belisarius, a general of Justinian. In this view, as to the rise of Papacy, we are sustained by Croly, (see his work on Apoc., pp. 113—117;) G. T. Noel, (see Prospects of Ch., p. 100;) Wm. Cunninghame, Esq. (Pol. Destiny of the Earth, p. 28;) Keith, Vol. 1, p. 93; Encyclopedia of Rel. Knowl., art. Antichrist; Edward King, Esq., and others.

It is thus we are sustained, in the views we cherish, by the plain teaching of the