« הקודםהמשך »
also proves him to have been 37 at his death; and hence our chronology is practically correct; and the end of the world, according to Mr. Miller, as Mr. Dowling asserts, would not have been in 1839, but will be in 1843.
THE RAM AND THE GOAT CONSIDERED-THE ARGUMENT OF MR. DOWLING TO PROVE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES WAS THE LITTLE HORN, STATED—SIX OBJECTIONS TO THIS VIEW-THE TRUE MEANING GIVEN.
SECTION SECOND OF CHAPTER THIRD, page 53. Mr. Dowling examines the vision of the Ram and the Goat of Daniel, eighth chapter. He agrees with Mr. Miller, and as Gabriel explained it to Daniel, that the Ram having two horns, was the representative of the Medo-Persian kingdom; the Rough Goat, of the Grecian monarchy under Alexander the Great, who was designated by the emblem of the notable horn. The four horns, he also allows, are the four divisions of the Grecian empire after Alexander's deathonly he thinks Thrace in the north, and not Persia in the east, was one of the four horys. To this we have but one objection, and that is, that Syria, as one of the four divisions of the Grecian empire, is represented, in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, as the king of the north; and we think Mr. Dowling will allow it. If so, there are strong reasons why we should conclude that Persia was, at the time of the division of the empire, independent of Syria, and was afterwards conquered by it. However, it is rather immaterial to our purpose at present, which is the horn, whether Persia or Thrace.
SECTION THIRD, is devoted to an examination of the question of the meaning of the little horn of the eighth of Daniel, which came out of one of the four horns of the Greek empire. This horn, he thinks, represents Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and not either Mahommedism or the Roman government.
The FOURTH SECTION OF CHAPTER THIRD, is devoted to the argument that Antiochus Epiphanes is that little horn. We give the section entire.
SECTION 4.-PROOFS THAT ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
WAS THE LITTLE HORN. That Antiochus Epiphanes, that cruel tyrant and persecutor of the Jews, was intended by the little horn, appears to me by far the most probable supposition of the three above named.
The only argument against this opinion, which seems to need an answer, or which appears to me to possess any weight, is that mentioned by Sir Isaac Newton, and repeated by his namesake the bishop; that "a horn, in the style of Daniel, doth
not signify any particular king, but is an emblem of a kingdom.” To this it may be replied, that while, in most instances in this prophecy, a horn does signisy a kingdom, to assert that it does so in this case is a mere petitio principii ; it is begging the question, taking for granted the malter in dispute without proof.
Let any one read the explanation of the angel, (v. 22, 23,)—“Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation; and in the latter time of their kingdon, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up,”-and then decide whether it is not at least probable that this KING was a person, and not a government; was Antiochus Epiphanes, and not the Roman empire. It is true that, in some places, the word king is put for kingdom, but in this place it seems to mean an individual monarch. The four horns which stood up in the place of that which was broken, says the angel, are “four kingdonis ;" and “in the latter time of their kingdom, shall stand up,” not another kingdom, but a "king of fierce countenance."
That this little horn, which “waxed great," and by which “the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary cast down,” this " king of fierce countenance,” who should destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise, and destroy the mighty and the holy people, but should be broken without hand, was, in truth, this same Antiochus Epiphanes, I think will be evident to all who will peruse the following brief account of the cruelties and death of this tyrant. As modern authorities for the facts mentioned, I would name Prideaux's Connexions, Rollin's Ancient History, (book xix., chapter 2,) and the Religious Encyclopedia, (article Antiochus Epiphanes,) because these works are possessed by most readers, and easily referred to. The ancient authorities are Polybius, Diodorus, Josephus, the two books of the Maccabees, Jerome, &c.
NARRATIVE OF THE CRUELTIES AND DEATH OF
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES. Antiochus, who assumed the title of Epiphanes, or the illustrious, but who, as many have remarked, was more worthy the title of Epimanes, that is, the raging madman, which some people gave him, succeeded his brother Seleucus on the throne of Syria, in the year B. C. 175. At that time the good Onias was high priest at Jerusalem. Scarcely was Antiochus seated on the throne, when the profiligate Jason formed a design to supplant his brother Onias in the office of the high priesthood, which at that time was one of great dignity and emolument. With this view, Jason offered Antiochus about half a million of dollars. He succeeded in his negotiation, and was appointed high priest; but, Menelaus offering a higher price, Jason was afterwards deposed, and the former appointed in his place. The scandalous ambition of these Jews, was the commencement of those calamities with which Antiochus overwhelmed their unhappy nation..
While Antiochus was besieging Alexandria in Egypt, where he was making rapid and extensive conquests, a false report was spread of his death. Jason, the deposed high priest, thought this a