« הקודםהמשך »
horn, did Syria out of the four cease when he came to the throne of Syria, or did Syria remain one of the four still, after the death of Antiochus? He knows it did remain.
3. This little horn was to become great, but not by his own power; but Antiochus did become great by his own power and arms, as much as any monarch ever did.
4. The question was not, how long the lillle horn should tread down the sanctuary and the host, but how long the vision should bc. That vision embraced some part, at lcast, of the Medo-Persian monarchy, as well as the Grecian, until the little horn arose. Why, then, should we confine the time of the vision, the entire vision, to the profanation of the temple by the little horn, and throw away the entire vision beside that little horn?
5. The time of the vision, even admitting that it refers to the profanation of the temple by Antiochus, does not answer to the prediction; for it can neither be shown that it continued 2,300 literal days, nor yet 1,150 literal days. Josephus, in his Wars of the Jews, states the time at three years and a half; but in his Antiquities, where he professes exactness, gives it as just three years. - If it was just three years, then there is a siir
plus of time of seventy days; if six months, then 1,150 days is insufficient to cover it. Nor is there any history by which the 1,150 days can be shown to have been accomplished with precision; and yet the timu is most definite, and to be proved true, an allthentic historical testimory must be produced on the point, which cannot be done. Mr. D. has failed to do it, and so has every other author who has attempted to show it fulfilled by Antiochus.
6. Another objection we have against applying the vision to Antiochus is, that there is another application of it, which is perfectly natural, and corroborated by history. It is, that the little horn represents the papal power. 1. It is the little horn that is predicted in chapter vii., and performs the same feats. 2. Popery did come out of one of the four horns of the Grecian empire, viz. Greecc. (1.) Constantine, a Roman emperor, removed the seat of government from Romo to Constantinople, and established Christianity by law. (2.) After his death, the Roman empire was divided between his three sons. Constantius possessed Greece, and fixed his residence at Constantinople; and Greece has
ever after been independent of Rome. It was then restored, after a subjection of about five hundred years. It was not the first time of the kingdom, which was from the death of Alexander to 168 B. C.; nor yet the last time of the kingdom since the Greek revolution of the present century; but it was the latter time of the independence of that kingdom.
During this "latter time” of their kingdom, Justinian, a Greek emperor, decreed the bishop of Rome to be the head of all the churches, A. D. 533. (3.) The same emperor conquered Rome, A. D. 538, from the Ostrogoths, and established the pope there, and supported the exarchate of Ravena for his protection and support.
So that the papal system, from the first influx of worldly honor and power in the church, was from Greece.
3. The papal power did not become great by his own power. It has already been remarked that popery was established, as an ecclesiastical head of the churches, by Greek authority, and that Rome was conquered by Greece for the pope. Also, in 755, Pepin, king of France, conquered the exarchate of
Ravena, and gave it to the pope, and this constituted him a temporal prince.
4. The papal power has been mighty ; it has destroyed the mighty and holy people; it has stood up against the Prince of princes; and it will share the fate of "that man of sin," that wicked,”—be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming, or “broken without hand.”
THE MEANING OF THE 2,300 DAYS OF DANIEL viii. 13, 14, AS GIVEN BY MR. DOWLING, SHOWN TO BE INCONSISTENT AND FALSE.
SECTION FIFTH, page 70, is devoted to an examination of the meaning of the 2,300 days of Daniel viii. 13, 14. He dissents from Mr. Miller's view of the time, and considers the period to be either 2,300 literal days, or 1,150 literal days; he thinks the latter, for the following reasons :
“Doubtless, we are sometimes to understand, in prophetic language, a day for a year. I am willing to admit that we are so to interpret the seventy weeks, the forty and two months, or 1,260 days of the Revelations, and probably the other periods named in the last chapter of Daniel. But I shall be asked, If you thus explain a prophetical day in those passages, why not in this? This is a fair question, and deserves a fair and candid answer. I reply, then, that I have come to this conclusion, not from any difficulty on any other hypothesis, but simply from noticing the peculiarity of language employed in the original Hebrew of this term, 2,300 days. It would be rendered literally 2,300 evening-mornings, [Heb. a-rav boker.] Thus is the Geneva version, deux mille et trois cents soirs et matins ; i. e. 2,300 mornings and evenings; and, still more to my satisfaction,