the most remarkable battles, and victories gained, that are found recorded upon the pages of history. And the angry allies of Antiochus continued to rage upon them, until the news of his death abated their courage, arrested their career, and left the Jews to hail the bliss of returning peace and safety.

66

The precise date of the death of Antiochus, or the precise time when the news of it took effect upon the affairs of the Jews, we have not the means of knowing; but enough is found in history to assure us, that this was the event to which allusion was had; and that it is MORE THAN PROBABLE that it occurred at the end of the 1335 days." p. 35. Here again, he fails to show an exact time, and acknowledges that he "HAS NO MEANS OF KNOWING," but thinks it “more than probable," that, "the distance the news had to travel to reach him at Ecbatana, and the subsequent account of his death, leave us little reason to doubt the accuracy of the angel, in fixing the time at forty-five days." He has, therefore, not shown the time that preceded or followed the 3 years and 10 days or 1105 days; and the 1335 days must also be dated from the setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate; so that here he comes short TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY days. We have therefore for the

Angel's "Tag,"
1335.

for Colver's "Tally,"
1105.

This makes quite a variation in the three periods, as the amount of Colver's "tallies," deducted from the angel's periods, will show.

Angel's Periods. Colver's "Tallies." Difference.

-4925 +4046

-879 days.

He has, therefore, only come within EIGHT HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE days of showing a "literal fulfilment." Well did he exclaim: "By all the veneration which we feel for the Bible, as a sure word of prophecy,' as the light of the world, we protest against such TERRIBLE TRIFLING with the word of God. If we are ignorant of the fulfilment of any prophecy, let us be ignorant; but let us take heed how we wrest the Scriptures, lest we do it to our own destruction." p. 24. He is even so conscious himself that he has made a most signal failure, that he "We says: say not that the various numbers under consideration are all or ANY of them mentioned in the history of the fulfilments of the predictions; but we DO SAY that their applicability and appropriateness to the events to which we have applied them, to us seem most manifest." p. 37. His questions, therefore, "Has this prophecy been literally fulfilled?-and can the use of these several numbers, in relation to such fulfilment, be satisfactorily accounted for?" are conclusively answered in the

NEGATIVE.

Notwithstanding such failures and admissions, yet he claims that the prophecy of Daniel "has been shown to be most FAITHFULLY and most literally ACCOMPLISHED." "Indeed," he

says, "it may be well QUESTIONED whether ANY other prophecy, in the whole volume of God's word,

6

the account of the fulfilment of which depends upon history, can be shown with greater, if it can with EQUAL CLEARNESS, or with so much minutia of accomplishment. If any word of prophecy is sure, this is SURELY IT." p. 37. Again he says: "We have come to the very numbers themselves, and have examined the last objection, namely, that they do not admit of a literal interpretation or fulfilment;' and the result of our inquiry is, that they admit of none but a literal interpretation,-that any other than a literal fulfilment is impossible in the very nature of things. We have gone further, and have shown the literal fulfilment of that prediction, and the appropriateness and applicability of all those numbers to the events by which that prediction is fulfilled-yes, so strikingly, circumstantially, and obviously fulfilled, as to draw from the infidel the charge of its having been written subsequent to the events. Here, it would seem that we might rest the matter, with the conviction that our wORK was done, and that these numbers were FOREVER RESCUED from the strange use to which they have been recently subjected." p. 38.

He might not only as well "rest the matter," but might have "as well never have attempted," for all that he has done to prove his position; for such "monstrous absurdities," and "terrible trifling," will only open the eyes of the sincere inquirer after truth.

The third lecture he occupies in showing "the distinctness of the morning vision from the night vision."

Mr. Colver attempts to show this "distinctness" by drawing a parallel between the "little horn"

of the 7th, and the EXCEEDING GREAT HORN of the 8th chap., which he says, "to avoid circumlocution and repetition, we shall call them Antiochus and Nero." He forgot, however, that to call them so, would not make them so. He then proceeds to show that the origin, character, &c. &c. of Antiochus and Nero, are not the same; and no one claims they are, or that even ROME was the same in every respect as Papacy. We shall not dwell on those points, as they do not touch the question, and we are not disposed to review, where he labors in vain.

It was predicted in Daniel vii. 25, that the "little horn" "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time." Mr. Colver says, p.44," How strikingly is the work of this fulfilled in the persecution of the saints' under Nero! Mark the prediction: 'He shall wear out the saints of the Most High.' Here is a new application of the term saints in the language of prophecy. The Jews, as a people, are nowhere so called. They are called the 'holy people,' the chosen people,' &c. &c.-terms which comport with their typical or select character; but not saints. It is quite obvious that a new people are in the eye of the prophet." Again, he says, p. 48, "The term 'saints' is never applied to the Jews, as a nation; and it will be remembered, that no such work, as wearing out the saints, is assigned to the little horn of the morning vision; all the terms used in it, such as, 'people of the covenant,' 'holy people,' the 'host,'

&c., show, conclusively, that it had to do with the people under the Jewish polity. But, in this vision, the title of 'saints' is given to the people of the new kingdom of the Messiah; with whom the little horn in it comes in contact. And it is asserted, that they shall be given into his hand, until a time, times and the dividing of time.' This was literally fulfilled. History informs us, that the persecution of the saints under Nero continued BETWEEN three and four years; and terminated with his tragic end."

Here again, he utterly fails to show any time from any history, and for a definite period of three and a half years, he only gets BETWEEN three and four years!! either of which is 180 days aside of the mark, and which, added to the difference of his previous "tallies" and Daniel's periods--879 days--makes ONLY ONE THOUSAND AND SIXTY-TWO days that he varies in all those prophetic numbers from a "literal fulfilment." His assertion that the Jews as a nation, are nowhere called saints, is a mere quibble; for if they were not, it does not follow that the pious Jews were not so called; and that they were, he will probably not deny, after consulting 1 Samuel ii. 9. 2 Chronicles vi. 41. Job v. 1; xv. 15. Psalm xvi. 3; xxx. 4; xxxiv. 9; xxxvii. 28; 1.5; lxxxix. 5,7; xcvii. 10; cxvi. 15; &c. &c.

In his lecture at the Marlboro' Chapel, he stated that the term "holy people" was applied exclusively to the Jews, and that it did not imply moral character. Thus, he said, if a priest had a straight back and straight nose-by which we suppose he meant, free from any bodily defect