CHAPTER 12

Daniel 12:1

The angel no longer relates future occurrences specially, but proclaims God to be in general the guardian of his Church, so as to preserve it wonderfully amidst many difficulties and dreadful commotion’s, as well as in the profound darkness of disaster and death. This is the meaning of this sentence. This verse consists of two parts: the first relates to that most wretched period which should be full of various and almost numberless calamities; and the second assures us of God’s never-failing protection and preservation of his Church by his own innate power. In this second part the promise is restricted to the elect, and thus a third clause may be distinguished, but it is only an addition to the second just mentioned. At the close of the verse, the angel presents us with a definition of the Church, as many professed to be God’s people who were not really so. He says, Michael, the prince of the people, should stand up. Then he states the reason, The calamities of that period should be such as were never witnessed from the beginning of the world. As he addresses Daniel, he says, sons of thy people; for he was one of the sons of Abraham, and the nation from which Daniel sprang was in that sense “his.” From this it follows that the calamities of which he will by and bye treat, belong to the true Church, and not to the profane nations. The singular aid of Michael would not have been needed, unless the Church had been oppressed with the most disastrous distresses. We perceive, then, the angel’s meaning to be according to my explanation. The Church should be subject to most numerous and grievous calamities until the advent of Christ, but yet it should feel God’s propitious disposition, ensuring its own safety under his aid and protection. By Michael many agree in understanding Christ as the head of the Church. But if it seems better to understand Michael as the archangel, this sense will prove suitable, for under Christ as the head, angels are the guardians of the Church. Whichever be the true meaning, God was the preserver of his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son, and because the angels are under the government of Christ, he might entrust this duty to Michael. That foul hypocrite, Servetus, has dared to appropriate this passage to himself; for he has inscribed it as a frontispiece on his horrible comments, because he was called Michael! We observe what diabolic fury has seized him, as he dared to claim as his own what is here said of the singular aid afforded by Christ; to his Church. He was a man of the most impure feelings, as we have already sufficiently made known. But this was a proof of his impudence and sacrilegious madness — to adorn himself with this epithet of Christ without, blushing, and. to elevate himself into Christ’s place, by boasting himself to be Michael, the guardian of the Church, and the mighty prince of the people! This fact is well known, for I have the book at hand should any one distrust my word.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, since we are placed in similar distresses to those of which thou dost wish to warn us by thy angel, as well as thine ancient people, that thy light may shine upon us by means of thy only-begotten Son. May we feel ourselves always in safety under his invincible power. May we dwell securely under his shadow, and contend earnestly and boldly unto the end, against Satan and all his impious crew. And when all our warfare is over, may we arrive at last at that blessed rest where the fruit of our victory awaits us, in the same Christ our Lord. — Amen.

LECTURE SIXTY-FIVE.

The twelfth chapter commenced, as we stated in yesterday’s Lecture, with the angel’s prediction as to the future state of the Church after the manifestation of Christ It was to be subject to many miseries, and hence this passage would soothe the sorrow of Daniel, and of all the pious, as he still promises safety to the Church through the help of God. Daniel therefore represented Michael as the guardian of the Church, and God had enjoined this duty upon Christ, as we learn from the 10th chapter of John, (John 10:28, 29.) As we stated yesterday, Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people. He is called the mighty prince, because he naturally opposed the unconquered fortitude of God to those dangers to which the angel represents the Church to be subject. We well know the very slight causes for which terror often seizes our minds, and when we begin to tremble, nothing can calm our tumult and agitation. The angel then in treating of very grievous contests, and of the imminent danger of the Church, calls Michael the mighty prince. As if he had said, Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect people, he should exercise immense power, and he alone without the slightest doubt should be sufficient for their protection. Christ confirms the same assertion, as we just; now saw, in the 10th chapter of John. He says all his elect were given him by his father, and none of them should perish, because his father was greater than all; no one, says he, shall pluck my sheep out of my hand. My father, who gave them me, is greater than all; meaning, God possesses infinite power, and displays it for the safety of those whom he has chosen before the creation of the world, and he has committed it to me, or has deposited it in my hands. We now perceive the reason of this epithet, which designates Michael as the great prince. For in consequence of the magnitude of the contest, we ought to enjoy the offer of insuperable strength, to enable us to attain tranquillity in the midst of the greatest commotion’s. It was in no degree superfluous for the angel to predict such great calamities as impending over the Church, and in the present day the, same expressions are most useful to us. We perceive then how the Jews imagined a state of happiness under Christ, and the same error was adopted by the Apostles, who, when ,Christ discoursed on the destruction of the temple and the; city, thought the end of the world was at hand, and this they connected with their own glory and triumph. (Matthew 24:3.) The Prophet then is here instructed by the angel how God should direct the course of his Church when he should manifest to them his onlybegotten Son. Still the severity of distress awaited all the pious; as if he had said, The time of your triumph is not yet arrived; you must still continue your warfare, which will prove both laborious and harassing. The condition of the new people is here compared with that of the ancient one, who suffered many perils and afflictions at God’s hands. The angel therefore says, even although the faithful suffered very severely under the law and the prophets, yet a more oppressive season was at hand, during which God would treat his Church far more strictly than before, and submit it to far more excruciating trials. This is the meaning of the passage, a season full of afflictions should arise, such as the nations had never seen since they began to exist. This may refer to the creation of the world, and if we refer it to the people themselves, the exposition will prove correct; for although the Church had in former periods been wretched, yet after the appearance of Christ, it should suffer far more calamities than before. We remember the language of the Psalmist: The impious have often opposed me from my youth; they have drawn the plough across my back. (<19C901>Psalm 129:1-3.) Through all ages then God subjected his Church to really evils and disasters. But a comparison is here instituted between two different states of the Church, and the angel shews how after Christ’s appearance it should be far from either quietness or happiness. As it should be oppressed with heavier afflictions, it is not surprising that the fathers should wish us to be conformed to the image of his only-begotten Son. (Romans 8:29.) Since the period of Christ’s resurrection, even if a more harassing warfare awaits us, we ought to bear it with great equanimity, because the glory of heaven is placed before our eyes far more clearly than it was before theirs.

At length he adds, At that time thy people shall be preserved. By this expression the angel points out to us the great importance of the protection of Michael: He promises certain salvation to his elect people, as if he had said, although the Church should be exposed to the greatest dangers, yet with respect to God himself, it should always be safe and victorious in all contests, because Michael should be superior to every enemy. The angel then, in thus exhorting the faithful to bear their cross, shews how free they should be from all doubt as to the event, and the absolute certainty of their victory. Although at first sight this prophecy might inspire us with fear and dismay, yet this comfort ought to be sufficient for us: “We shall be conquerors amidst fire and sword, and amidst many deaths we are sure of life.” As perfect safety is here set before us, we ought to feel secure, and to enter with alacrity into every engagement. We are in truth obliged to fight, but Christ has conquered for us, as he says himself, Trust in me, I have overcome the world. (John 16:33.) But the angel restricts what he had said generally by way of correction. Many professed to belong to the people of God, and every one naturally sprung from the stock of Israel boasted of being the, offspring of divine seed. As all wished promiscuously to belong to God’s people, the angel restricts his expression by a limiting phrase, all people, says he, who were found written in the book. This clause does not mean all Israel after “the flesh,” (Romans 9:6-8,) but such as God esteems to be real Israelites according to gratuitous election alone. He here distinguishes between the carnal and spiritual children of Abraham, between the outward Church and that inward and true community which the Almighty approves. Upon what then does the difference depend between those who boast of being Abraham’s children, while they are rejected by God, and those who are really and truly his sons? On the mere grace and favor of God. He declares his election when he regenerates his elect by his Holy Spirit, and thus inscribes them with a certain mark, while they prove the reality of this sonship by the whole course of their lives, and confirm their own adoption. Meanwhile we are compelled to go to the fountain at once; God alone by his gratuitous election distinguishes the outward Church, which has nothing but. the title, from the true Church, which can never either perish or fall away. Thus we observe in how many passages of Scripture hypocrites are rejected in the midst of their swelling pride, as they have nothing in common with the sons of God but the external symbols of profession.

We ought to notice this restriction, which assures us of the utter uselessness of outward pomp, and of the unprofitable nature of even a high station in the outward Church, unless we are truly among God’s people. This is expressed fully in Psalm 15 and 24, while Psalm 73 confirms the same sentiments. How good is God to Israel, especially to the upright in heart! In these passages of the Psalms the cause is not stated to be the secret election of God, but the outward testimony of the conduct; and this although inferior in degree, is not contrary to the first cause which produces it. This has its proper place, but God’s election is always superior. The word book refers to that eternal counsel of God, whereby he elected us and adopted us as his sons before the foundation of the world, as we read in the first chapter of Ephesians, (Ephesians 1:4.) In the same sense Ezekiel inveighs against the false prophets who deceived the people of Israel, (Ezekiel 8:9.) My hand, says God, shall be upon those prophets who deceive my people: they shall not therefore be in the secret assembly of my people, nor shall they be found in the roll of the house of Israel. The word signifying to write is used here, — they shall not be written in the enrollment of the house of Israel. The word book is here used in the same sense and yet we need not adopt the gross idea, that the Almighty has any need of a book. His book is that eternal counsel which predestinates us to himself, and elects us to the hope of eternal salvation. We now understand the full sense of this instruction, as the Church shall remain in safety amidst many deaths, and even in the last stage of despair it shall escape through the mercy and help of God. We must also remember this definition of a church, because many boast of being God’s sons, who are complete strangers to him. This leads us to consider the subject of election, as our salvation flows from that fountain. Our calling, which is his outward testimony to it, follows that gratuitous adoption which is hidden within himself; and thus God when regenerating us by his Spirit, inscribes upon us his marks and signs, whence he is able to acknowledge us as his real children. It follows, —

Daniel 12:2

As to the translation of the first words, it is literally , many who sleep in the earth of dust, or who are in earth and dust; for the genitive is used as an epithet, though it may be read as if in opposition with the former word sleep, meaning those who are reduced to earth and dust.

The angel seems here to mark a transition from the commencement of the preaching of the gospel, to the final day of the resurrection, without sufficient occasion for it. For why does he pass over the intermediate time during which many events might be the subject of prophecy? He unites these two subjects very fitly and properly, connecting the salvation of the Church with the final resurrection and with the second coming of Christ. Wheresoever we may look around us, we never meet with any source of salvation on earth. The angel announces the salvation of all the elect. They are most miserably oppressed on all sides, and wherever they turn their eyes, they perceive nothing but confusion. Hence the hope of the promised salvation could not be conceived by man before the elect raise their minds to the second coming of Christ. It is just as if the angel had said, God will be the constant preserver of his Church, even unto the end; but the manner in which he will preserve it must not be taken in a carnal sense, as the Church will be like a dead body until it shall rise again. We here perceive the angel teaching the same truth as Paul delivers in other words, namely, we are dead, and our life is hidden with Christ; it shall then be made manifest when he shall appear in the heavens. (Colossians 3:3.) We must hold this first of all, God is sufficiently powerful to defend us, and we need not hesitate in feeling ourselves safe under his hand and protection. Meanwhile it is necessary to add this second point; as long as we fix our eyes only on this present state of things, and dwell upon what the world offers us, we shall always be like the dead. And why so? Our life ought to be hid with Christ in God. Our salvation is secure, but we still hope for it, as Paul says in another passage. (Romans 8:23, 24.) What is hoped for is not seen, says he. This shews us how completely seasonable is the transition from this doctrine respecting God’s elect to the last advent of Christ. This then is enough with respect to the context. The word many seems here clearly put for all, and this is not to be considered as at all absurd, for the angel does not use the word in contrast with all or few, but only with one. Some of the Jews strain this expression to mean the restoration of the Church in this world under themselves, which is perfectly frivolous. In this case the following language would not be correct, — -Some shall rise to life, and others to disgrace and contempt. Hence if this concerned none but the Church of God, certainly none would rise to disgrace and condemnation. This shews the angel to be treating of the last resurrection, which is common to all, and allows of no exceptions. I have lately explained why he calls our attention to the advent of Christ.

Since all flyings in the world will be constantly confused, our minds must necessarily be raised upwards, and gain the victory over what we observe with our eyes, and comprehend with our outward senses.

Those who sleep in the earth and the dust; meaning, wherever the earth and dust exist, nevertheless they shall rise, implying the hope of a resurrection not founded on natural causes, but depending upon the inestimable power of God, which surpasses all our senses. Hence, although the elect as well as the wicked shall be reduced to earth and dust, this shall by no means form an obstacle to God’s raising them up again. He uses earth and dust. In my judgment tmda, admeth, “of the earth,” is the genus, and rp[, gnepher, “dust,” is the species, meaning, although they are only putrid carcasses, yet they shall be reduced to dust, which is minute particles of earth. God, then, is endued with sufficient power to call forth the dead to newness of life. This passage is worthy of especial notice, because the prophets do not contain any clearer testimony than this to the last resurrection, particularly as the angel distinctly asserts the future rising again of both the righteous and the wicked. Eternity is here opposed to those temporal miseries to which we are now subjected. Here we may notice the admonition of Paul, that those momentary afflictions by which God tries us, cannot be compared with that eternal glory which never shall cease. (Romans 8:18.) This, therefore, is the reason why the angel so clearly expresses, that eternal life awaits the elect, and eternal disgrace and condemnation will be the lot of the ungodly. He afterwards subjoins, —

Daniel 12:3

The word “prudent” means endued with intellect. Some take it transitively, and in this passage their opinion is probably correct, because the office of justifying will soon be assigned to these prudent ones. But the former sense suits chapter 11 better, and in verse 10 it will be put absolutely. Hence it means those who are endued with understanding. The angel here confirms what I have lately expressed concerning the final resurrection, and shews how we shall enjoy its fruits, because eternal glory is laid up for us in heaven. We ought not to complain of being treated unworthily, whenever we seem to suffer harshness at God’s hands, because we ought to be satisfied with the glory of heaven, and with the perpetual existence of that life which has been promised to us. He says then, the teachers, or those who excel in understanding, shall shine forth as the light of heaven. If the word “teachers” is thought preferable, there will be a figure of speech, a part being put for the whole, and, therefore, I follow the usual explanation. He applies the phrase, “endued with understanding,” to those who do not depart from the true and pure knowledge of God, as will be afterwards explained more fully. For the angel contrasts the profane who proudly and contemptuously rage against God, and the faithful whose whole wisdom is to submit themselves to God, and to worship him with the purest affection of their minds. We shall say more on this subject to-morrow. But he now says, those who retained sincere piety should be like the light of the firmament; meaning, they shall be heirs of the kingdom of heaven, where they shall enjoy that glory which surpasses all the splendor of the world. No doubt, the angel here uses figures to explain what is incomprehensible, implying, nothing can possibly be found in the world which answers to the glory of the elect people.

And those who shall justify many shall be like stars, says he. He repeats the same thing in other words, and now speaks of stars, having formerly used the phrase, the brightness of the firmament, in the same sense; and instead of “those who are endued with understanding,” he says, those who shall have justified. Without doubt, the angel here especially denotes the teachers of the truth, but in my opinion he embraces also all the pious worshippers of God. No one of God’s children ought to confine their attention privately to themselves, but as far as possible, every one ought to interest himself in the welfare of his brethren. God has deposited the teaching of his salvation with us, not for the purpose of our privately keeping it to ourselves, but of our pointing out the way of salvation to all mankind. This, therefore, is the common duty of the children of God, — to promote the salvation of their brethren. By this word “justifying,” the angel means, not that it is in the power of one man to justify another, but the property of God is here transferred to his ministers. Meanwhile, we are as clearly justified by any teaching which brings faith within our reach, as we are justified by the faith which springs from the teaching. Why is our justification ever ascribed to faith? Because our faith directs us to Christ in whom is the complete perfection of justification, and thus our justification may be ascribed equally to the faith taught and the doctrine which teaches it. And those who bring before us this teaching are the ministers of our justification. The assertion of the angel, in other words, is this, — The sons of God, who being devoted entirely to God and ruled by the spirit of prudence, point out the way of life to others, shall not only be saved themselves, but shall possess surpassing glory far beyond anything which exists in this world. This is the complete explanation. Hence, we gather the nature of true prudence to consist in submitting ourselves to God in simple teachableness, and in manifesting the additional quality of carefully promoting the salvation of our brethren. The effect of this our labor ought to increase our courage and alacrity. For how great is the honor conferred upon us by our Heavenly Father, when he wishes us to be the ministers of his righteousness? As James says, We preserve those about to perish if we bring them back into the right way. (James 5:19.) James calls us preservers, just as the angel calls us justifiers; neither the angel nor the apostle wish to detract from the glory of God, but by these forms of speech the Spirit represents us as ministers of justification and salvation, when we unite in the same bonds with ourselves all those who have need of our assistance and exertions. It follows next: —

Daniel 12:4

We have already explained “the time of the end” is a period previously fixed on by God, and settled by his own counsel. The following word refers to tracing out and:running to and fro, but not necessarily in a bad sense, while it also signifies to investigate. Interpreters explain the angel’s meaning, as if many should be unworthy to receive this prophecy from Daniel; and hence it was to be closed up and only enigmatically delivered to a few, because scarcely one in a hundred would attend to what he had delivered. I think the Holy Spirit has a different intention here. The angel’s advice is this, There is no reason why this prophecy should cause despondency or dismay, because few should receive it. Although it should be universally despised and ridiculed, nevertheless shut it up like a precious treasure. Isaiah has a passage nearly similar, (Isaiah 8:16,) Close up nay law, seal the testimony among my disciples. Isaiah’s spirit would be broken when he perceived himself an object of universal derision, and God’s sacred oracles trodden under foot; thus he might lose all courage and decline the office of a teacher. But God affords him comfort: Close up, says he, nay law among my disciples, and do not notice this profane crew; although they all despise thy teaching, do not suppose thy voice deserves their ridicule; close it up, close it up among my disciples, says he; how few soever may embrace thy teaching, yet let it remain sacred and laid up in the hearts of the pious. The Prophet afterwards says, Behold nay children with me. Here he boasts in his contentment with very few, and thus triumphs over the impious and insolent multitude. Thus at the present time in the Papacy and throughout the whole world, impiety prevails so extensively that there is scarcely a single corner in which the majority agree in true obedience to God. As God foresaw how very few would embrace this prophecy with becoming reverence, the angel desired to animate the Prophet, lest he should grow weary, and esteem this prophecy as of little value, in consequence of its failing to command the applause of the whole world.

Close up the book, then but what does the phrase imply? Not to hide it from all men, but to satisfy the Prophet when he saw but few reverently embracing the teaching so plainly laid before him by the angel. This is not properly a command; the angel simply tells Daniel to hide or seal up this book and these words, offering him at the same time much consolation. If all men despise thy doctrine, and reject what thou dost set before them, — if the majority pass it by contemptuously, shut it up and seal it, not treating it as valueless, but preserving it as a treasure. I deposit it with time, do thou lay it up among my disciples. Thou, Daniel; here the Prophet’s name is mentioned. If thou thinkest thyself to be alone, yet companions shall be afterwards added to thee who shall treat this prophecy with true piety. Shut up, then, and seal it, even, till the time of the end; for God will prove by the event that he has not spoken in vain, and experience will shew me to have been sent by him, as every occurrence has been previously predicted. It now follows, —

Many shall investigate, and knowledge shall increase. Some writers take this second clause in a contrary sense, as if many erratic spirits should run about with vague speculations, and wander from the truth. But this is too forced. I do not hesitate to suppose the angel to promise the arrival of a period when God should collect many disciples to himself, although at the beginning they should be very few and insignificant. Many, then, shall investigate; meaning, though they are most careless and slothful, while boasting themselves God’s people, yet God should gather to himself a great multitude from other quarters. Small indeed and insignificant is the apparent number of the faithful who care for the truth of God, and who shew any eagerness to learn it, but let not this scantiness move thee. The sons of God shall soon become increased. Many shall investigate, and knowledge shall increase. This prophecy shall not always be buried in obscurity; the Lord will at length cause many to embrace it to their own salvation. This event really came to pass. Before Christ’s coming, this doctrine was not esteemed according to its value. The extreme ignorance and grossness of the people is notorious, while their religion was nearly overthrown till God afterwards increased his Church. And at the present time any one who will carefully consider this prediction will experience its utility. This can scarcely be fully expressed in words; for, unless this prophecy had been preserved and laid up like an inestimable treasure, much of our faith would have passed away. This divine assistance affords us strength, and enables us to overcome all the attacks of the world and of the devil.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, as we have to engage in battle through the whole course of our lives, and our strength is liable to fail in various ways, that we may be supported by thy power and thus persevere unto the end. May we never grow weary, but learn to overcome the whole world, and to look forward to that happy eternity to which thou invitest us. May we never hesitate while Christ thy Son fights for us, in whose hand and power our victory is placed, and may he ever admit us into alliance with himself in that conquest which he

has procured for us, until at length he shall gather us at the last day into the enjoyment of that triumph in which he has gone before us. — Amen.

LECTURE SIXTY-SIXTH.

Daniel 12:5-7

Daniel here relates his vision of other angels standing on each bank of the river. He alludes to the Tigris which he had previously mentioned, as the vision was offered to him there. He says, One asked the other, How long will it be to the end? He who was asked, swore, with hands upraised to heaven, by the living God, that no single prediction was in vain, since the truth would be evident in its own period, and men must wait for the time, times, and half a time. This is a summary of the passage. When he says he beheld, he commends to our notice the certainty of the vision. Unless he had been attentive, and had applied his mind seriously to these mysteries, his narrative would have failed to produce confidence. But as his mind was completely calm, and he was desirous of receiving the instruction conveyed by God through his angel, not the slightest doubt can be thrown upon what he so faithfully delivers to us. He speaks of angels as if they were men, for the reason previously assigned. He does not imply their being really men, but uses that expression in consequence of their outward appearance, for as they had a human face, they were called men. I do not assert their bodies to be merely imaginary, nor will I say Daniel saw only special forms and human shapes, for God might have clothed his angels in real bodies for the time, and yet they would not on that account become men. For Christ took upon Him our flesh and was truly man, while He was God manifest in flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16.) But this is not true of angels, who received only a temporary body while performing the duties of their office. There is no doubt of this assertion, — the name of “men” cannot properly belong to angels, but it suits yew well the human form or likeness which they sometimes wore.

It does not surprise us to find one angel questioning another. When Paul is extolling the mystery of the calling of the Gentiles, which had been hidden from the preceding ages, he adds, — it was an object of wonder to angels, as they had never hoped for it, and so it had not been revealed to them. (Ephesians 3:10.) So wonderfully does God work in his Church, that he causes admiration among the angels in heaven, by leaving many things unknown to them, as Christ testifies concerning the last day. (Matthew 24:36.) This is the reason why the angel uses the interrogation, How long is it to the end of these wonders? God doubtless here urged the angel to inquire into an event veiled in obscurity, for the purpose of waking up our attention. Absurd indeed would it be for us to pass by these things with inattention, when angels themselves display such anxiety by their questions, while they perceive traces of the secret power of God. Unless we are remarkably stupid, this doubt of the angel ought to stir us up to greater diligence and attention. This also is the force of the word twalp phlaoth, “wonderful things;” for the angel calls everything which he did not understand, wonderful. If the comparison be allowable, how great would be our ingratitude not to give our whole attention to the consideration of these mysteries which angels are compelled to confess to be beyond their grasp! The angel, as if he were astonished, calls those things “wonderful” which were hidden not only from the minds of men, but also from himself and his companions. But the other answers; whence some difference, although not a perpetual one, exists between the angels. The philosophy of Dionysius ought not to be admitted here, who speculates too cunningly, or rather too profanely, when treating the order of angels. But I only state the existence of some difference, because God assigns various duties to certain angels, and he dispenses to each a certain measure of grace and revelation, according to his pleasure. We know there is but one teacher of men and angels, — the Son of God, who is his eternal wisdom and truth. This passage may be referred to Christ, but as I cannot make any positive assertion, I am content with the simple statement already made. He states this angel’s clothing to have been linen garments, implying splendor. Linen garments were then of great value; hence an ornament and decoration is here applied to angels, as God separates them from the common herd of men. Thus Daniel would the more easily comprehend these persons not to be earth-born mortals, but angels clad by God for a short period in the human form.

He says, This angel raised up his hands to heaven. Those who consider this action as a symbol of power are mistaken, for without doubt the Prophet intended to manifest the usual method of swearing. They usually raised the right hand, according to the testimony of numerous passages of Scripture. I have raised my hand towards God. (Genesis 14:22.) Here the angel raises both his hands, wishing by this action to express the importance of the subject. Thus to raise both hands, as if doubling the oath, is stronger than raising the right hand after the ordinary manner. We must consider then the use of both hands as intended to confirm the oath, as the subject was one of great importance. It follows, for a time, times, and half a time. I have stated my objection to the opinion of those who think one year, and two, and a half, to be here intended. I confess the passage ought to be understood of that pollution of the Temple which the Prophet has already treated. History clearly assures us that the Temple was not cleansed till the close of the third year, and seven or eight months afterwards. That explanation may suit its own passage, but with reference to the doctrine here delivered, its meaning is very simple, time means a long period, times, a longer period, and a half means the end or closing period. The sum of the whole is this’ many years must elapse before God fulfills what his Prophet had declared. Time therefore signifies a long period; times, double this period; as if he had said, While the sons of God are kept in suspense so long without obtaining an answer to their petitions, the time will be prolonged, nay, even doubled. We see then that a time does not mean precisely one year, nor do times signify two years, but an indefinite period. With respect to the half of a time, this is added for the comfort of the pious, to prevent their sinking under the delay, because God does not accomplish their desire. Thus they rest patiently until this “time” as well as “the times” pass away. Besides, the issue is set before them by the words half a time, to prevent them from despairing through excessive weariness. I admit the allusion to years, but the words are not to be understood literally but metaphorically, signifying, as I have already stated, an indefinite period.

He afterwards adds, And in the complement or consumption of the dispersion or contrition of the hand of God’s people, all these things shall be fulfilled: first, the time must pass away, next, the times must be added, then the half time must follow; all these things must arrive at their accomplishment, and when they are thoroughly completed, says he, then will come the contrition of the hand of the holy people. The angel again proclaims how the Church of God should be oppressed by many calamities; and thus the whole of this verse contains an exhortation to endurance, to prevent the faithful from becoming utterly hopeless, and completely losing their spirits, in consequence of their suffering severe and multiplied cares, not for a few months merely, but for a lengthened duration. He uses this phrase, the wearing down of the hand of the holy people — if you please to read it so — metaphorically, meaning, the holy people should be deprived of strength, just as if their hands were completely worn down. Whatever agility men possess is usually shewn in the hands, and they were given to men by God for the special purpose of being extended to all parts of the body, and for executing the ordinary operations of mankind. This metaphor is now very suitable, as the people were so mutilated, as to be deprived of all strength and rigor. This is a slight sketch of the meaning of the clause.

If we read “dispersion” according to the common signification, it will suit very well, since the hand of the holy people should be dispersed; meaning, the Church should be a stranger in the world, and be dispersed throughout it. This was continually fulfilled from that day to the present. How sad is the dispersion of the Church in these days! God indeed defends it by His power, but this is beyond human expectation For how does the body of the Church now appear to us? how has it appeared throughout all ages?

surely it has ever been torn in pieces and dispersed. Hence the angel’s prediction is not in vain, if we adopt the interpretation — the hand of the holy people should be dispersed — but yet the end should be prosperous, as he had previously announced, when treating of its resurrection and final salvation. It now follows:

Daniel 12:8

Now Daniel begins to ask questions in accordance with the angel’s example. He had first heard one angel inquiring of the other; he next summons up courage, and becomes desirous of information, and asks what should be the end or issue? He says, he heard without understanding. By the word “hearing,” he bears witness to the absence of ignorance, slothfulness, or contempt. Many depart without any perception of a subject, although it may be very well explained, because they were not attentive to it. But here the Prophet asserts that he heard; implying, it would be no fault of his diligence if he did not understand, because he was desirous of learning, and had exerted all his powers, as we formerly intimated, and yet he confesses he did not understand. Daniel does not mean to profess utter stupidity, but restricts his ignorance to the subject of this interrogation. Of what then was Daniel ignorant? Of the final issue. He could not attain unto the meaning of these predictions, which were so extremely obscure, and this was needful to their full and thorough comprehension. It is quite clear that God never utters his word without expecting fruit; as it is said in Isaiah, I have not spoken unintelligibly, nor have I said to the seed of Jacob, seek ye me in vain. (Isaiah 45:19.) God was unwilling to leave his Prophet in this perplexity of hearing without understanding, but we are aware of distinct degrees of proficiency in the school of God. Again, sufficient revelation was notoriously conferred upon the prophets for the discharge of their office, and yet none of them ever perfectly understood the predictions they delivered. We know, too, what Peter says, They ministered more for our times than for their own. (1 Peter 1:12.) They were by no means useless to their own age, but when our age is compared with theirs, certainly the instruction and discipline of the prophets is more useful to us, and produces richer and riper fruit in our age than in theirs. We are not surprised, then, at Daniel confessing he did not understand, so long as we restrict the words to this single instance. It now follows: —

Daniel 12:9

Although Daniel was not induced by any foolish curiosity to inquire of the angel the issue of these wonderful events, yet he did not obtain his request. God wished some of his predictions to be partially understood, and the rest to remain concealed until the full period of the complete revelation should arrive. This is the reason why the angel did not reply to Daniel. The wish in truth was pious, and, as we have previously stated, it did not contain anything unlawful; but God, knowing what was good for him, did not grant his request. He is dismissed by the angel, because the words were shut up and sealed. The angel uses this expression in a sense different from the former one. For he ordered Daniel to close and seal the words like precious treasures, as they would be set at naught by many disbelievers, and by almost the whole people. Here then, he says, the words were closed up and sealed, as there was no fitting occasion for revealing them. As if he had said, nothing has been predicted either vainly or rashly, but the full blaze of light has not yet been thrown upon the prediction: hence we must wait until the truth itself is proved by the event, and thus the divine utterance of the angel is made manifest. This is the summary. He then says, until the time of the end. Some one might possibly object; then for what purpose was this prediction delivered? For Daniel himself, who was instructed by the angel, could not thoroughly comprehend his own message, and the rest of the faithful, although versed in these prophetic studies, felt themselves in a labyrinth here. The answer is at hand, until the time of the end; and we must also remember that neither Daniel nor the rest of the faithful were deprived of all the advantage of this prophecy, for God explained to them whatever was sufficient for the necessities of their own times. I must pass over some points slightly, with the view of finishing today. It follows —

Daniel 12:10

Again, the angel mentions the persecutions which were at hand for the purpose of arming the faithful for the approaching conflicts. We know from other sources how tender and weak our minds naturally are, for as soon as any cause for fear arises, before it comes to blows, we fall down lifeless through terror. As, therefore, our natural imbecility is so great, we necessarily require many stimulants to patience, and to urge us to contend with earnestness, and never to yield to any temptations. This is the reason why the angel announces the necessity for such multiplied purification’s, to cleanse them, as wheat from chaff; to whiten them, as cloth by the fuller; and to melt them, as metal to be separated from dross. First of all, as I have previously explained, he admonishes Daniel and all the pious of the future state of the Church, to lead them to prepare and gird themselves for battle, and to gather up their unconquered fortitude, since the condition of life set before them is that of forcing their way through the midst of troubles. This is one point. Again, the angel shews the practical utility of this kind of life, which might otherwise seem too bitter. We naturally refuse the cross because we feel it contrary to our disposition, while God shews the pious that nothing can be more profitable to them than a variety of afflictions. This is a second point. But afflictions by themselves might possibly consume us, and hence we are cast into a furnace. Now, then, could we expect these sufferings to promote our salvation, except God changed their nature in some wonderful way, as their natural tendency is to effect our destruction? But while we are melted down, and whitened, and cleansed, we perceive how God consults for our welfare by pressing us with his cross and causing us to submit to adversity. Now, thirdly, the angel shews the insufficiency of one single act of cleansing, and our need of many more. This is the object of this numerous heaping together of words, they shall be cleansed, and whitened, and melted down, or poured forth. He might have embraced the whole idea in a single word; but, as through our whole lives God never ceases to test us in various ways, the angel heaps together these three words to shew the faithful their need of continual cleansing as long as they are clothed in flesh; just as garments which are in daily use have need of continual washing. However snowy a mantle may be, it becomes soiled immediately when used for even a single day; requiring constant ablution to restore it to its original purity. Thus we are brought in contact with the defilement’s of sin; and as long as we are pilgrims in this world, we necessarily become subject to constant pollution. And as the faithful also are infected with the contagion of numerous iniquities, they require daily purification’s hi different ways. We ought, then, diligently to notice these three distinct processes.

The angel afterwards adds, The impious will act impiously, and will never understand anything; but the prudent will be ever endued with intelligence. Here he wishes to fortify the pious against a stumbling block in their way, when they see the profane despisers of God exulting in every direction, and defying God to his face. When the faithful see the world so full of the impious, they seem to be indulging so freely in lust as if there were no God in heaven’ time they are naturally subject to grievous sorrow and distress. To prevent this trial from agitating their minds, the angel announces how the impious should conduct themselves impiously; implying, — there is no reason why thou, O Daniel, or the rest of the righteous, should depend upon the example of others; Satan will cunningly set before you whatever obstacles may draw you into the contempt of God, and the abyss of impiety, unless you are remarkably cautious; but let not the conduct of the impious cause either you or the rest of the pious to stumble. Howsoever they conduct themselves, do you stand invincible. He afterwards assigns a reason for their behavior — they understand nothing, they are perfectly blinded. But what is the source of this blindness? Their being given over to a reprobate sense. If any one should see a blind man fall, and should cast himself down after this blind man, would he be excusable? Surely his blindness was the cause of his perishing so miserably, but why does the other person destroy himself willingly? Whenever we see the impious rushing furiously on to their destruction, while God is admonishing them that their blindness proceeds from Satan, and that they are given over to a reprobate mind, are we not doubly mad if we willingly follow them? The cause then of this impious behavior on the part of the wicked, is added with good reason; namely, they understand nothing. Meanwhile, the faithful are recalled to the true remedy, and the angel subjoins, But the prudent shall understand, meaning they shall not permit themselves to be implicated in the errors of those whom they see entirely devoted to their own destruction. Lastly, the angel points out to us the true remedy which will prevent Satan from drawing us off towards impiety, and the impious from infecting us with their evil examples, if we earnestly apply ourselves to the pursuit of heavenly doctrine. If, therefore, we heartily desire to be taught by God and to become his true disciples, the instruction which we derive from him will snatch us from destruction. This is the true sense of the passage. It afterwards follows, —

Daniel 12:11-12

11. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Inconsequence of the obscurity of this passage it has been twisted in a variety of ways. At the end of the ninth chapter I have shewn the impossibility of its referring to the profanation of the Temple which occurred under the tyranny of Antiochus; on this occasion the angel bears witness to such a complete destruction of the Temple, as to leave no room for the hope of its repair and restoration. Then the circumstances of the time convinces us of this. For he then said, Christ shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and shall cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease. Afterwards, the abomination that stupifieth shall be added, and desolation or stupor, and then death will distill, says he, upon the astonished or stupefied one. The angel, therefore, there treats of the perpetual devastation of the Temple. So in this passage, without doubt;, he treats of the period after the destruction of the Temple; there could be no hope of restoration, as the law with all its ceremonies would then arrive at its termination. With This view Christ quotes this passage in Matthew 24, while he admonishes his hearers diligently to attend to it. Let him who reads, understand, says he. We have stated this prophecy to be obscure, and hence it requires no ordinary degree of the closest attention. First of all, we must hold this point; the time now treated by the angel begins at the last destruction of the Temple. That devastation happened as soon as the gospel began to be promulgated. God then deserted his Temple, because it was only founded for a time, and was but a shadow, until the Jews so completely violated the whole covenant that no sanctity remained in either the Temple, the nation, or the land itself. Some restrict this to those standards which Tiberius erected on the very highest pinnacle of the Temple, and others to the statue of Caligula, but I have already stated my view of these opinions as too forced. I have no hesitation in referring this language of the angel to that profanation of the Temple which happened after the manifestation of Christ, when sacrifices ceased, and the shadows of the law were abolished. From the time, therefore, at which the sacrifice really ceased to be offered; this refers to the period at which Christ by his advent should abolish the shadows of the law, thus making all offering of sacrifices to God totally valueless. From that time, therefore. Next, from the time at which the stupefying abomination shall have been set up. God’s wrath followed the profanation of the Temple. The Jews never anticipated the final cessation of their ceremonies, and always boasted in their peculiar external worship, and unless God had openly demonstrated it before their eyes, they would never have renounced their sacrifices and rites as mere shadowy representations. Hence Jerusalem and their Temple were exposed to the vengeance of the Gentiles. This, therefore, was the setting up of this stupefying abomination; it was a clear testimony to the wrath of God, exhorting the Jews in their confusion to boast no longer in their Temple and its holiness.

Therefore, from that period there shall be 1290 days. These days make up three years and a half. I have no hesitation in supposing the angel to speak metaphorically. As he previously put one year, or two years, and half a year, for long duration of time, and a happy issue, so he now puts 1290 days. And for what reason? To shew us what must happen when anxieties and troubles oppress us. If a man should fall sick, he will not say, Here I have already been one month, but I have a year before me — he will not say, Here I have been three days, but now I languish wretchedly for thirty or sixty. The angel, then, purposely puts days for years, implying — although that time may seem immeasurably prolonged, and may frighten us by its duration, and completely prostrate the spirits of the pious, yet it must be endured. The number of days then is 1290, yet there is no reason why the sons of God should despair in consequence of this number, because they ought always to return to this principle — if those afflictions await us for a time and times, the half time will follow afterwards.

Then he adds, Happy is he who shall have waited and endured until the 1335 days. In numerical calculations I am no conjurer, and those who expound this passage with too great subtlety, only trifle in their own speculations, and detract from the authority of the prophecy. Some think the days should be understood as years, and thus make the number of years 2600. The time which elapsed from this prophecy to the advent of Christ was about 600 years. From this advent 2000 years remain, and they think this is the assigned period until the end of the world, as the law also flourished about 2000 years from the date of its promulgation to its fulfillment at Christ’s advent. Hence they fix upon this sense. But they are quite wrong in separating the 1290 days from the 1335, for they clearly refer to the same period, with a slight exception. It is as if the angel had said, although half the time should be prorogued, yet the faithful ought constantly to persist in the hope of deliverance. For he adds, about two months, or a month and a half, or thereabouts. By half a time, we said, the issue was pointed out, as Christ informs us in Matthew 24:22. Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been safe. Reference is clearly made here to that abbreviation of the time for the Church’s sake. But the angel now adds forty-five days, which make a month and a half, implying — God will put off the deliverance of his Church beyond six months, and yet we must be strong and of good courage, and persevere in your watchfulness. God at length will not disappoint you — he will succor you in all your woes, and gather you to his blessed rest. Hence, the next clause of the prophecy is this, —

Daniel 12:13

13. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Here the angel repeats what he had said before, the, full time of perfect light had not yet arrived, because God wished to hold the minds of his people in suspense until the manifestation of Christ. The angel, therefore, dismisses the Prophet, and in commanding him to depart, says — Be content with thy lot, for God wishes to put off the complete manifestation of this prophecy to another time, which he himself knows to be the fitting one. He afterwards adds, And then shalt rest and shalt stand. Others translate it, rest and stand; but the angel does not seem to me to command or order what he wishes to be done, but to announce future events, as if he had said, — Thou shalt rest, meaning, thou shalt die, and then thou shalt stand; meaning, thy death shall not be complete destruction. For God shall cause thee to stand in thy lot with the rest of the elect; and that, too, at the end of the days, in thy lot; that is, after God has sufficiently proved the patience of his people, and by long and numerous, nay, infinite contests, has humbled his Church, and purged it, until the end shall arrive. At that final period thou shalt stand in thine own lot, although a time of repose must necessarily intervene.

PRAYER.

Grant, Almighty God, since thou proposest to us no other end than that of constant warfare during our whole life, and subjectest us to many cares until we arrive at the goal of this temporary race- course: Grant, I pray thee, that we may never grow fatigued. May we ever be armed and equipped for battle, and whatever the trials by which thou dost prove us, may we never be found deficient. May we always aspire towards heaven with upright souls, and strive with all our endeavors to attain that blessed rest which is laid up for us in heaven, in Jesus Christ our Lord. — Amen.

PRAISE BE TO GOD.

DISSERTATIONS

DISSERTATION 1

THE THIRD YEAR OF KING JEHOIAKIM.

*DANIEL 1:1*

A CORRECT idea of the scope and interpretation of these prophecies cannot be obtained without a due attention to the chronology of the events recorded. Hence, throughout these Dissertations it will be necessary to discuss some apparently unimportant points, and to combat some seemingly harmless opinions. We are thus compelled to enter into details which some may pronounce devoid of interest, but which will prove worth the labor bestowed upon them.

The necessity for comment on this first verse arises from the difficulty of reconciling its statement with the twenty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah. The relation of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be harmonized with those of the three last kings of Judah, to enable us to reconcile Daniel and Jeremiah. We must first ascertain the historical events which concern Jehoiakim, and fix their dates by comparing the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and the various allusions to him in Ezekiel and other prophets. Next, we must accurately define the events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; and afterwards so compare them as to draw a correct inference from the whole, notwithstanding much apparent discrepancy. This has been done by some commentators, the results of whose labors will here, be placed before the reader. WILLET’S remark on Calvin is worthy of notice: “Calvin thinketh to dissolve this knot by the distinction of Nebuchadnezzar the father, and Nebuchadnezzar the son; that in one place the one is spoken of, and the other in the other, but the question is not concerning the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, but the year of Jehoiakim’s reign wherein Jerusalem should be besieged; so that the doubt remaineth still.” ¹ He also answers Calvin’s solution, by referring Nebuchadnezzar’s second year not to the period of his reign, but “rather to the time of Daniel’s ministry and employment with the king, that in the second year of his service he expounded the king’s dream.” Many learned Jews are of opinion that the last year of Jehoiakim’s reign is intended, meaning the last of his independent sovereignty, since they treat him in former years as simply a tributary king to either the Egyptians or Babylonians. Josephus in his Antiq., (Book 10:6,) is supposed to favor this theory; for he places Nebuchadnezzar’s attack in the eighth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and does not allude to any previous one. WINTLE, however, does not consider that the words of Josephus justify this inference, ² and suggests that the difference in the methods used by the Jews and Babylonians in computing their years, may tend to obviate the inconsistency. WINTLE suggests some reasons for dating the commencement of the seventy years’ captivity from the completion of the siege in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Daniel and his associates were among the first captives. Prideaux supposes this event to have occurred six hundred and six years A.C., or the one hundred and forty-second year of Nabonassar’s era; Vignoles and Blair fix the year following. Wintle agrees with the latter date, supposing the captivity not to continue during seventy solar years, and fixing their termination about 536 A.C.

Another commentator, who has paid great attention to chronology, deserves special notice, since he advocates a new theory respecting Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, which is worthy of remark, though it has been severely criticized. THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER has an elaborate chapter on this date, from which we shall extract the conclusions at which he has arrived. He understands “Daniel to speak of Jehoiakim’s independent reign, reckoning from the time that he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar.” ³ Jehoiakim was taken captive in the seventh of Nebuchadnezzar.

The oldest expositors felt the difficulty of the passage. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi asks, “How can this be said?” and then replies as follows: — This was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar and the third of Jehoiakim’s rebellion against him.

HENGSTENBERG has not been forgetful to defend our Prophet from the charge of historical inaccuracy, to which this verse has given rise. He treats the assumption, that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem before his accession to the throne, as inadmissible. “The assertion of his being associated by his father in the co-regency at that time is not adequately sustained.” ⁴ CH. B. MICHAELIS and BERTHOLDT have made various attempts to reconcile the discrepancy. “The assumption,” says Hengstenberg, “that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first expedition in the eighth year of Jehoiakim, is an hypothesis grounded merely on one passage.” Still, this passage, far from containing an error, affords a striking proof of the writer’s historical knowledge. Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, (Arch. 10:11, 1,)narrates the victory of Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish, which occurred about the close of Jehoiakim’s third year. Carchemish was a city on the banks of the Euphrates, taken by Pharaoh-Necho about three years previously. Immediately after this victory, the conqueror marched against Jerusalem and took it. The process by which Hengstenberg arrives at this result, the various authors whom he quotes, and the complete refutation which he supplies of all the conjectures of his Neologian opponents, will be found amply detailed in the valuable work already quoted. ROSENMULLER also discusses the point, but leans too much to those writers whom Hengstenberg refutes.

DISSERTATION 2

NEBUCHADNEZZAR — ONE KING OR TWO?

*Chapter 1:1*

THE difficulty of reconciling the various statements of Scripture with themselves and with profane history, has raised the question whether there were two Nebuchadnezzar’s or only one. The DUKE OF MANCHESTER is a strenuous advocate for the former hypothesis, and his view of the case is worthy of perusal. The first king he supposes to have overthrown Necho’s army in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, as we have already stated. He came from the north into Judea, and took the people captive after the overthrow of Assyria. His eleventh year corresponds with the fourth of Zedekiah, while he reigned on the whole about twenty-nine years. He is to be identified with Cyrus, the father of Cambyses, well known in Persian history, so that the second Nebuchadnezzar was Cambyses himself. Although the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy is a formidable adversary, this writer shews much ingenuity in bending it to his purpose. The first king of this name began his reign A.C. 511, while Paulus Orosius determines the taking of Babylon “by Cyrus” about the time of the expulsion of the kings from Rome (A.C. 510.) Thus sixty-nine years elapsed between the overthrow of Necho and the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar the second; and in the eighteenth year of the reign of this latter king the golden image was set up.

Having identified the second king with Cambyses, this writer brings forward many testimonies in favor of his being a Persian, and shews that the Chaldeans were not Babylonians but Persians. He treats him as identical with the Persian Jemsheed, the contemporary of Pythagoras and Thales, and the founder of Pasargadæ and Persepolis, and justifies his positions by the authorities of Diocles, Hecataeus, Cedrenus, the Maccabees, Abydenus, and Alexander Polyhistor. “The evidence is deduced from direct testimony, from geographical position, from similarity in language and religion, in manners and customs, in personal character and alliances; from Babylonian bricks and cylinders; as also from historical synchronism’s and identity of actions.” ⁵ The statements of Herodotus are fully discussed and compared with the Egyptian sculptures, with the view of shewing that the second Nebuchadnezzar was the Cambyses of Herodotus, the son-in-law of Astyages and the conqueror of Egypt. The story of his madness, after profaning the temple of Apis, is said to apply accurately to this second monarch.

It could not be expected that a theory of this kind could be introduced into the world without severe and searching examination. Accordingly, BIRKS, in his preface to “The two later Visions of Daniel,” writes as follows: “I have examined closely the two difficulties which alone give a seeming strength to his Grace’s theory, — the succession of names in the Persian history, and the two covenants under Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, — and feel confident I can meet them both with a full and complete answer. It seems to me surprising that a paradox of two Scripture Nebuchadnezzar’s, and a Scripture Cyrus, totally unknown to profane history, in the reign of Longimanus, contemporary with Cimon and Pericles, can ever be received by any mind accustomed to pay the least regard to the laws of evidence. Every fresh inquiry has only increased my confidence in the usual chronology derived from the Canon of Ptolemy, and its truth, I believe, may be almost entirely established even by Scripture evidence alone.” VAUX, the learned author of “Nineveh and Persepolis,” furnishes a clear sketch of Nebuchadnezzar’s career, by combining the accounts of Herodotus and the Scriptures. In the thirty-first year of Josiah’s reign, Necho fought the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was mortally wounded. He then took Cadytis, “the holy city” of the Jews, and at length returned to Egypt with abundance of spoil. After a lapse of three years he invaded the territory of the king of Babylon. The reigning monarch — Nabopolassar — was aged and infirm; he gave the command of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptians at Carcesium or Carchemish, and drove them out of Asia. He marched to Jerusalem, and reinstated Jehoiakim as its king, in subjection to himself; he spoiled the temple of the chief ornaments and vessels of value, and among the prisoners transmitted to Babylon were Daniel and his three friends. He next carried on war against the Egyptians, till the news of his father’s death caused his return. The revolt of Jehoiakim caused a second attack upon the city, and the carrying off of many prisoners, among whom was Ezekiel, to the banks of the distant Chebar. Zedekiah, the brother of Jehoiakim, having been placed on the throne, and having made an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, the Apries of Herodotus, he is deposed by the King of Babylon, and carried captive in blindness and chains. Thus for the third and last time this conqueror invaded Judea and profaned the temple. After a lapse of four years he besieged Tyre; for thirteen years it resisted his arms, but was at length razed to the ground. He next succeeded in an expedition against Egypt, dethroned Apries, and leaving Amasis as his viceroy, returned to his imperial city. In the language of Jeremiah, “he arrayed himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment.” He next occupies himself in beautifying the city, and erecting a palace of extraordinary magnificence, and in constructing those hanging gardens mentioned by Diodoras, Megasthenes, and Arrian. The remainder of his history is easily gathered from the Prophet’s narrative. “A careful consideration of the authorities seems to shew that CLINTON is right in his supposition that the reign of this prince was about forty-four years in duration, and that he was succeeded after a short interval by Belshazzar.” ⁶ Willet arrives at the same conclusion as to the length of his reign by a different process of reasoning. The following dates are extracted from Prideaux, whose caution and accuracy are most commendable: —

A.C.

586. Tyre besieged.

570. The death of Apries, coincident with the dream of the tree, (Daniel 4,) after his last return from Egypt.

569. Daniel 4:30. Driven out into the fields.

563. Restored after seven years.

562. Death, after about forty-four years’ reign.

Another series of dates has been displayed by the author of “The Times of Daniel,” founded on a different chronological basis; we can only extract a few of them from pages 282, et seq.: —

B.C.

510. Babylon taken by Cyrus, and kings expelled from Rome.

507. Commencement of Jehoiakim’s independent reign. Daniel 1:1.

500. Nebuchadnezzar II. appointed; his dream. Daniel 2.

494. Golden Image set up. Daniel 3.

483. Nebuchadnezzar 1. died.

441. Nebuchadnezzar 2. died.

Dr. Wells has the following chronological arrangement of the chief events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign: —

A.C.

607. He is this year taken by his father “as partner” in the kingdom, falling in with the latter part of the third year of Jehoiakim, (Daniel 1:l.)

606. Jehoiakim carried to Babylon with Daniel and others.

The first of the seventy years’ captivity.

605. His father died. Nabopolassar in Ptolemy’s Canon, the son’s name being Nabocolassor. The Canon allows him forty-three years from this period.

603. Daniel interprets his dream. Daniel 2

588. He re-takes Jerusalem and Zedekiah.

569. Returned to Babylon, is afflicted with insanity. Daniel 4.

562. He dies “a few days” after being restored to reason.

DISSERTATION 3.

THE ANCESTORS AND SUCCESSORS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.

Daniel 1:1

To understand aright the history of these times, we must take a cursory glance at the period both preceding and following that of the great Chaldean chieftain. His ancestors were largely concerned in the overthrow of the Assyrian empire. The origin of this monarchy is involved in great obscurity, and we are at this moment in a transition state with respect to our knowledge of its history. The deciphering of those inscriptions which have lately been brought home is rapidly proceeding, and will lead to a more complete knowledge of the events of this obscure epoch. Early in the Book of Genesis we read of Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, as the founder of an extensive monarchy in the land of Shinar. Out of this land he went forth into Ashur, or perhaps it is Ashur who went forth and built Nineveh and other cities. The records of succeeding ages are too few to enable us to follow the stream of history: we have nothing to guide us but myths, and legends, and traditionary sovereigns, whose names are but the fictions of imagination. It must never be forgotten that many centuries elapsed between Noah and Solomon, and that the most ancient profane history is comparatively modern. The late discoveries in Egypt, and the high state of civilization attained by these “swarthy barbarians,” have led the learned to the conclusion that we have hitherto lost many centuries between the flood and Abraham; and since the long list of Egyptian dynasties, as given by Manetho, has been proved accurate, it may fairly be supposed that the Assyrian sculptures will rather add to the credit of Ctesias than detract from it. At all events, Nineveh was “no mean city” when Athens was a marsh, and Sardis a rock. Whether Ninus is a fabulous creation or not, monarchs as mighty as the eagle-headed worshipper of Nisroch his god, swayed the scepter for ages over a flourishing and highly civilized people. Herodotus gives us a hint of the antiquity and pre-eminence of Assyria when he says, “The Medes were the first who began to revolt from the Assyrians, who had possessed the supreme command over Upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years.” Whether we adopt the view of Bishop Lowth or not, that Ninus lived in the time of the Judges, ⁷ we may correctly assume that some successful conqueror enlarged and beautified Babylon, five hundred years before the Chaldean era of Nabonassar, 747 A.C. Whatever the source of this wealth, whether derived from the spoils of conquered nations, according to Montesquieu, or from intercourse with India through Egypt, according to Bruce, ⁸ the lately discovered remains imply a very high style of art at a very remote period in the history of Assyria. The “Pul” of 2 Kings 15:19, was by no means the founder of the monarchy, as Sir Isaac Newton and others have supposed; he was but one amidst those “servants of Bar,” whose names are now legible on the Nimroud obelisk in the British Museum. The next king mentioned in Scriptures is Tiglath-Pileser, whose name we have lately connected with Pul and Ashur; and after him follow Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, the three kings who are thought to have built the palace at Khorsabad, founded Mespila, and constructed the lions in the south-west palace of Nimroud. As the Medes revolted first, so the Chaldeans rebelled afterwards, according to the usual law of separation from the parent stock, when the tribe or race grows strong enough to establish its independence. The first prince who is known to have lived after this revolt is Nabonassar, the founder of the era called by his name. In process of time, other kings arose and passed away, till in the thirty-first year of Manasseh, Esarhaddon died, after reigning thirteen years over Assyria and Babylon united. He was succeeded by his son Laosduchius, the Nabuchodonosor of the Book of Judith, whose successor commenced his reign in the fifty-first year of Manasseh, being the hundred and first of the above mentioned era. From this effeminate king his Chaldean general Nabopolassar wrested Babylon, and reigned over his native country twenty-one years. This revolt is said to have taken place in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, when the powers of Media uniting with the power of Babylonia, took and destroyed the great city of Nineveh, and reduced the people under the sway of the rising monarchy. His son Nebuchadnezzar is said to have married the daughter of Astyages, the king of the Medes, and thus brings down the history to the times of our Prophet.

Among the ancient cities of the world, Nineveh is conspicuous for its grandeur. The phrase of Jonah, “that great city,” is amply confirmed by the historian, Diodorus Siculus, (lib. 2 section. 23.) who uses precisely the same expression, recording its circumference as four hundred and eighty stadia, with high and broad walls. The inference from the statement of the Book of Jonah is, that it was populous, civilized, and extensive. The language of both Jonah and Nahum imply exactly what the buried sculptures have exhibited to us, a state of society highly organized, with various ranks, from the sovereign to the soldier and the workman, yet effeminated by luxury and self-indulgence. The expressions of Scripture give us exalted ideas of its size and splendor, while they assign its wickedness as a reason for the complete destruction by which it was annihilated. Prophet after prophet recognizes its surpassing opulence, its commercial greatness, and its deep criminality. The voice of Zephaniah is soon followed by the sword of Arbaces, and Sennacherib and Sardanapalus are eclipsed by the rising greatness of Nabopolassar and Cyaxares. Its temples and its palaces had become so encrusted in the soil during eight centuries of men, that Strabo knows it only as a waste, and Tacitus treats it as a Castellum; and in the thirteenth century of our era, Abulfaragius confirms the prophecy of Nahum and the narrative of Tacitus, by recording nothing but the existence of a small fortification on the eastern bank of the Tigris. ⁹

The dates assigned to these events vary considerably; the following may be trusted as the result of careful comparison. In the year A.C. 650, Nebuchodonosor is found on the throne of Assyria, “a date,” says Vaux, “which is determined by the coincidence with the forty-eighth year of Manasseh, and by the fact that his seventeenth year was the last of Phraortes, king of Media, A.C. 634. The Book of Judith informs us of an important engagement at Ragau between this Assyrian king and Arphaxad the king of the Medes. This victory at Ragau, or Rhages, occurred A.C. 634, just “fifty-seven years after the loss of Sennacherib’s army.” ¹⁰

After returning from Ecbatana, the capital of Media, the conqueror celebrated a banquet at Nineveh which lasted one hundred and twenty days. Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, at length avenged his father’s death at Rhages, and by the aid of Nabopolassar, threw off the yoke of Assyria, attacked and took Nineveh about 606 A.C., and thus, by fixing the seat of empire at Babylon, blotted out the name of Nineveh from the page of the world’s history.

This renowned general is usually held to be the father of Nebuchadnezzar, on the authority of Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, and of the Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy. But the author of “The Times of Daniel” endeavors to identify him with either Sardanapalus or Esarhaddon; the arguments by which this supposition is supported will be found in detail in the work itself, while the original passages in Josephus and Eusebius are found at length in the notes to Grotius on “The truth of the Christian religion.” ¹¹ He died A.C. 695.

HIS SUCCESSORS. — According to the Canon of Ptolemy, Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, reigned two years, and was slain by his brother-in-law Neri-Glissar, who reigned four years; his son, Laborosoarchod, reigned nine months, though quite a child, and was slain by Nabonadius, supposed to be Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned seventeen years. Evil-Merodach is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27, and Jeremiah 52:31, but not by Daniel, and this gives some countenance to the supposition, that Belshazzar was the son and not the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. It is not easy to assign with certainty the correct dates to each of these kings, the reckoning of Josephus is here followed, which he derives from Berosus. The testimony of profane antiquity to the truth and historical accuracy of Daniel may be found in a convenient form in Kitto’s Bibli. Cyclop., Art. Nebuchadnezzar, page 406. The authorities are quoted at length, and the whole subject is ably elucidated. The limited space necessarily allowed for illustrating these Lectures, must be our apology for merely indicating where valuable information is to be obtained.

In the New Monthly Magazine for August and September 1845, there are two articles very full of illustration of our subject, by W. F. Ainsworth, entitled, The Rivers and Cities of Babylonia.

DISSERTATION 4

THE CHALDEANS.

*Chapter 1:5*

To determine the question which was raised in our last DISSERTATION, we must investigate the origin of the Chaldeans, as it was the tribe whence Nebuchadnezzar sprung. “The question,” says Heeren, “what the Chaldeans really were, and whether they ever properly existed as a nation, is one of the most difficult which history presents.” ¹² They are first mentioned in Genesis (Genesis 11:28,) as Casdim, (Lecture 5;) they were situated north of Judea, and are identical with the people who should, according to Jeremiah, destroy the temple from the north. (Jeremiah 1:13, 14, etc.) They are not mentioned by name again in the books of Scripture till many centuries afterwards they had become a mighty nation. The word Chasdim in the Hebrew and Chasdaim in the Chaldee dialects, is clearly the same as the Greek Χαλδαῖοι; and Gesenius supposing the root to have been originally card, refers them to the race inhabiting the mountains called by Xenophon Carduchi. Forster, indeed, has argued at considerable length in favor of their Arabian origin, and supposes them the well known Beni Khaled, a horde of Bedouin Arabs. ¹³ From this opinion we entirely dissent. The view of Gesenius in his Lectures at Halle in 1839, quoted in “The Times of Daniel,” appears preferable, — “The Chaldeans had their original seat on the east of the Tigris, south of Armenia, which we now call Koordistan; and, like the Koords in our day, they were warlike mountaineers, without agriculture, shepherds and robbers, and also mercenaries in the Assyrian army; so Xenophon found them.” ¹⁴ Vaux quotes Dicaearchus, a Greek historian of the time of Alexander the Great, as alluding to a certain Chaldean, a king of Assyria, who is supposed to have built Babylon; and in later times, Chaldea implied the whole of Mesopotamia around Babylon, which had also the name of Shiner. ¹⁵

Their religion and their language are also of importance. The former consisted in the worship of the heavenly bodies. They are supposed to have brought with them to Babylon a knowledge of astronomy superior to any then known, since they reduced their observations on the sun, moon, five planets, signs of the zodiac, and the rising and setting of the sun, to a regular system; and the Greeks are said by Herodotus to have derived from them the division of the day into twelve equal parts. ¹⁶ The lunar year was in common use, but the solar year, with its division of months similar to the Egyptian, was employed for astronomical purposes. The learned class gradually acquired the reputation and position of “priests,” and thus became astrologers and soothsayers, and “wise men” in their day and generation. Michaelis and Sehlozer consider their origin to be Sclavonic, and, consequently, distinct from the Babylonians, who were descendants of Shem.

THEIR LANGUAGE. — The original language of this people is a point of great interest to the biblical critic. If the people were of old northern mountaineers, they spoke a language connected with the Indo-Persic and Indo-Germanic stem rather than the Semitic. In treating this question, we should always allow for the length of time which elapsed between the original outbreak of those hordes from their native hills; and their conquest of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. Gesenius, in his Lectures on Biblical Archaeology, reminds us of their being first tributary to the Assyrians, of their subsequent occupation of the plains of Mesopotamia for some centuries previously to their becoming the conquerors of Asia under successful leaders. ¹⁷

From the fourth verse of chapter 2 (Daniel 2:4) we learn that they spoke the Aramaic dialect, which the Alexandrine Version, as well as Theodotion’s, denominates the Syriac. From the Cyropaedia (Book 7:24) we ascertain that the Syriac was the ordinary language of Babylon. Strabo also informs us that the same language was used throughout all the regions on the banks of the Euphrates. ¹⁸ Diodorus Siculus calls the Chaldeans the most ancient inhabitants of Babylonia, and assigns to their astrologers a similar position to that of the Egyptian priests. Their devotion to philosophy and their practice of astronomy gained them great credit with the powerful, which they turned to account by professing to predict the future and to interpret the visions of the imaginative and the distressed. ¹⁹

The testimony of Cicero is precisely similar. ²⁰ Hengstenberg has tested the historical truthfulness of the author of this book, by comparing his account of the Chaldean priest-caste with those of profane history. According to chapter. 2:48, the president of this caste was also a prince of the province of Babylon. Thus, according to Diodorus Siculus, Belesys was the chief president of the priests, “whom the Babylonians call Chaldeans,” ²¹ and governor of Babylon. In Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 39:3-13,) the president of the priests belonged to the highest class in the kingdom, and is called gmbr, rab-mag, a word of Persian origin, and clearly applicable to the office as described by Daniel. The views of Hengstenberg are usually so correct, that the student may generally adopt them at once as his own.

DISSERTATION 5

I. ASHPENAZ, A CHIEF OF THE EUNUCHS.

Daniel 1:7

THIS proper name is interpreted by Saadias to mean “the man of a sorrowful countenance;” but Rosenmuller assigns the meaning of the Syriac and Arabic corresponding words as more probable, viz., “helping” and “alert.” The Alexandrine Greek substitutes Abiezer for Aspenaz, being a Hebrew patronymic, signifying “father of help.” “The chief of the eunuchs” seems the correct definition of his office. syrs, saris, is equivalent to the Greek eunouchos, and the office is similar to that at present exercised at the courts of Turkey and Persia as the kislar agha, “high-chamberlain of the palace.” So much confidence was necessarily reposed in these domestic officers, that many affairs of the utmost importance and delicacy were intrusted to their care. Thus the children of the royal and noble families of Judea were committed to the care of Aspenaz. The word rps, sepher, “book,” in which he was to instruct them, must be extended to all the literature of the Chaldees. Oecolampadius treats it as including rhetoric, eloquence, and all those elevating pursuits which cultivate the mind and refine the manners. He then proceeds to treat the narrative as an allegory; the “prince of Babel, or, of the world,” represents Satan; Daniel and his companions, the elect members of Christ. The family of David is supposed to imply this spiritual household of God, and the word µymtrp, pharth-mim, nobles, is pressed into this service by a preference for the rendering of Saadias, “perfect fruit.” The eunuch is said to typify those spiritual flatterers who entice the children of God by flatteries and allurements to sin, and by substituting worldly sophistry for true wisdom, draw souls from Christ. Although such reflections are very profitable, yet CALVIN has shewn his matured judgment by excluding all fanciful allegory from his comments. OECOLAMPADIUS supposes the king to be liberal and benevolent in ordering the captives to be fed from his table, and prudent in proposing this indulgence as a reward for their diligence in study. Here also the king’s character is allegorized; he becomes a model of Satan enticing God’s elect, and offering them to partake of his own dainties, that he may win them more blandly to himself.

In commenting, too, on the change of names, Oecolampadius gives the usual meaning to the Hebrew words, but observes, how the name of God was omitted from them all, and the worthiness attributed to the creature. This, he thinks, to have been the eunuch’s intention, while he points to the change as an instance of the contrast between human and divine wisdom. The conduct of Daniel may be illustrated by the practice of the early Christians, against whom it was objected by Caecilius, that they abhorred meats offered to idols when commanded to partake of them. ²² Willet has discussed the questions — “Whether Daniel and the rest learned the curious arts of the Chaldeans?” and, “Whether it be lawful to use the arts and inventions of the heathen?” by collecting various opinions and summing them up with practical wisdom. ²³

II.THE NAMES OF THE THREE CHILDREN.

IT is the well-known custom of the East to change the names of persons on their admission to public office or to families of distinction. The change here recorded most probably arose from a desire to draw these young Jews away from all the associations of home, and to naturalize them as much as possible among their new associates. Hananiah is supposed to come from ˆnj, chanan, to be gracious, and hy, yah, Jehovah, meaning “favored of God.” Mishael from çy, ish, he is, and la, el, God, meaning “the powerful one of God.” Azariah from rz[, gnezer, help, and hy, yah, Jehovah: “the help of Jehovah.” A variety of conjectures have been hazarded concerning the Chaldee equivalents. Shadrach is probably from adç, sheda, to inspire, and ˚r, rak, king, being a Babylonian name for the sun; others connect it with an evil deity. Meshach retains a portion of its Hebrew form, and substitutes ˚ç, shak, for la, el, that is, the female deity Schaca, which answers to the Venus of the Greeks. WgnAdb[, gnebed- nego, is the Chaldaic phrase for “servant of Nebo,” one of their deities, or perhaps, servant of burning fire. The deity Nebo furnished names to many chiefs and sovereigns among the Assyrians and Chaldees, and modern researches and discoveries have enabled us to trace similar derivations with great accuracy. Compounds of Pul were used in a similar way: thus Tiglath-Pileser is Tiglath Pul-Asser; and Nabo-Pul-Asser is interpreted as Nabo, son of Pul, lord of Assyria.

The name of Daniel was also changed. The word is derived from ˆwd, dun, to judge, and la, el, God, meaning “a divine judge;” while his new name relates to the idol Bel, meaning “keeper of the treasures of Bel.”

III. THE PULSE.

Daniel 1:12

CALVIN’S view of this verse is rather peculiar, and especially his comment on Deuteronomy 8:3; on Daniel 1:14. The word “pulse,” µy[rzh, hazerognim, signifies the same as the Latin legumen, and may perhaps be extended to the cerealia as well. Vegetable diet generally is intended. The food provided from the royal table was probably too stimulating, and the habitual temperance of Daniel and his companions is here pointed out as conducing remarkably to their bodily health and appearance. Thus, while conscience refused to be “polluted,” obedience to the laws of our physical nature produces a corresponding physical benefit. Wintle very appositely quotes Virgil, Georg. 1:73, 74, to illustrate the kind of food intended.

DISSERTATION 6

CORESH — WAS HE CYRUS THE GREAT?

Daniel 1:21

THE last verse of this chapter is connected with an interesting inquiry, viz., Was the CORESH here mentioned CYRUS THE GREAT, or any other Cyrus? The noble author of “The Times of Daniel” has thrown much “life” into the subject by his elaborate defense of a theory which we now proceed to state and discuss. Cyrus the Great he thinks identical with Nebuchadnezzar the First, and Cambyses with his son Nebuchadnezzar the Second; the exploits of the hero of Herodotus and Xenophon are attributed to the former, while Coresh becomes but a minor character, contemporary with Darius the Mede, after whom he is said to reign, and before Darius the son of Ahasuerus. This view also brings the story of Esther within the period of the captivity of Babylon. It has always been a subject of great difficulty with commentators on Daniel, to reconcile the scriptural narrative with those of both Herodotus and Xenophon. The majority finding this impossible, have decided in favor of one or the other of these historians; and the best modern writers usually prefer Herodotus. Lowth, in his Notes on Isaiah, says, “the Cyrus of Herodotus was a very different character from that of the Cyrus of the Scriptures and Xenophon;” and Archbishop Secker has taken great pains to compare all the profane historians with Scripture, and shews that the weight of the argument lies against the truth of the Cyropaedia. Whether Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages or not, many believe with Ctesias that he overcame him in battle, and founded the Persian empire upon the ruins of the Median dynasty. It is scarcely possible that it should be left for this nineteenth century to discover the identity between a first Nebuchadnezzar and this conqueror of the East; and while the clearing up of every historical discrepancy is impossible, yet it is desirable to reconcile the occurrences which are related by both Herodotus and Xenophon. The son of Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane the daughter of Astyages king of the Medes, is said to have conquered Craesus king of Lydia, enlarged the Persian empire, subdued Babylon and the remnant of the Assyrian power, and placed his uncle Cyaxares over the united territories of Media and Babylon. After the death of this relative, he reigned over Asia, from India to Ethiopia, a territory consisting of 127 provinces. The manner of his death is uncertain, all the historians differ in their accounts, but the place of his burial is allowed to be Pasargadae, as Pliny has recorded in his Natural History. This tomb was visited by Alexander the Great, and has lately been noticed and described by European travelers. The plains of Murghab are watered by a river which bears the name of Kur, and is thought to be identical with the Greek Cyrus. A structure in a ruinous state has been found there, apparently of the same date as the remains at Persepolis, bearing cuneiform inscriptions which are now legible. The legend upon one of the pilasters has been interpreted, “I am Cyrus the Achaemenian;” and no doubt is entertained by the learned that this monument once contained the remains of the founder of the Persian monarchy. A single block of marble was discovered by Sir R. K. Porter, on which he discovered a beautiful sculpture in bas-relief, consisting of the figure of a man, from whose shoulders issue four large wings, rising above the head and extending to the feet. ²⁴ The whole value of such an inscription to the reader of Daniel is the legend above the figure, in the arrow-headed character, determining the spot as the tomb of Cyrus the Great. It shews, at the least, that he cannot be identified with Nebuchadnezzar.

The manner in which the author of “The Times of Daniel” has commented on the prophecies relating to the overthrow of Babylon, is worthy of notice here. Isaiah 45:14, is referred by Dr. Keith to Cyrus, and objection is made to the supposed fulfillment in the person of Cyrus, Keith is said to apply to Cyrus the primary historical fulfillment of all the prophecies relating to the overthrow of Babylon, and the justness of this inference is doubted. Isaiah 13-14:27, is one of the passages where the asserted allusion to Cyrus is questioned, since it relates to a period in which the power of Assyria was in existence. The Assyrian is supposed to be Sennacherib, to whose predecessor both Babylon and Media were subject. “The Chaldeans, mentioned in Isaiah 13:19, I have already explained to have been a colony of astronomers, planted in Babylon by the Assyrian kings to carry on their astronomical observations, in which science they excelled.” Again, Isaiah 21:2, “Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media,” is applied by Dr. Keith to Cyrus, to which the noble author objects, as well as to the supposition “that the overthrow of Belshazzar during his drunken revelry was predicted in Scripture, and that the minute fulfillment by Cyrus is recorded by Xenophon.” “The feast of Belshazzar,” it is added, “does not appear to correspond with the festival described by Xenophon, which was apparently periodical, and which, not a portion of the nobles, but all the Babylonians, observed by drunkenness and revelry during the whole night.” “It also agrees with the mode in which Zopyrus got possession of Babylon.” Calvin seems to give it this turn, “A treacherous one shall find treachery,” etc. Further comments are then made upon Isaiah 44 and 45, and on Jeremiah 50 and 51, evading the force of their application to Cyrus, and combating with some degree of success the assertions of Keith; for the noble author, who is earnest in pulling down, is ingenious in building up. “From this short examination, it appears that the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 50 and 51) corresponds with the capture of Babylon by Darius the Mede of Scripture, and by Darius Hystaspes, according to Herodotus.” Some writers have supposed Cyrus to be identical with this Darius the Mede; and Archbishop Secker acknowledges some ground for such a conjecture. “The first year of Darius the Mede is by the LXX. translated the first year of Cyrus,” ²⁵ and the Canon of Ptolemy favors the identity. “Now all agree, as far as I have seen,” says Wintle, “that the year of the expiration of the captivity, or the year that Cyrus issued his decree in favor of the Jews, was the year 212 of the era of Nabonassar, or 536 A.C.; and there is no doubt but Darius the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, according to Daniel, from the capture of Babylon, till this same first year of Cyrus, or till the commencement of the reign alloted by Scripture to Cyrus the Persian.” “The Canon certainly allots nine years’ reign to Cyrus over Babylon, of which space the two former years are usually allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede, by the advocates of Xenophon.” (Prelim. Dissertation.) Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias all agree in the original superiority of the Medes, till the victories of Cyrus turned the scale, and gave rise to the Persian dynasty. At the fall of Babylon, and during the life of Darius, the Medes are mentioned by Daniel as superior, but at the accession of Cyrus this order is reversed, and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, all assign the foremost place to the Persians.

The life of Daniel, Rosenmuller reminds us, was prolonged beyond the first year of king çwrk, Coresh, for the tenth chapter informs us of his vision in the third year of that monarch’s reign. He explains the apparent contradiction, by saying that it was enough for Daniel to live, or to the liberation of the Jews in the first year of the reign of Coresh; that was the crowning event of his prolonged existence. The conjectures of Bertholdt and Aben-Ezra are mentioned, only to be disposed of by a few words of censure. An ingenious conjecture of a French critic is found in the Encycl. Theol., Liv. 27. The objection of Bleek, Ewald, Winer, and De Wette, are ably treated at length by Hengstenberg, and really meet with more serious attention than they deserve. It is a useless waste of precious time to enter minutely into every “phantasy” of the restless neology of Germany, while the chronology of Daniel’s life will form the subject of a subsequent Dissertation. As some Neologians dwell much on the historian CTESIAS, and lest the unlearned reader should be misled by their confident assertions, we may here state that we have only an epitome of his work preserved by the patriarch Photius. Bahr states that he lived about 400 B.C., in the reign of Darius Nothus, being a Greek physician who remained seventeen years at the Persian court. Diodorus informs us that he obtained his information from the royal archives, but there are so many anachronisms and errors of various kinds, that his statements cannot be safely followed as if historically correct. Ctesias, for instance, denies all relationship between Cyrus and Astyages. According to him, he defeated Astyages, invested his daughter Amytis with the honors of a queen, and afterwards married her. F. W. NEWMAN, indeed, prefers this narrative to that of both Herodotus and Xenophon, and thereby renders their testimony to the scriptural record uncertain and valueless. He also treats “the few facts” in regard to the Persian wars, “which the epitomator has extracted as differing from Herodotus,” as carrying with them “high probability.” The closing scene of his career, as depicted in the narrative of Ctesias, is pronounced “beyond comparison more credible” than that of Herodotus. This great conqueror died the third day after his wound in a battle with “the Derbices,” and was buried in that monument at Pasargadae, which the Macedonians broke open two centuries afterwards, (Strabo, lib. 15 § 3; Arrian, lib. vi. § 29,) and which has lately been explored and described by Morier and Sir R. K. Porter. ²⁶

Notwithstanding the hypothesis which has lately found favor with the modern writers whose worlds we have quoted, we feel that the views of the older critics are preferable; and, on the whole, CALVIN’S exposition can only be improved upon in minor details. The authorities enumerated by

Archbishop Secker, as given by Wintle in his preface, page 18 and following, are worthy of attentive perusal; and we must refer again to Hengstenberg’s able replies to a variety of objections which we are unable to notice. See Daniel 1:6 and following, Edit. Ed.

DISSERTATION 7.

THE KING’S DREAM.

Daniel 2:1

ITS DATE. — The assertion of the first verse has created some difficulty, in consequence of its not allowing time enough for the Jewish youth to become a man. Jerome attempts to solve it by supposing the point of departure to be not his reign over Judea, but of his dominion over other nations, as the Assyrians and Egyptians. He seems justified in this view by the words of Josephus, (Antiq., lib. 10 chapter 10. § 3,) who distinctly refers the dream to the second year “after the laying waste of Egypt.” Rosenmuller objects to this explanation, and to that of C. B. Michaelis, and adopts that of Saadias, who supposes the dream to have happened in the second year, but not to be interpreted till the conclusion of the third.

ITS ORIGIN. — Nothing is more difficult to reduce to philosophic laws than the theory of dreams and their interpretation. The researches of physical science have thrown more light on the subject than all the guesses of ancient or modern divines. Jerome, for instance, thought that in this case, “the shadow of the dream remained,” a sort of breath (aura) and trace remaining in the mind of the king. It is of no use whatever to seek for much light on these subjects in the works of the ancients, whether Fathers or Reformers; they are constantly displaying their ignorance whenever they treat of subjects within the domain of psychological science. The physician has now become a far safer guide than the divine. Although Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was supernatural in its origin, yet it seems like ordinary ones in its departing from the sleeper while he is completely unconscious of its subject.

Physical researches have proved the truth of Calvin’s assertion on verse third, that “Scientia est generalis et perpetua.” Explanations have happily passed away from the theologian and the metaphysician to the physician and the chemist. The brain is now admitted to be the organ through which the mind acts during both the activity and the repose of the body, and dreams are now known to depend upon physical causes acting through the nerves upon the brain. The late researches of the celebrated chemist Baron Reichenbach seem to have led us one step nearer to the true explanation of these singular phenomena; the discovery of odyle, a new imponderable agent, like caloric and electricity, has enabled the modern philosopher to trace some of the laws of natural and artificial sleep. The existence of odyle in magnets, crystals, and the animal frame, and its intimate connection with lucidity, and impressions conveyed to the sensorium during magnetic sleep, seems now to be received by the best psychologists; their experiments will, doubtless, lead to our ascertaining the laws which regulate dreaming; and if the results said to be obtained by Mr. Lewis, Major Buckley, and Dr. William Gregory of Edinburgh, are ultimately admitted as facts by the scientific world, a new method of explaining the operations of the mind in sleep will be completely established. — See the “Letters” published by the Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh, 1 volume 12mo. 1851.

This contrast between the ancient and modern methods of explanation is strikingly exemplified by Calvin’s reference to the Daimones on page 119, which requires some elucidation to render it intelligible to the general reader.

The philosophers of Greece held various theories concerning them, among which that recorded by Plato in the Phaedrus is the most singular. He commences by asserting the immortality of the soul, and its essential existence from all eternity. The explanation of this idea, as it really is, he treats as divine, but its similitude as human and readily comprehended. The simile is remarkable. The deities have all a chariot and horses, which are perfect, but ours have two horses, each of contrary dispositions. A whole armament of these winged spirits are led on under the concave of heaven, Jupiter himself leading the armament of gods and daimones. In attempting to ascend, the perfect horses of the deities succeed in reaching the convex surface, which no poet ever has described or will describe worthily; but some charioteers fail in their efforts, because one of their horses is depraved, and ever tends downwards towards the earth. In consequence of this depravity, the utmost confusion occurs — the daimones loose their wings and fall to earth, and become human souls. But the various ranks which arise from them deserve especial notice. Those who have beheld most of the glories beyond the heavenly concave become philosophers, and the next to them kings and warriors. Seven other classes of men spring up in the following order: — politicians, physicians, prophets, poets, farmers, sophists, and tyrants. After ten thousand years, the soul may recover its wings, and be judged — some in heaven and others in courts of justice under the earth, while some pass into beasts and then return again to bodies of men. This notion of the origin of the soul from the daimones is a very singular one, and helps us to understand the double sense of the word, like that of angels among us, both good and bad. Though it is not difficult to perceive its connection with dreaming, as the medium of intercourse between the souls of men and the disembodied spirits, yet such conjectures throw no light whatever upon the king’s dream before us.

The passages alluded to by Calvin from Cicero are found in the First and Second Books De Divinatione. They consist of extracts from Ennius, and relate the fabled dreams of Priam, Tarquinius Superbus, and the mother of Phalaris, as well as that remarkable one which the magi are said to have interpreted for Cyrus. In the Second Book, Cicero argues wisely and strenuously against the divine origin of dreams. To pay the slightest attention to them he deems the mark of a weak, superstitious, and driveling mind. He inveighs strongly against the pretense to interpret them, which had become a complete traffic, and displayed the imposture which always flourishes wherever there are dupes to feed it. He combats the views of Aristotle, which Calvin quotes, and supplies much material for discussion though but little illustration of our subject. The passages above referred to will be found quoted and explained in Colquhoun’s History of Magic, volume 1, while some useful observations on sleep and dreams occur in page 60 and following.

DISSERTATION 8.

THE IMAGE AND ITS INTERPRETATION.

Daniel 2:38

“THOU art this head of gold.” A question has arisen whether this expression relates to Nebuchadnezzar personally, or to his empire and dynasty continued to his grandson. The principle is an important one, although history has already removed all difficulty as to the facts. C. B. Michaelis, Willet, Wells, and others, consider the monarch as the representative of his empire, not only during his life but until its overthrow. In the quaint language of Willet, “In this short sentence, thou art the head of gold, there are as many figures as words.” Thou, that is, thy kingdom; art, meaning signifiest or representest; head, means “the antiquity and priority of that kingdom, and the knowledge and wisdom of that nation;” gold, “betokeneth their riches, prosperity, and flourishing estate.” Compare also Isaiah 14:4, and Jeremiah 51:7, where the epithet golden alludes to the majesty and wealth of the city. Wintle interprets the golden head as representing the duration of the empire of Babylon from Ninus to Belshazzar, a period of 700 years; but this is objectionable, since the father of Nebuchadnezzar was of a different race from the early sovereigns of Babylon, and the vision becomes far more emphatic, by being limited to Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors. Oecolampadius limits the period to his own times, and gives an ingenious reason for the head being of gold. He quotes the authorities for the extensive dominion of this king, viz.,

Berosus known to us through Josephus, and Megasthenes through Eusebius, as well as Orosius, who extend his sway over Syria, Armenia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Lybia, and even Spain; but this commentator is not satisfied with this allusion. He explains it of the justness of his administration. His earlier years were more righteous than his later, and though many faults may be detected in him, yet he was less open to the charge of injustice than the Persians and Greeks who succeeded him.

Daniel 2:39. The SECOND KINGDOM is the Medo-Persian, denoted according to Josephus by the two arms. Wintle very appositely quotes Claudian —

*Medus ademit* *Assyrio, Medoque tulit moderamina Perses. [^f349]*

The Vulgate here introduces the adjective “silver,” adopting it from Daniel 2:32, not as a translation, but, according to Rosenmuller, as a modus interpretamenti.

The THIRD KINGDOM is that of the Greeks, but the FOURTH is variously interpreted. It relates to either the successors of Alexander or to the Romans. The majority of the older commentators agreed with CALVIN in thinking it to mean the Roman empire, viz., Oecolampadius, Bullinger, Melancthon and Osiander, while Grotius and Rosenmuller, and Cosmas, the Indian traveler whom we have previously referred to as known to us through Montfaucon, advocate its reference to the Seleucidae and Lagidae. Poole’s Synopsis will furnish the reader with long lists of varying opinions, each fortified by its own reasons, and Willet has carefully collected and arranged the arguments on both sides. The divines of Germany have added their conjectures to those which have preceded them. Kuinoel in his theological commentaries has preserved the view of Velthusen ²⁷ and others; while the absurdities which some of them propose may be understood from the opinion of Harenberg, who thinks the stone which destroyed the image to be the sons and grandsons of Nebuchadnezzar, and Doederlein in his notes to Grotius, and Scharfenberg in his “Observations on Daniel,” approve the foolish conjecture.

A third view, very different from those which preceded it, has been ably stated and laboriously defended. DR. TODD of Dublin, in his valuable “Lectures on Antichrist,” considers the fourth empire as yet to come. The kingdoms of Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus, are said to be signified by the golden head, that of Alexander by the silver breast and arms, the Roman by the brass, while the iron prefigures the cruel and resistless sway of Antichrist, which shall not be overthrown till the second advent of Messiah. We shall have future opportunities for discussing this theory more at length; it has necessarily enlisted him in the ranks of the Futurists, whom Birks has confuted at length in his “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy.” We refer the student to these two worlds, each excellent of its kind, while we defer the discussion of this most interesting question till we treat the chapters contained in our second volume.

In descending to details, the arms of the image have been treated as symbols of the Medo-Persian empire; Theodoret considering the right arm to represent one, and the left the other. Various reasons have been given for the implied inferiority. Willet adopts one the direct contrary of Calvin’s. While one author treats the inferiority as moral, in consequence of a general corruption of manners, Willet thinks the “government more tolerable and equal toward the people of God.” Some have thought the silver to refer to remarkable wealth, and others to superior wisdom and eloquence. The belly and thighs being of brass, are thought to prefigure the intemperance, and yet the firmness of the Grecian powers. Alexander’s personal debauchery and extravagance is said to be hinted at. The brass is said to imply his warlike disposition and his invincible spirit. The iron is thought to be peculiarly characteristic of the conquests of Rome; the mingling with clay signifies “the division and dissension of the kingdom,” says Willet; while others refer it to the marriages between the Roman generals and the barbarians, or generally to the intermingling of the conquerors of the world with the tribes whom they subdued. The two legs are said to be the two great divisions of the Roman empire after the time of Constantine, though those who treat them as belonging to the successors of Alexander, think they mean Egypt and Syria. The mingling with the seed of men (Daniel 2:43) is interpreted of the admission of the subject allies to the freedom of the state (donati civitate), and also of the fusion between the barbarians and the Romans, in the late periods of the declining empire. Whether the toes represent individual kings or distinct kingdoms, has been discussed by Birks in his “Elements of Prophecy.”

DISSERTATION 9.

THE STONE CUT WITHOUT HANDS.

Daniel 2:45

THE STONE “CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN” is generally interpreted of the kingdom of Messiah, some writers applying it to his first Advent, and others to his second. If the fourth kingdom be the Roman, then the stone was cut “without hands,” either at the birth of Christ, or, as Calvin when answering Abarbanel prefers, at the first spread of the Gospel. The reason why a “stone” here symbolizes “the kingdom of the heavens,” is because Christ is spoken of in Scripture as a chief corner-stone. The passages in the Psalms, Isaiah, and Matthew, and others, are too familiar to the reader to require quotation. The mountain is supposed to be, either the Virgin Mary, or the Jewish people; without hands, may allude to our Savior’s marvelous birth, or to his spiritual independence of all human agency. The ancient fathers, as well as the modern reformers, agree in this allusion to Christ. See Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph., section 32; Irenaeus adv. Haer., verse 21; Tertullian, De Resur., page 61; Apolog., page 869; Cyprian adv. Jud., lib. 2. section 17; Augustine in Psalm 98.

The question of the greatest interest is, whether this prophecy has been fulfilled at the first Advent, or is yet to be accomplished at the second. Willet has taken Calvin to task for his “insufficient” answers to the “Rabbine Barbanel,” but as they vary only on minor points, it is not necessary to quote the corrections of his thoughtful monitor.

The theory of Joseph Mede, the great advocate of the year-day system, may be noticed here. He supposes the stone cut out at the first Advent, but not to smite the image till the second. This involves the existence of the Roman empire, throughout the whole Christian dispensation — an admission that Calvin would not make, and should not be hastily allowed. DR. TODD correctly remarks, “it assumes the Roman empire to be still in existence,” and it further assumes that the prophecies revealed to Daniel advance beyond the first Advent of Messiah. CALVIN and the older commentators treat them as terminating with the establishment of the Gospel dispensation. TERTULLIAN, indeed, applies this passage to the second Advent, but MALDONATUS considers that expositor as “insanus,” who thinks the Roman empire to be still existing. Yet both BELLARMINE, and BIRKS argue for its present continuance, and each founds upon it his own views of Scripture prophecy.

As we shall have other opportunities for discussing these questions in our second volume, we simply state that CALVIN and our chief Reformers considered all Daniel’s prophecies summed up and satisfied by the first Advent of Christ. As they did not adopt the year-day system, they treated these predictions as pointing the Jews to the coming of their Messiah, and as depicting the various kingdoms and sovereigns which should arise, and affect by their progress and dissensions the Holy Land. It never once occurred to them that the Book of Daniel relates in any way to the details of the history of modern Europe, and of either the Court or the Church of Rome.

Another view hinted at, but disapproved by BISHOP NEWTON, is that the third empire relates solely to Alexander, the fourth to his successors in Syria and Egypt, and the stone cut without hands to the Roman dominion. But with this popular writer as well as with Joseph Mede — the received view of the iron portion of the image is “little less than an article of faith.” ²⁸ The stone he reminds us was quite different from the image, so the kingdom of Christ was utterly distinct from the principalities of this world. He asserts that its smiting power was displayed at the first Advent, and is continued throughout the subsequent history of the world. But as BISHOP NEWTON is an advocate of the historical system of interpreting days for years, which CALVIN did not uphold, it is unnecessary to quote him further. The reader will, however, derive benefit from consulting the authorities which he has brought forward in rich abundance. ²⁹ As he is a valuable and a popular expounder of prophecy, it is necessary to make this passing allusion to so valuable an author; while the reader of these Lectures must be cautioned against adopting any views of prophecy which are inconsistent with the great principle upon which the Almighty deals with us, in our new covenant through Christ our Lord.

OECOLAMPADIUS in his comment upon Daniel 2:44, treats the kingdom of Christ as spiritual and eternal; like other earnest writers, he considers the troubles of his own days as peculiarly the marks of Antichrist. The blasphemy of the Mahometans, and the arrogance of the “Cata-baptists,” seem to him intolerable. He is especially vehement against those who urge the necessity of a second baptism, and deny the value of outward ordinances, as the ministry and the sacraments; and argues for the permanence of external ceremonies till the second Advent of Christ.

He considers verse forty-five to relate to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of mankind to judgment, but does not condemn the opinion of Jerome and other “fathers,” who refer it to the incarnation of our Lord. The mountain, says he, is Zion, and the people the Jews, and by his crucifixion, Christ is said to grow into a mountain and fill the earth. He quotes Hippolytus as sanctioning its reference to the second Advent; and objects to the views of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius, who as Chiliasts turned this passage to their purpose. The gross ideas of some Jews and Christians, respecting a thousand years of carnal enjoyment upon earth, are wisely reprobated, and some very profitable remarks are made upon the spiritual reign of Christ in the hearts and souls of his people. Oecolampadius is on this occasion remarkably practical and searching in his comment; he is not so critical and literal as CALVIN, but he develops more of the deep feelings of the mature Christian than any other Reformer does on the OLD TESTAMENT.

DISSERTATION 10.

THE COLOSSUS AT DURA.

Daniel 3:1

MANY points of interest are connected with the narrative of this chapter.

1. The time of its erection. This is unknown; various conjectures have been offered, but not the slightest historical foundation proved for any of them. Theodoret and Chrysostom fix upon the eighteenth year of the king’s reign.

2. The object of its erection. It was probably intended to entrap the Jews and all conscientious worshippers of Jehovah. Calvin’s view is adopted by the best writers.

3. In whose honor was it erected? Willet agrees with Calvin in thinking it was consecrated to some deity, as Bel, the chief object of his worship.

4. The place of its erection was the plain called by Ptolemy, Deira, between Chaltopis and Cissia, in the region of Susan. ³⁰ The editor of the Chisian Codex derives it from the Persian word dooran, meaning an enclosure, thus strengthening the view of Jerome, that it was erected in an enclosure within the city.

A singular feature in the earliest commentators is the mystical application of such subjects. Chrysostom, for instance, takes it to denote covetousness; ³¹ and Jerome, (in loc.,) false doctrine and heresy; and Irenaeus, the pomp and pride of the world, under the mastery of Satan. ³²

The disproportion of its form has occasioned some difference among expositors. Bertholdt, as usual, is full of faultfinding. “How was it possible for it to stand of itself?” But there is no proof that the statue had throughout a human form. Columns with a human head on the top were often erected by the Asiatics in honor of their deities. Münter in his Religion of the Babylonians, treats it as similar to the Amyclaean Apollo, a simple column, to which a head and feet were added. Gesenius, too, has observed that the ruins of the tower of Belus are imposing only from their colossal size, and not from their proportions; the Babylonians preferred everything huge, irregular, and grotesque. Idol-pillars were commonly erected by the Assyrians in honor of their deities. If, however, we strictly limit the word µlx, tzelem, to a human figure complete in all its parts, we may still vindicate the truth of Daniel by allowing for a pedestal which would be necessary. The proportion of six to one is correct: for a human figure; hence with a pedestal, ten to one by no means violates the principles of art. Of the difficulty of raising it we are no judges. The able remarks of Heeren are exactly suited to the occasion, — “The circle of our experience is too limited for us to assign at once the scale of what is possible in other lands, in a different clime, and under other circumstances. Do not the Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall, and the rock temple at Elephanta, stand, as it were, in mockery of our criticism, which presumes to define the limits of the united power of whole nations?” ³³

The material of the Colossus is worthy of notice. It is scarcely possible that it could be all of gold. Some, have thought it to have been hollow like the Colossus of Rhodes, which exceeded it in height by ten cubits. (Pliny His. Nat., 34 § 18.) Chrysostom thought it made of wood, and only covered with gold plating, and certainly we have authority for such a view from Exodus 39:38, where an altar made of acacia wood, and covered with gold, is termed golden; and that in Exodus 39:39, merely covered with brass, is termed brazen. The immense treasures heaped together at Babylon favor the possibility of sufficient gold being at hand to cover so large a statue; while the weight of the golden statue of Bel, with its steps and seat, as recorded both by Herodotus and Diodorus, is far from sufficient to allow of their being massive gold throughout. Thus profane history becomes exceedingly valuable in enabling us to interpret correctly the language of the Old Testament. Many minds are inclined at once to discredit the erection of any such colossus all of gold; the mechanical and artistic difficulties are far too great; but when we find such historians giving us accounts of similar erections made of plated wood, or consisting of a mere hollow case, plated over, the whole of the difficulties vanish, everything is reduced at once within the bounds of credibility, the historical accuracy of Daniel is vindicated, the captious insinuations of disbelievers are repelled, and the mind of the earnest inquirer is at rest on the firm rock which patient investigation has provided for it.

Hengstenberg’s attention is occupied throughout this chapter with noticing the objections of his Neologian predecessors. De Wette, Bertholdt, and Bleek, have each attempted to discredit the historical veracity of Daniel. The period of the erection of the image — if ever erected at all — was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, say they, and his character is the supposed original of the fabulous Nebuchadnezzar, and the writer “merely invented these tales in order to inspire the Jews with fortitude under the religious persecutions of Antiochus.” ³⁴ Bertholdt also considers the address of the three Jews to the king as an instance of “revolting insolence and levity;” while Theodoret is quoted as “being amazed at the courage of these youths, their wisdom, their piety,” in language exactly in the spirit of Calvin himself. ³⁵ The preparation of the furnace has created some difficulty, especially when Chardin relates that a whole month has been taken up with feeding two ovens with fire, for the purpose of destroying criminals; but this objection is removed by the natural supposition that the king anticipated refusal, and had prepared beforehand to execute summary vengeance on all who disobeyed. “What result is gained by the miracle?” ask the disbelievers. “How disproportionate was the colossus,” he exclaims, “no such statue ever existed, no such miracle was ever performed.” But history puts to flight a whole host of conjectures, for Herodotus mentions a statue in the temple of Belus, and Diodorus Siculus confirms his account. ³⁶ Hengstenberg has collected a long list of authorities in proof of the erection of such statues by the ancient monarchs of the East, and we refer to his valuable labors for a reply to objections, which are happily unknown to the majority of our readers.

DISSERTATION 11.

THE NAMES OF THE MAGISTRATES.

Daniel 3:2

CALVIN has very judiciously declined to enter into the signification of each of these officers, as there is great difficulty in ascertaining the exact duties to be assigned to each. The best method of determining this point is to follow up the meaning of the corresponding words in the cognate languages of the East, and to bear in mind the officers of state at present in use. We will here state a few results of our researches, referring the reader for fuller information to Castell’s valuable Lexicon, and Rosenmuller’s and Wintle’s comments, and punctuating the words after the best foreign scholars.

aynprdçja, achas-dar-penaja, is derived from the Persian by both Castell and Rosenmuller; its meaning is majestatis janitores. Wintle translates correctly satraps.

ayngs signaja, is also Persian; Rosenmuller renders it supremus præfectus, and Wintle, “senators,” implying a viceroy of the first rank.

atwjp, pach-vatha, is clearly equivalent to the Oriental “pasha.”

aydzgrda, adar-gaz-raja, the Septuagint translates by “consuls,” and Theodotion and Jerome by “leaders,” and Wintle by “judges.”

ayrbdg, gedab-raja, is commonly rendered “treasurers.”

ayrbtd, dethab-raja, signifies the superior officers of the law.

aytpt, tiph-taya, is clearly connected with the Turkish word mufti, who is the chief religious officer of the Mohamedan faith.

ynflç, sil-tonei, a general expression for “governors” Joseph Jacchiades has explained it fully in his Chaldee paraphrase.

Poole’s Synopsis may also be consulted with advantage. Oecolampadius departs here from his usual custom, by entering into the criticism of these words, and quoting Rabbi Saadias, the Septuagint, and the Chaldee paraphrasts.

DISSERTATION 12.

THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS.

Daniel 3:5

It is not possible to define, as Calvin reminds us, what these instruments were. Researches have been made into the etymology of the Chaldee words, and a comparison instituted between the properties implied and those of modern use and construction. Travelers in the East have compared the music of the present day with that recorded in this verse. A similarity, too, has been pointed out between the instruments of the Syrians and Greeks. As no practical advantage can arise from quoting the conjectures of various writers, we simply refer to Wintle and Rosenmuller in loc., where some interesting information is given in extenso. Poole’s Synopsis also supplies much verbal criticism. Oecolampadius passes by altogether any explanation of these instruments, but makes some very appropriate practical comments. True religious worship, he justly observes, does not need this variety of external incentive; a pure conscience with trust in God and obedience to his laws is the best music in his eyes, while he applauds Plato’s description of the best music which a soul can offer to its Creator. Antichrist, he asserts, delights in such outward and sensual gratification’s, while the advanced Christian worships in spirit, calmly, quietly, and inwardly. True religion is thus the antagonist of all outward and idolatrous service; it is not prompted by fear nor promoted by a tyrant’s command, but requiring no visible parade of instrumental minstrelsy, it worships with a cheerful heart and a free and buoyant spirit, inspired by the hope of everlasting life through the promises of God in Christ. This sentiment, although 300 years old, is worthy of the Reformer who uttered and maintained it.

DISSERTATION 13.

THE SON OF GOD.

Daniel 3:25

THIS translation of the Chaldee words ˆyhla rbl, leber-alehin, in our version is liable to mistake. Wintle has more correctly rendered them “a son of a god.” It was far more likely that the heathen king would express his astonishment in this way than allude to what he could not comprehend, the appearance of the Logos in human form. Calvin correctly states it to be “one of the angels.” Angels are called in Scripture, says Wells, sons of God, as in Job 1:6, and Job 38:7. “Some angelic appearance” is the correct comment of Wintle. Jerome takes it as a type of Christ descending into Hades, and Munter asserts it to be our Lord himself. Wells neither affirms nor denies this view, which has been held by a number of commentators who consider that the Logos appeared in human form on several occasions during patriarchal and Ante-Messianic times. Justin Martyr makes the same assertion when describing the pre-existence of the Logos to his philosophic persecutors. Willet leans to this view, after summing up a variety of opinions from able writers. Some of his reflections on the general narrative are edifying; but his discussion on the nature of angels is fancifully unprofitable, and his ignorance of natural science is singularly displayed in his treatment of the ordinary and extraordinary action of fire. Rosenmuller translates, “like a son of the gods,” that is an angel, and the writers quoted by Poole come to the same conclusion; but Oecolampadius, thinks the appearance to be that of Immanuel himself, and refers to other instances of his being visible to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. He fortifies his view by quotations from Chrysostom, Apollinarius, and other ecclesiastical authorities.

DISSERTATION 14.

A WATCHER.

Daniel 4:13

THIS is the correct rendering of the word ry[, gnir, but it has been conjectured that its meaning is the same as ryx, tzir, being the Chaldee word for “a messenger.” Jerome ingeniously conjectures it to be the same as the Greek word Iris, the messenger of heaven. In Job 36:30, the Hebrew is rya, air, where Origen reads Irin according to Archbishop Seeker. Willet replies to the question “why the angels are called watchmen,” and quotes Calvin’s reason with approbation. Rosenmuller approves of Jerome’s conjecture, and adduces Hom. Odys., lib. 18:5, in confirmation of it. He takes “the watcher and holy one” as a hendia-dys, reminding us that in Job 15:15, angels are called “holy ones” by the figure autonomasia. The Scholia of the Alexandrine Codex interpret the word eir, as equivalent to angel, and Isidorus Pelusiota, according to Rosenmuller, (Ep. 177, lib. 2,) considers the word to refer to the chief of angels. The Syrians in their hymns join watchers with angels as rejoicing over converted sinners, according to the learned editors of the Chisian Codex, page 127, edit. Rom. See also Critica Sacra, volume 7, edit. Frcof. The view of Oecolampadius is similar to those already expressed, but he takes the word “watcher” in the sense of an exciter or herald of divine punishment. R. Saadias supposes a terrible destroyer to be intended.

DISSERTATION 15.

THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.

Daniel 4:25

THE narrative of this chapter has met with much disbelief among the skeptical school of theology. The want of corresponding profane history is a subject of complaint. Origen found himself deserted by all ancient historians, and Jerome searched them in vain for any confirmation of the sacred text. We must remember, however, that the historians whom we reckon ancient, are very modern with reference to these early times. Megasthenes, for instance, wrote rather earlier than Berosus, about 280 A.C., at the court of Seleucus Nicator, king of Babylon, and we have only portions of their writings second hand. Diocles, the author of a Persian history, and Abydenus, of an Assyrian and Median, obtained their materials from Chaldee traditions, many ages after the events recorded. The Chaldee chroniclers, Hengstenberg assures us, were, notorious for their national vanity and boasting, ³⁷ and were not likely to record anything derogatory to their earliest hero. But even Bertholdt is compelled to confess that Abydenus has preserved a legend similar to the narrative of this chapter. “On ascending the roof of his palace, he became inspired by some god, and delivered himself as follows: — Babylonians! I Nebuchadnezzar foretell you a calamity that is to happen, which neither my ancestor Bel nor queen Beltis can persuade the Fates to avert. There shall come a Persian mule, (one having parents of different countries,) having your own gods in alliance with him, and shall impose servitude upon you, with the head of a Mede, the boast of the Assyrians.” ³⁸ Now madness and inspiration were usually connected by the ancients; the time and place too, correspond with Daniel’s narrative; the extasis occurred after the completion of his conquests, and the phrase, “by some god,” refers to a foreign deity, whom we know to be the Jehovah of the Hebrews. The narrative of the frenzy which rendered him unfit for government, is allowed to be credible by the chief skeptics of the continent. Michaelis allows “that this calamity more frequently attacks great and extraordinary minds than ordinary men.” Our physicians can now explain the reason through their improved knowledge of the brain and its functions. Pathological and psychological science is here more useful than all the conjectures of disbelieving theologians. In the early days of the Church, the greatest difficulty was found in taking this narrative literally: hence expositors treated it as an allegory. The king was held to represent Satan falling from heaven, and the whole account of his dwelling with the beasts of the field was taken figuratively, and rejected historically. Jerome, however, while he records this view at great length, adheres to the literal account. ³⁹

The disbelief of the narrative above referred to may have arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the sacred text. For some writers have affirmed a complete metamorphosis of the man into the beast; a conclusion by no means warranted by the language of the passage. Tertullian has correctly explained the clause, “his hair became like eagle’s feathers,” by capilli incuria horrorem aquilinum præferente, since it was a natural consequence of his wild mode of life, and a usual mark of the sensualizing effect of prolonged insanity. And with reference to the time of this affliction, Hengstenberg quotes Calvin with approbation, for agreeing with the idea of an indefinite period implied by the word “seven.” Calvin, however, inclines too much towards the theory of the indefinite use of definite numbers. There seems no good reason why the number “seven” should not be taken strictly and literally, nor why the word “times” ˆwnd[, gni-danin, should not mean years. Even Hengstenberg gives way too much to the plausible conceits of his wily antagonists. Rosenmuller correctly limits the expression to seven years, a period by no means unnatural for the continuance of a highly excited state of the brain, producing mania, accompanied by all the symptoms mentioned in this chapter. Oecolampadius views it as a case of mental disease, and quotes many similar narratives from Aben-Ezra, Pausanias, and Augustine, bringing forward the fables of the heathen poets, as illustrating the passage. For the opinion of Tertullian, and various Jewish and continental writers, Kitto’s Bibl. Cyclop. may be consulted, especially as the view there set forth by Dr. Wright is sound, judicious, and practical.

DISSERTATION 16.

THE EDICT OF PRAISE.

Daniel 4:37

THIS monarch probably lived but a single year after his recovery; and some writers have thought that his restoration produced a conversion to the worship of the one true God. But Hengstenberg agrees with our author: “Compare CALVIN on the passages,” says he, “who strikingly proves from them the incorrectness of the opinion of very many expositors as to the radical and entire conversion of Nebuchadnezzar.” Calvin is clearly right, for it was customary with the Persians to blend the doctrines of Zoroaster with the Babylonian astrology. ⁴⁰ The scriptural language of the king has been treated as an argument against the authenticity of the decree. Eichhorn and Bertholdt object to his speaking like an orthodox Jew in the phraseology of the Old Testament. But the affinity of certain phrases with other passages of Scripture, is no argument against its authenticity. The monarch had held much intercourse with Daniel; he had doubtless heard his method of expressing reverence and respect for the one true God, and he would repeat such expressions the more exactly in proportion to his want of personal experience of their meaning. In the case of the edict of Cyrus, brief as it is, several references are found to the prophecies of Isaiah. ⁴¹

As to the change of person from the third to the first, Hengstenberg approves of Calvin’s suggestion. Oecolampadius considers the king really converted, and through knowing the angel to be the Christ, he supposes him not only a convert, but an apostle. This is far too favorable a view of his character; but it is instructive to ascertain the decisions of various eminent Reformers, and to observe which of them stands the scrutinizing test of an appeal to posterity.

DISSERTATION 17.

BELSHAZZAR AND THE FEAST.

Daniel 1:1, 2.

THIS monarch is here said to be the son of Nebuchadnezzar. The Duke of Manchester takes this literally, while the usual opinion is that he was his grandson. “No king,” says he, “in Berosus, Megasthenes, or Polyhistor, corresponds with him. The Scripture says that Nebuchadnezzar was his father, which most people say means grandfather, and it is not to be denied, that by son, grandson may be intended; but in this case it is contrary to all the evidence we have on the subject. The author of the Scholastical History reports that Belshazzar was son of the daughter of Darius. Nebuchadnezzar the Second did, as I conceive, marry the daughter of Darius, which would make Belshazzar his son. But admitting that Belshazzar was paternal grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, none of the successors of Nebuchadnezzar could have been in that relation to him.” The Persian writer Merkhond is the next quoted, by whose help the duke identifies Ka’oos with Nebuchadnezzar the First, Afrasiab with Astyages, and Siyawesh, the son of Ka’oos, with Belshazzar. It is then conjectured that this king never reigned except during his father’s lifetime: if he was “the king” during his father’s madness, the omission of his name by profane historians is thus accounted for. An Oxford MS. is quoted to shew “that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were reigning at Babylon when Darius and Coresch were reigning over Persia. ⁴²

This hypothesis interferes so much with the ordinary deductions from ancient historians, that we must not pass it over without special notice.

The received hypothesis has been so clearly stated by Wells, that reference to it is all that is needed. ⁴³ Jeremiah (Jeremiah 27:6) had predicted that Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom was to be prolonged through the life of his son and his son’s son. Ptolemy’s Astronomical Canon is the best known authority for the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors, as we have detailed them in a former Dissertation, and they are also found in a readable form in Stackhouse’s History of the Bible. ⁴⁴ The last of these kings is Nabonadius, and he is supposed to be the same as the Nabonnedus

of Berosus, the Labynetus of Herodotus, and the Belshazzar of Daniel. ⁴⁵

During his reign, says Berosus, the walls of the city near the river were strengthened by brick-work and bitumen; and in its seventeenth year Cyrus advanced against Babylon, the king met him with a large army, but was defeated, and then enclosed himself within Borsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and having determined to pull down its outer fortifications, he returned to Borsippa and besieged it. Nabonnedus then gave himself up, and Cyrus permitted him to close his life peaceably in Carmania, where he remained till his death. The narrative of Herodotus is slightly at variance with this. Cyrus made war against Labynetus, the son of Nitocris, a very spirited and powerful queen, and succeeded to the kingdom of Assyria “from his fathers.” ⁴⁶ Having turned the stream of the river Euphrates, he entered the city through its bed, and when the center was captured, those who dwelt at the extremities were ignorant of their disaster, for they “were celebrating a festival that day with dancing and all manner of rejoicing, till they received certain information of the general fate. And thus Babylon was the first time taken.” Herodotus also records its second capture through the treachery of Zopyrus, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, (lib. 3 section. 159;) and with this second capture the noble duke supposes the scriptural narrative to be co-incident.

The Cyropaedia of Xenophon affords its testimony to a similar event, and as its historic value has been altogether denied, we cannot certainly pronounce the event the same. Vitringa has vindicated its historical truth, and Gesenius and Bertholdt have admitted it. Hengstenberg quotes lib. 7 section. 5, combines it with Herod., lib. 1 section. 191, and remarks, “This testimony of Xenophon, too, is so much the more in our favor, as it confirms the particular circumstance that the nobles were at the feast assembled at the table of the king.” ⁴⁷ He adds, “The precise agreement of Daniel with Herodotus and Xenophon is acknowledged by Munter, 50 100 page 67, to be astonishing, and even Gesenius, Z. Jes. 1, page 655, cannot help calling it very astonishing.” For a fuller discussion of all details, we refer at length to his conclusive work, merely giving our vote in his favor, and against the ingenious hypothesis which it has become necessary to state and explain.

THE GREAT FEAST. — The original word for feast is “bread,” and this being united with “wine,” becomes the usual mode of describing an eastern feast, where the people are all great eaters of bread. “To eat bread,” and to “set on bread,” is the scriptural method of indicating a feast. The number of the guests may not have amounted to a thousand, as this is an eastern expression for a large and surprising number, yet it is not incredible, since Harmer has informed us that “a quadrangular court, within the first or outer gate of the palace, was made use of for this purpose.” ⁴⁸ Willet reminds us of this eastern way of multiplying numbers by alluding to the 10,000 guests said to be present at Alexander’s feast, and each of whom received a golden cup. Ptolemy, the father of Cleopatra, made a similar banquet for Pompey. It is supposed to have been an annual solemnity in honor of some deity, and the art of “tasting of the wine” (verse 2) alludes to the custom of tasting the libation previous to the sacrifice. Wintle very appositely quotes Virgil, AEn. lib. i. 741, —

*“Primaque libato summo tenus attigit ore.”*

This view is rendered highly probable by the Chaldean custom recorded by Athenaeus, ⁴⁹ of sacrificing to small images, of various metals, in human shape, an idolatry described in Baruch, Daniel 6: 3. Willet quotes Junius as stating that this feast occurred on the 16th day of the month Loon, when it approached in character the Saturnalia and Bacchanalia of the Greeks. “Tasting the wine” is rendered by the Vulgate and the Alexandrine version as if its sense were “drunken,” and thus the general idea of licentious revelry is carried out.

DISSERTATION 18.

THE QUEEN.

Daniel 5:10

CALVIN doubts whether this was the wife or grandmother of Belshazzar. But there is another possible solution. Prideaux supposes she was the mother of the king, following the narrative of Herodotus, though Grotius and Josephus represent her as the widow of Nebuchadnezzar. The author of “The Times of Daniel” differs from the received view of the times of Nitocris; she reigned, he concludes, “in the generation before Nebuchadnezzar’s father.” Her name is not found in the Astronomical Canon, and consequently either Herodotus or the Canon must be mistaken. Nitocris, says Herodotus, lived five generations after Semiramis, but then, according to Bryant, eight different periods have been assigned for his reign, between A.C. 2177 and 713. Notwithstanding the celebrity which Herodotus has conferred upon his name, it is impossible now to ascertain whether she was the queen-mother alluded to in the text, but it is equally injudicious to pronounce positively that she was not. Hengstenberg has discussed this question with his usual sagacity. Heeren makes her the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, and probably his wife; but Hengstenberg inclines to the view of her being the queen-mother. “We may then justly compare what Herodotus says of Nitocris with that which occurs here of the queen, and it only need be quoted to shew a perfect agreement.” ⁵⁰ Rosenmuller agrees with Jerome in thinking her the widow of Nebuchadnezzar, and Oecolampadius adopts the same view, when commenting with great spirit and animation on this point.

DISSERTATION 19.

THE HAND-WRITING ON THE WALL.

Daniel 5:25

WE are constantly reminded of the necessity of a knowledge of words, if we would interpret aright the Word of God. That record which is emphatically “The Word,” is composed in detail of many words, and it is literally impossible so to understand Holy Scripture as to expound it fully, without a knowledge and use of single expressions. This remark is peculiarly applicable in the present instance. CALVIN takes each word separately in the perfect tense, while in the Arabic, the past participle is used, viz., mensuratum, appensum, divisum. anm, mene, is the participle pihel of the verb anm, mana, numeravit, meaning to set bounds to the continuance of anything.

lqt, tekel, is the Chaldee word for the Hebrew lqç, shekel, to weigh — the shekel being a standard weight of silver money. The reference is to the Almighty weighing in the balances of Justice the conduct of the king.

≈ysrpw, upharsin et dividentes; Calvin thus literally, and Rosenmuller explains that the active participle plural is taken impersonally, and is thus equal to the part. pass. sing. The ending ˆ, n, it must be recollected, is the Chaldee equivalent for the Hebrew µ.

The allusion to the balance in relation to a kingdom is common among ancient classical writers. Homer, Iliad, lib. 22 and Virgil, AEn., lib. 12, contain instances; as well as the Paradise Lost, Book 6.

DISSERTATION 20.

THE MEDES AND PERSIANS.

Daniel 5:28

IT is highly interesting to the student of prophecy to trace the origin and progress of these empires which have gained repute in the history of our race. This interest is increased when we discover that the narratives of profane writers illustrate the sacred text. And as great efforts have been made to impugn the authenticity of this Book, we must again refer to some of the arguments which induce the best divines to rely on its historical accuracy.

The history of Media and its people frequently impinges upon the eccentric orbit of the Jewish tribes. It has been supposed that the name of the country was derived from ydk, chadi, the third son of Japhet, but this conjecture is rendered futile, when we remember that the first establishment of the kingdom dates only 150 years before Cyrus. It must never be forgotten, when treating of these early times, how very modern all writers are who lived after the times of Solomon. To us they appear ancient, and their authority for the truth of an event conclusive; but those historians of Asia, upon whom we are compelled to rely, lived many ages after the occurrences which they record. It seems now to be admitted, that we have lost many centuries between the flood and Abraham; hence the attempt to assign the origin of any empire to the immediate descendants of Noah is highly deceptive. We can only take the best testimony which we have, but with it we must correct the uncertainty of even the most positive assertions. The Medes, if we may trust Herodotus, were an offset from the Assyrians. They broke off from their sway, after the Assyrians had held the empire of Upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years. The interesting story of Deioces, and the foundation of Ecbatana is recorded, the account of that city corresponding precisely with that handed down to us in the Book of Judith. ⁵¹ In process of time the neighboring tribes were subdued and united, till Phraortes, having reduced the Persians under his dominion, led the united nations against the Assyrians. Cyaxares his son succeeded him, and both extended and consolidated the Median sway. Astyages, the grandfather of Cyrus, was his son and successor; and during the whole period of these monarchs’ reigns province after province was added to the growing empire. The constant testimony of history from Herodotus to Ctesias asserts the acquisition of Media by Cyrus to have been a forcible seizure. Here our chief object is to impress upon the reader the scantiness of our early materials, and the distance of time at which some of the historians who record them lived after the events. Ctesias, for instance, was a young physician at the Court of Artaxerxes, the brother of Cyrus the younger. Although he wrote twenty-three books of Persian history, we have but a few fragments collected by the diligence of Photion. Our attention is therefore turned with the greatest earnestness towards the deciphering of the monuments which abound on the banks of the rivers of Babylonia, and throughout the whole land of Shinar. These have become the best evidence in favor of the trustworthiness of Daniel, and against the ingenious and inconsistent guesses of neology.

M. M. J. Baillie Fraser and W. Francis Ainsworth have treated the geological and geographical portion of the subject with great success; the former in his work on “Mesopotamia and Assyria,” and the latter in “Geological Researches.” See also the two papers on “The rivers and cities of Babylonia” by the latter writer, in the New Monthly Magazine, August and September, 1845. The Duke of Manchester has collected much information from ancient historians, but has not availed himself of the antiquarian researches, which describe and identify the mounds and ruins at present in existence. Vaux’s “Nineveh and Persepolis” also affords much material illustrative of this portion of Daniel.

DISSERTATION 21.

DARIUS THE MEDE.

Daniel 5:31

THE received views respecting this celebrated monarch have lately been impugned by the noble author of “The Times of Daniel.” He gives five reasons for believing him to be Darius Hystaspes instead of the Cyaxares of Xenophon, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus. This assertion will therefore require some notice in detail, and compel us to repeat some statements with which the student of ancient history is familiar.

The views of the author already alluded to are, thus expressed, — “Three kings,” it is said, “of the name of Darius occur in Scripture; must we not presume that the first Darius there corresponds with Darius the first in profane history? that the second in each equally agree; and that the third Darius, with whom the list terminates in Scripture, is the third Darius with whom the line of Persian kings closes?” There are strong marks in corroboration of the Median of this verse being Hystaspes; some of these are as follows: — First, each is said to have taken Babylon. Both levied taxes, so that the second verse of chapter. 6 is said to be parallel to Herodotus, Book 3, and Strabo, ⁵² Book 15. This levying taxes leads to a similar assertion respecting Ahasuerus in Esther, Esther 10:1, who reigned “from India even to Ethiopia.” (Esther 1:1.) “Now, Ahashverosh, (meaning Ahasuerus,) who succeeded Darius the Median, reigned over India,” and, according to Herodotus, Darius Hystaspes conquered India; hence this Mede was Darius Hystaspes. Pliny’s testimony is brought forward to shew that Susa was built by this Darius; ⁵³ Ahasuerus resided at Shushan, which is identical with Susa, hence the conclusion is the same. Other reasons are given, and other collateral assertions made. Authorities are quoted by which it is laid down that Ahasuerus was Xerxes, the history of Esther occurred during the captivity, the son of Ahasuerus was Darius Nothus, the third Darius was Codomanus. “To complete the evidence, I will contrast the identification which I propose with that which is now most generally approved of.” ⁵⁴

CANON OF PTOLEMY SCRIPTURE AS I PROPOSE

Darius the First Darius the Median. Xerxes Ahashverosh. Artaxerxes the First. Artaxerxes the First, (Coresch.) Darius the Second. Darius the Second. Artaxerxes the Second. Son of Ahashverosh. Ochus Artaxerxes the Second. Arostes. Darius the Third. Darius the Third, (fourth from Coresch, Daniel 11.)

It is also suggested that Jeremiah 50 and Jeremiah 51 of Jeremiah apply to this Darius and not to Cyrus, as Dr. Keith asserts. Jeremiah 51:11 and 28, are said to apply to Zopyrus, and the language of the chapter is on the whole more suitable to the capture of Babylon by this Darius, according to Herodotus, Book 3, than to that by Cyrus.

The commonly received view is stated shortly by Rosenmuller, — that this Mede was the Cyaxares II. of Xenophon, ⁵⁵ the son of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus. AEschylus, in his tragedy of the Persae, ⁵⁶ introduces Darius the son of Hystaspes, recounting his origin from

Darius the Mede. Josephus, in the tenth Book of his Antiquities, says he was the son of Astyages; and Theodoret, in his Commentary, identifies him with Cyaxares. Jerome states that, in conjunction with his uncle Cyrus, he subverted the Chaldean empire.

“If Xenophon’s account of Cyrus be in general admitted,” ⁵⁷ says Wintle, “we cannot be at a loss to determine who was Darius the Mede; and if even the defeat of Astyages be received according to Herodotus, and it be placed in the tenth year of Cyrus’s reign over Persia Proper, yet there seems no necessity to conclude but that the kingdom of Media might still, with the consent of Cyrus, be continued to Cyaxares, his mother’s brother, who might retain it till his death, after the conquest of Babylon, which Herodotus attributes to Cyrus, after he had reduced the neighboring powers.” He next proceeds to obviate one or two chronological difficulties often considered as weighty objections to Xenophon’s account. “The name of Darius is omitted in the Canon, although he is allowed to have reigned more than one year, if he reigned at all. How shall we then reconcile his history with the Canon? and where or in what part must this reign be placed? The same answer will serve for both inquiries. The Canon certainly allots nine years to Cyrus over Babylon, of which space the two former years are usually allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede by the advocates of Xenophon.” A MS. of Archbishop Secker is then quoted, in which he gives reasons why Berosus might have overlooked this reign as short-lived and nominal. Prideaux and Usher, and the Ancient Universal History, are referred to for additional information. ⁵⁸ With reference to the period before us, it is concluded, from the close of this Daniel 5, “that Darius the Mede did not begin his reign till after the capture of Babylon; and this event I am inclined to place in the next year after the 17th of Nabonadius, in the 210th year of the Chaldean era, or 538 years before Christ, which was the first of Cyrus’s nine years. Whether the defeat of Nabonadius and the taking of the city happened near the same time, I need not determine; but it seems clear from Daniel, (Daniel 5:31,) as well as from Xenophon, that the king was slain on the same night that the city was taken; and this, I apprehend, must have happened about the real year of the captivity 67, supposing the fourth of Jehoiakim to agree with the year 605 before Christ, according to Blair.”

Here again the researches of Hengstenberg afford us valuable aid in discussing and reconciling the various statements of historians. The silence of Herodotus and Ctesias concerning a Median king of Babylon is noticed, and even concealment on the part of the Persians is shewn to be highly probable.

DISSERTATION 22.

CAPTURE OF BABYLON.

Daniel 5:31

IF the period of the city’s capture could be accurately determined, many difficulties would be cleared up. CALVIN supposes it to have occurred in the last and eighth year of Belshazzar’s reign, but the majority of commentators place it in the seventeenth or eighteenth year. Willet makes his third year his last, as also Bullinger and Oecolampadius, and this is done by following the short Hebrew Chronicle, which places it at the fiftysecond year of the desolation of Jerusalem, and the seventieth of the kingdom of Babylon. The Oriental Chronicle, according to the author of “The Times of Daniel,” assigns twenty years, and the Alexandrian Chronicle only four to this monarch; and such being the conflicting testimony of the most ancient and authentic documents, it naturally happens that modern writers select their own dates and their own systems according, first, to their own acquaintance with the subject; and next, to their own judgment of the best selection of authorities which can be made. The only class of divines who appear disingenuous in such selections are those Germans who attempt to impugn the historical accuracy of this Prophet, by tacitly assuming that there is no real, and positive, and consistent knowledge to be obtained from profane writers, and then by asserting that a pseudo-Daniel has displayed either ignorance, carelessness, or deception. They appeal to the historians of Greece, as if they were contemporary with the events which they record, and prefer throwing doubt upon the sacred narrative, to sifting the evidence upon which they believe the profane.

DISSERTATION 23.

THE THREE PRESIDENTS.

Daniel 6:2

THIS division of the kingdom into 120 provinces is exactly in accordance with the assertion of Xenophon, who says that Cyrus appointed satraps over the conquered nations. Usher, in his Annals, thinks that Darius followed the suggestion of Cyrus, who instituted this method of government. This verse is reconciled with the first of Esther, by remembering that after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and of Thrace and India by Darius Hystaspes, seven provinces were added to the number. Junius, according to Willet, states, that after spending a year in settling the affairs of Babylon, he resigned all power to Darius. He approves of Calvin’s phrase, “regnare in commune,” implying the joint reign of both kings. Josephus is in error in multiplying the number by three. The reason for the appointment of these presidents may be understood variously. The Latin interpreter, says Willet, translates qzn, nezek, by molestiam, meaning “trouble,” Darius is represented as sixtytwo years of age, and naturally fatigued by the wear and tear of an active life. Daniel is elevated to an office equivalent to that of the Turkish grand Vizier, and the crime imputed to him seems similar to that of Rome — “crimen laesae majestatis,” a kind of high treason. The word hl[, gnillah, (Daniel 6:4,) is translated by Wintle very appropriately “action” in the forensic sense, equivalent to the Greek aijtiva. These presidents and princes came in concourse and tumultuously before the king. The Vulgate “surripuerunt,” came by stealth, is disapproved by Wintle. Daniel 6:7. THE DECREE by which Daniel was entrapped has occasioned the special cavil of Bertholdt and his adherents. They have treated it as an erroneous fiction, but have been appositely refuted by Hengstenberg. Oriental kings, he reminds us, were often treated as objects of exclusive worship. Heeren has stated “that the kings of the Medes and Persians were regarded and worshipped as representations and incarnations of Ormuzd.” ⁵⁹ In the sacred books of the Zend religion, “Iran, the Medo-Bactrian kingdom under Gustasp, is to him the image of the kingdom of Ormuzd; the king himself the image of Ormuzd; Turan, the northern nomad land, where Afrasiat rules, is the image of the kingdom of darkness, under the rule of Ahriman.” The king was the visible manifestation of Ormuzd, like him, commanding, with unlimited power, the seven princes of the empire; next in rank to him were the representatives of the seven Amshaspands, who stood round the throne of Ormuzd. Similar testimony respecting the worship paid to the monarchs of the East, is given by Plutarch, Xenophon, Socrates, and Arrian. Curtius distinctly asserts, that the Persians worshipped their kings among their gods, so that the credibility of Daniel is fully vindicated by the records of profane antiquity. On the royal tombs at Persepolis, there are various sculptures representing the Persian kings as gods, and in De Sacy’s Persian inscriptions, they are termed the offspring of gods. Daniel 6:10. DANIEL’S CONDUCT AND PRAYER, as here recorded, have been questioned by some German critics, on the ground of practices and usages as yet unknown in Upper Asia. The custom of praying towards Jerusalem, it is said, did not arise among the Jews living abroad, till after the rebuilding of the temple. But it must not be forgotten that it prevailed among the Jews from early times. David prayed towards the sanctuary, and raised his hands towards it. The Dedication prayer of Solomon contains a distinct injunction to the same effect. The very place, says Stolberg, where the temple had stood and was again to stand, was holy to Daniel. ⁶⁰ The hours, at which the Prophet offered up his prayer are said to belong to the fine-spun religiousness of the later Jews. But this assertion is made in forgetfulness of the ancient custom of all nations to have fixed and invariable periods for the worship of their deities. Willet approves of Calvin’s comments on this passage, and Oecolampadius considers it a thanksgiving for the encouraging beginning, happy success, and prosperous end of our undertakings. Willet also discusses the propriety of Daniel’s exposing himself thus openly to the malice of his enemies, after he knew of the king’s decree. He agrees on the whole with the practical comment of Calvin, and adduces it as an example of perseverance in the line of duty, in full confidence of the protecting power of God, and in defiance of all the malice of the most inveterate foes. Daniel 6:10. THE OPEN WINDOWS TOWARDS JERUSALEM. —

Various writers have supposed this action of the Prophet’s to be the result of ostentation. Calvin has treated this point ably, and Wetstein, in his Notes on Acts 1:13, has explained the nature of “the upper chamber” in the Jewish houses, and their use either as oratories or for other solemn or festive purposes. Shaw, in his Travels, alludes to their structure and use. The light was usually admitted into these upper rooms through large windows, and the Jews naturally turned towards Jerusalem in prayer, with earnest longing for speedy deliverance. The “three times a-day” has been used by Bellarmine ⁶¹ as an argument for the canonical hours of the Romish Church, and Pintus goes further to insist on seven, according to Psalm 119. But all these arguments which enforce Christian duties by Jewish practices are erroneous. Calvin’s principle is judiciously stated, but it is founded on enlightened and Christian common sense, and not in a blind adherence to Jewish traditions. Similar principles should guide us as to praying towards the east. Oecolampadius refers to the supposed Apostolic tradition of worshipping towards the east, but he reprobates it as superstitious. Nos patriam nostram in cælis habemus, et a Deo originem. Irenaeus ⁶² ascribes this superstition as a heresy to the Ebionites. Daniel’s open profession of his faith in God has been censured as too bold and in judged for our imitation, but it has also been ably vindicated as an example of perseverance in religious duty when our conscience justifies us in maintaining God’s truth before men. Willet approves of Calvin’s distinction “of Confession, that it is of two sorts, cum palam testamur, quod est in animo, et ne aliquod perversoe simulationis signum demus.”

While this sheet is passing through the press, a very illustrative work, confirming the historical accuracy of Daniel, has been published, entitled “NINEVEH AND ITS PALACES: the Discoveries of Botta and Layard applied to the elucidation of Holy Writ; by JOSEPH BONOMI, F.R.S.L.” It contains the latest and best interpretations of the cuneiform inscriptions, and is worthy of attentive perusal.

DISSERTATION 24

THE KING’S DECEASE.

Daniel 6:28

COULD we ascertain accurately when death closed “the reign of Darius,” most of the controversies concerning the history of these times and personages would be set at rest. We have first to determine who Darius was? and secondly, to discover whether a portion of his reign is contemporaneous with that of Cyrus? With respect to the first point, it ought to be fully understood that there is no actual correspondence between this monarch and any well-attested ruler mentioned in profane history. The balance of probabilities is in favor of his being Cyaxares, but we have already stated how Xenophon, Ctesias, and Herodotus differ on the point; and we are careful to repeat this, because the futility of the Neologian arguments might otherwise entrap the unwary. For instance, Dr. Wells has the following Note: — “It is to be observed that in Ptolemy’s Canon the two years of Darius the Mede’s reign are reckoned to Cyrus, who accordingly has therein nine years assigned for his reign; whereas Xenophon assigns but seven years to it, reckoning the first year the same as Ezra doth, viz., from the death of Darius and Cambyses.” Wintle again states, “there is no doubt but Darius the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, according to Daniel, from the capture of Babylon till this same first year of Cyrus, or till the commencement of the reign allotted by Scripture to Cyrus the Persian.” (Preface, where reference is made to a Memoir by M. Freret, containing many just and accurate dates assigned to the life and transactions of Cyrus.) The reader cannot fail to perceive that this sentence leaves the two important questions in as much doubt as ever. DR. EADIE, of the American Presbyterian Church, states, too, positively, “The kingdom of Babylon was given by Cyrus to Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II., as a reward for his services; and after his death, at the end of two years, this kingdom returned to Cyrus, and hence Cyrus is spoken of as if he were the successor of Darius at Babylon. Daniel 6:28.” — (Art., Daniel, in his Bibl. Cycl.) Willet informs us that Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem took Darius for Darius Hystaspes, and the noble Duke, to whom we have already referred, agrees in this opinion, and argues very elaborately in its favor.

The German Neologians have not been slow to construct a charge of inaccuracy against Daniel, in consequence of these historic difficulties. Bertholdt, Bleek, and De Wette, treat it as an error to call Cyaxares II. by the name of Darius, and suppose it a confusion with the son of Hystaspes. But before the commentator on Scripture ventures to use the phrase, “historic inaccuracy,” he must first clearly ascertain what historic accuracy really is. An unlearned reader might suppose from their reasonings that all the profane historians agreed in their accounts, and that the only element of confusion was that introduced by the narrative of Scripture. But the truth is far otherwise. No two authors agree in their statements throughout. Ancient history is, in fact, simply an ideal deduction from a variety of conflicting traditions. Of Cyaxares II., for instance, neither Herodotus nor Justin say anything. Neither of them mention any son of Astyages. Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Polyaenus, agree with them in asserting that the Median empire closed with Astyages, and the Persian began at once with Cyrus; and yet there is evidence to shew that Darius the Mede was a real person. “Still farther,” says Hengstenberg, “the author agrees in another special fact with profane history. Xenophon relates ⁶³ that soon after the taking of Babylon, the conquered lands were divided into provinces, and governors set over them. All this is stated in our book, too.” Are we, indeed, to infer, from a mere difference of names, that the author is chargeable with confounding them? The Cambyses of profane writers is called in the book of Ezra, Achaschverosh (Ahasuerus). Pseudosmerdis bears in profane writers two different names — in Ctesias, Spendates; in Justin, Oropastes; and in Ezra he appears under a third name, Artachshasta (Artaxerxes). “Now, why is this appearance in all other cases unanimously explained on the ground that the names of kings were not nomina propria, but surnames, whilst, on the contrary, in this single instance, this explanation is not once proposed as possible? And yet in this very case this explanation is quite natural, since it is generally allowed that the name Darius in particular is an appellation. That it was a mere title appears from this, that several different kings bear it.” Herbelot says the name Dara is Persian, and appellative, signifying “sovereign.” ⁶⁴

When we descend to the historians of the Christian era, we find in the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius a confirmation of the narrative under review. In a short appendix to a fragment of Abydenus, found also in the Praeparatio Evangelica, Darius is distinctly mentioned as king; so that if it be impossible to be certain as to the identity of this king with Cyaxares, yet it must be remembered that profane history, independently of Scripture, is at variance with itself, and that no new clement of discord is introduced by our Prophet. Let the objector first settle what the events connected with the overthrow of Babylon from uninspired authorities really were, and we shall then be prepared to shew that the writer of this book was free from inaccuracies, and that all the obscurity hovering over the subject arises from our very imperfect knowledge of the occurrences of this period. And the more fully the assertions of the Neologists are investigated, the more baseless will their charges against this Prophet of Jehovah appear.

THE PROLONGATION OF DANIEL’S LIFE.

Daniel 6:28

THE prolongation of our Prophet’s life till the era specified in this verse, is worthy of our notice, that we may, if possible, accurately ascertain his age at leading periods of his history. We cannot ascertain precisely the year of his entrance into public life. He was born shortly before King Josiah’s death, probably about 620 B.C.; and thus he had many opportunities of cultivating that early piety for which he was conspicuous. He was about fourteen years old when taken captive to Babylon. Three years afterwards, the king of Israel threw off the Babylonian yoke, and thus he and his companions became hostages and forerunners of the capture of the whole nation. From Jahn’s Biblical Antiquities, we learn how skilled he was in various sciences after three years’ training, (pages 99, 100;) and the high opinion which was entertained of his integrity, wisdom, and piety, is confirmed by this remarkable honor paid to him by the Prophet Ezekiel. He is connected, while alive, with Noah and Job. (See Ezekiel 14:14, and Calvin’s comment on the passage in our Edition, volume 2.)

The dream and its interpretation in Daniel 2 occurred during Daniel’s youth, and resulted in his promotion with his three friends to the highest offices of the kingdom. We now lose sight of him for thirty years, and it is impossible to determine whether he sat at the king’s gate during the whole of this period. The erection of the image on the plains of Dura, and the subsequent punishment of his three companions, seem inconsistent with his residence at that time at Babylon as an adviser of his sovereign. The three “children,” as they are termed in Daniel 1:17, were now about fifty years of age; and it has become necessary to remark this, because some have spoken of them as still children when thus miraculously delivered from destruction. We too often take for granted impressions of this kind, which we have imperceptibly imbibed in our earliest days; and besides this, the works of the great masters in painting have fostered the error. These splendid productions of European art are often glaringly untrue, yet while based upon fabulous anachronisms, they too often adhere to the imagination, and influence our thoughts in days of more mature advancement. At the period of the dream in Daniel 4 Daniel was about fifty years of age; and thus we have another gap of about fifteen years. Belshazzar had now ascended his grandfather’s throne. The mystic characters on the wall soon reveal a fearful reality. Darius the Mede still esteems the upright counselor, and he had become a venerable “ancient of days” before he is thrust into the lion’s den. During the first year of King Darius, he learned, from the Book of Jeremiah, the approaching period of Judah’s deliverance. During the third year of Cyrus, he is favored with a vision on the banks of the Tigris. (Jeremiah 10:1-4.) We cannot ascertain how long he lived after this period, but he was at least eighty years of age when he died. Various assertions and traditions exist among the Jews respecting both the time and place of his decease, and these have passed current, through the unsuspecting simplicity of some of our older expounders, who record as certain the hazardous statements of the authorities on which they rely. Dr. Wells, after comparing various dates, concludes, “that Daniel was about eighty-nine or ninety years old in the third year of Cyrus;” he pays no regard to the conjectures of some, who make him to have lived one hundred and thirty-eight, or one hundred and fifty years, and adds the possibility of his reaching one hundred years.

Our object in view in impressing this chronology is to disabuse the public mind of the Romish ideas connected with what they term, “The song of the three children.” Their usual method of treating these three martyrs for truth and holiness is utterly erroneous, and like every other error of theirs, injurious and pernicious in proportion as it deviates from the WRITTEN AND INFALLIBLE WORD OF THE LIVING GOD.

DISSERTATION 25.

THE VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS

Daniel 7:1-3

Our preceding volume having closed the historical portion of Daniel’s Prophecies, our second volume is occupied with Calvin’s comments upon those Prophetic Visions, which have ever excited the deepest interest in the minds of thoughtful Christians. The interval of time from the first verse of this chapter to the beginning of Daniel 10 is about twenty-two years. The vision of This chapter is the only one written in Chaldee, and its similarity to that of 2 may account for the same language being used in both.

The most appropriate method of illustrating these Lectures, is that of quoting the views of various eminent Reformers and later divines who have ably discussed the Prophet’s language, and then comparing them with the solutions proposed by our Lecturer. Daniel 7:4. — The lion with eagle’s wings is supposed to bear some likeness to the vulture-headed Nisroch, with which the late Assyrian discoveries have rendered us familiar. Vaux, in his “Nineveh and Persepolis,” page 32, quotes the inquiry of Beyer in his notes to Selden’s work De Diis Syriis, as to a connection between this far-famed Assyrian deity and the representation recorded in this verse. Rosenmuller explains the plucking of the wings as a deprivation of any ornament, or faculty, or innate vigor, and quotes Cicero, Ep. ad Att., lib. 4, ep. 2, in reference to this deplumatio. The last clause, “a man’s head was given to it,” is well explained by Jerome of Nebuchadnezzar’s return to his kingdom after his banishment, and his receiving the heart which he had lost. The frontispiece on the title-page of Bonomi’s “Nineveh and its Palaces,” is a most accurate representation of this verse. The work contains many excellent engravings, explanatory of the symbolic language of this Prophet. Daniel 7:5. — The raising of the bear on one side is interpreted by Theodoret and Jerome of the invasion of the Chaldean empire by the Persian. The protrusions from its mouth are thought by Wintle to be “tusks,” but Rosenmuller objects to this supposition. Wintle’s notes are on the whole so very judicious, that we do not hesitate again to recommend the reader to peruse them, as in most instances they confirm the interpretations adopted in these Lectures. Hippolytus, as quoted by Oecolampadius in loc., explains the three “ribs” of the three people, Assyrians, Medes, and Babylonians. The opinion of our Reformer, volume 2, page 16, is sound and satisfactory. Daniel 7:6. — “Four wings on its back.” This symbolical representation occurs in the Nineveh sculptures. See Bonomi, page 257, and elsewhere. Daniel 7:7. — The Fourth Beast of this verse has so usually been treated as the Roman Empire, that it simply becomes necessary to cite the exceptions to this opinion. Rosenmuller records an attempt to refute this interpretation by J. C. Becman, in a dissertation on the Fourth Monarchy, published in 1671, at Frankfort-on-the-Oder, and gives a slight sketch of his argument. Dr. Todd, in his able “Lectures on Antichrist,” has made use of every possible argument against applying this to the Roman Empire, and his theory has been fairly stated and ably opposed by Birks in his “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy.” London, 1843. With reference to this fourth beast, Dr. Todd believes it to be still future; and hence his expositions are classed with those of the Futurists. Our readers will remember, that as an expositor of prophecy, Calvin is a Praeterist, and that his general system of interpretation is as remote from the year-day theory of Birks, Faber, and others, as from the futurist speculations of Maitland, Tyso, and Todd. Notwithstanding the disagreement between these Lectures and the writings of Birks, we strongly recommend their perusal by every student who would become thoroughly proficient in the prophecies of Daniel. The first step towards progress, is to surrender all our preconceived notions, and to prepare for the possibility of their vanishing away before the force of sanctified reason and all-pervading truth.

The Jewish commentators are specially careful to deny the application of this fourth empire to the Romans. Rabbis Aben Ezra and Saadiah interpret it of the Turkish sway, and extend it to times stilt present and yet future. The Son of man they hold to be Messiah, who in their opinion has not yet arrived. A different interpretation has been suggested by Lacunza in La Venda del Messias en Gloria, y Magestad, translated by the Revelation E.

Irving. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1827. Parte 2 Fenemeno 1. The opinion that the fourth empire is Alexander and his successors, is contained in Venema’s Dissert. ad Vaticin. Daniel emblem. 4to. Leovard, 1745.

Rabbi Sal. Jarchi understands the three ribs of Daniel 7:5, to be those things of Persia, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius who destroyed the Temple. The ten kings he thinks to be the emperors of Rome from Julius Caesar to Vespasian. The mouth speaking proud things of Daniel 7:8, he refers to Titus, thus adopting the supposition that the fourth empire is heathen Rome.

Maldonatus expounds the passage of heathen Rome, and feels his wrath stirred up against those “Heretics and Lutherans” who bring it down to Papal times, and rejoices in the opportunity of quoting Calvin, “their master,” against “the absurdity” of his disciples. See Comment. in Dan., page 673. But the learned Jesuit ought to have known that the celebrated Abbot Joachim, the founder of the Florentine order at the close of the 12th century, interpreted this empire of the mystic Babylon and the Papal Antichrist. He did not hesitate to apply the dates of this prophecy to the definite period of three years and a half, from a.d. 1256 to 1260. He was a bold forerunner of those modern expounders, who take exactly the same view of the Papacy as himself. See British Mag., volume 16, pages 370 and following; also pages 494 and following; and Liber de Flore Telesforus Cusentinus. Fol. 29, a. apud Todd, page 460.

DISSERTATION 26.

THE TEN HORNS

Daniel 7:7

The controversy which has arisen between commentator’s respecting these ten horns, refers first to the question, were they “kings” or “kingdoms?” And next, if “kings,” who are they? and if kingdoms, what are they? They are usually supposed to be the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. Vitringa in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, page 788, enumerates them after his own method, and the variety in the reckoning of these kingdoms is so great, that it has been used by many writers as an objection to their being kingdoms at all. Augustine (De. civit. Del., lib. 20, c. 23) considers the number “ten” to be indefinite, and to include all the kings of the Roman Empire. Willet, in loc., has collected a variety of interpretations from different writers; while Tyso gives a table of twentynine distinct lists, shewing that sixty-five different kingdoms and persons have been suggested. Elucidation of the Prophecies. 8vo, London, 1838, pages 100-114.

Rosenmuller treats them as kings. With him the fourth empire is not Rome, but that of the Seleucidae and Lagidae. By this assumption ten kings are easily found among those who reigned over both Egypt and Syria between Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes, who on this plan is the Little Horn. He simply states his opinion without supporting it by any arguments. It by no means requires any, as the statement itself becomes its best refutation. This view was adopted by Bertholdt, and has been overthrown by Hengstenberg, with his usual learning and ability. See pages 164 and following, of the work cited in volume 1. The determination of some German writers to make Antiochus Epiphanes the Little Horn, has induced them to divide the four empires thus: — the Chaldean, Median, Persian, and Macedonian, the last including the various kingdoms which sprung from it. See Eichorn Einl., 4to, Ausg., B. 4, page 48; also the works of Jahn, Dereser, De Wette, and Bleek, ap. Hew. pages 161-169.

Some light is thrown on this subject by Fry in his Second Advent, volume 2, page 16, edit. 1822, London. He translates this and other visions and prophecies of Daniel with great clearness, and the hundred pages which he devotes to their explanation are well worthy of perusal. They contain many judicious quotations from Sir Isaac Newton, Mede, Faber, and the most celebrated English expounders of prophecy. As he considers the fourth beast the Roman Empire, and extends its duration throughout the modern history of Europe, he adopts the views of Bishop Chandler and Faber, as to the ten horns being ten kingdoms into which that empire was divided after the irruption of the barbarians. The northern nations parceled out the Roman Empire among themselves. These nations invaded the empire and settled within it. Now, it appears from history, that there were ten principal kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. These ten primary kingdoms are then enumerated according to Machiavel; but it is beyond our province to pursue this view of the subject further; it is enough to refer to Fry’s translations of difficult passages of this Prophet, as clear, sound, and judicious. The Editor deems it his duty to point out the best opinions and explanations wherever he may find them; and to direct the reader’s attention especially to those which illustrate our Reformer’s Commentary.

DISSERTATION 27.

THE LITTLE HORN

Daniel 7:8

The Expositor who sympathizes most with our Lecturer among writers of our own day, is the late Professor Lee, of Cambridge. In his translations of the Hebrew Scriptures he is unrivaled; no scholar of our age can approach him in the extent of his learning or the soundness of his erudition. His expository system of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John will meet in these days with the most vehement condemnation, and it happily does not fall within the province of the Editor of these Lectures to express any other opinion, than that they throw light upon the views of our Reformer. It will be sufficient at present to refer the reader to his valuable work, entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy,” Cambridge, 1849. He discusses the subject of our second volume from page 152, to page 230, and translates the Hebrew and Chaldee text of Daniel, adding valuable explanatory notes. Before the student is competent to pass an opinion on the Professor’s hermeneutical conclusions, he should be intimately familiar with his elaborate verbal criticisms.

The fourth kingdom he holds to be the Roman, and specifies, especially, “the Lower Roman Empire;” the ten horns are “a series of kings, each serves constituting a universal empire for the time being” The Little Horn is said to be “the latter rule of the Roman power,” (p. 165.) All reference to Antiochus Epiphanes is denied; and the argument is concluded by the following sentence, — “By every consideration, therefore, it is evident that the Little Horn of Daniel’s seventh and eighth chapters is identically the same, and that this symbolized that system of Roman rule which ruined Jerusalem, and then made war upon the sainted servants and followers of the Son of man; and in this he prospered and practiced, until he in his turn fell, as did his predecessors, to rise no more at all,” (p. 168.)

This vision has been ably and fully illustrated by Professor Bush of New York, in “the Hierophant,” 1844; and as the American Professor’s “exposition” is exceedingly clear, and full, and instructive, a few quotations from it are inserted here. “We propose, if possible, to ascertain the true character of the judgment here depicted, and by a careful collation of other Scriptures to determine its relations to the series of events connected with the second coming of Christ and its grand cognate futurities.” “This Little Horn,” he asserts, “is unquestionably the ecclesiastical power of the Papacy,” and “the judgment commences a considerable time prior to the transition of the beast from his pagan to his Christian state.”… “This horn did not arise till after the empire received its deadly wound by the hands of the Goths.” This divergence from the sentiments of our Reformer compels us to avoid quoting at greater length Professor Bush’s scheme of interpretation. It is ably planned and carefully executed. He supposes the Little Horn to prevail against the saints for 1260 years; adding, “nothing is more notorious than that the Roman Empire, after subsisting not far from the space of 1260 years from its foundation, did succumb to the sword of its Gothic invader, and about a.d. 476 became imperially extinct, under its then existing head.” This forms another period for the supposed termination of the 1260 years, very different from that usually maintained by British authors. It is said to be renewed again in the time of Charlemagne, and the testimony of Sigonius, Hist. de Reg. Ital., Book 4, page 1.58, is quoted in proof of this. See Hierophant, page 156.

DISSERTATION 28.

THE ANCIENT OF DAYS — THE SON OF MAN

Daniel 7:9 and Daniel 7:13

This expression is treated actively by Wintle,— “He that maketh the days old,” and, consequently, ready to expire or cease. The Deity he supposes to be meant by this term, and refers us for an explanation of the human attributes assigned to the Divine Being, to Dr. Sam. Clarke’s Sermons, volume 1, Discertation 5:Grotius very appositely reminds us that the ancient thrones and since circles had wheels; and Rosenmuller treats them as indicating the velocity with which God beholds and judges all things. Some Jewish writers read thrones were taken away; implying’ the overthrow of the dominions of this world, and the setting up of flint of Messiah. Both Rabbis Levi and Saadias apply this passage to the future prosperity of Israel alone.

OecoIampadius supposes Christ to be here signified as the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, and therefore “Ancient.” After quoting Chrysostom and Basil on the phrase, “The books were opened,” he pointedly inquires, “But what need of books? every man’s conscience will be its own open volume.” The Christian tone of this commentator’s sentiments renders his writings far more valuable than most of those of his own and of succeeding ages. It treats this chapter with his usual skill and spirituality, differing however in some points from the general tenor of these Lectures. It enumerates the four visions of these last six chapters: the first and last of them, he states, relate to the persecutions to arise under Antichrist the second, in Daniel 8, to the profanation of the Temple under Antiochus; and the third, in the ninth chapter, to its devastation under Titus. He does not take the word “kings” for the monarch simply, but includes under the term their counselors, warriors, and ministers of state. “A king” with hint, refers to a monarch’s successors as well as himself. He quotes at length from Eusebius, Evan. Dem., book 15, the well-known passage in which this vision is recorded at full length. His illustrations of the first three beasts is judicious, and we have previously stated (volume 1, page 427) his view of the fourth empire as coinciding with Calvin’s. He refutes the comments of Polychronius and Aben Ezra, who apply the fourth kingdom to Alexander’s successors; and objects to Jerome, and Lactantius, and Ireneus, who treat the ten kings as ten monarchies springing from heathen Rome. The number ten is not taken literally, but mystically, for a perfect number, that is, one made up by adding one and two, and three and four. The ten horns, he thinks, follow the fourth beast, existing during his; own age and leading on directly to Antichrist. He approves of Apollinarius, who interprets the 8th verse of Antichrist, and then explains, very copiously, his sentiments as to where he is to be found. “Very possibly,” he remarks, “the Gregories, the Alexanders, and the Julii, did not displease God so strikingly while occupying the Papal chair: God only is their judge. But during this reign such innumerable enormities are committed as are worthy of the true Antichrist, and thus rebound upon their heads.” He then runs the parallel between Mohamed and the Papacy, and with great accuracy and spirit treats the false prophet as the Antichrist of the east, and the Roman Pontiff as corresponding to him throughout the west. The “eyes of a man” of Daniel 7:8, are explained of the bland and benignant appearance of this insinuating personage, while the blasphemies of his mouth are interpreted of the impious boastings of Mohamed and the Pope. The manner in which both Mohamed and the Papacy have “changed the times,” is amply discussed, and the language of both Daniel and St. John made applicable to the modern history of the religions of the Crescent and the Cross throughout both Asia and Europe.

In commenting on Daniel 7:9, he refers it to the future destination of Antichrist, and comparing’ this passage with St. John, states his view of the three and a half years, or forty-two months, or half-week. Seven is a perfect number representing perpetuity, and God who is perpetually angry stops half way in his course of punishment. Oecolampadius is severe upon the Chiliasts, similar to the Futurists of our day, who expect one personal Antichrist yet to be revealed. Although he calls them “semiJews,” yet their solution of this great problem of prophecy may after all turn out to be the right one, and Christendom hereafter may yet vindicate their far-seeing sagacity. The remainder of the chapter is connected with the second coming of Christ to judgment, and the final victory of the saints when the harvest of the world shall be gathered in, and “the righteous shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” The introduction of the Antichrist and the Papacy with the Mohammedan imposture, existing as they have done for many years since the first advent, and as it is assumed they will do till the second advent, gives the tone to the comments of Oecolampadius very different from that of Calvin. It becomes highly instructive to compare and contrast them, as in this way we may derive profit from both, and correct our own presumption, if we are tempted to esteem either as necessarily and exclusively perfect. Daniel 7:9. — “The thrones were cast down” — Authorized Version. Professor Bush agrees with Calvin, volume 2, page 32, in preferring were set, placed, or arranged, bringing forward as his supporters, Jerome, Arias Montanus, the Syriac, Arabic, and Genevan versions, besides Luther’s and Diodati’s. “The saints who are subsequently said to have possessed the kingdom formed the celestial conclave, and sat upon the encircling thrones.” He prefers the meaning, “Permanent of days,” or, “Enduring of days,” to the common rendering “Ancient of days.” Cocccius favors this expression, and also Michaelis, who assigns the primary sense of enduring and abiding to the Hebrew word. See also Job 31:7, and Isaiah 33:18. The designation, enduring of days, undoubtedly carries with it a latent contrast to the many vicissitudes, and the transient nature of the thrones and kingdoms here shadowed forth as the antagonist dominions to that of God everlasting. He then quotes Calvin’s remarks on this verse as “singularly appropriate and striking.” His garment (literally) was as the white snow. The resplendent white of his spotless garments indicated the exquisite equity, justice, and impartiality of his judgments, while the locks of his hair, purer than the washed wool of the fairest fleeces, indicate nothing of the imbecility of extreme old age, but the considerate gravity, the ripened reflection, the mature wisdom, the enlightened experience, the venerable authority, and the calm decision, which are naturally associated with the “hoary head.” Referring to the fairy throne and the burning wheels, he adds, “As the entire gorgeous apparatus described by the Prophet, has reference primarily to a period anterior to new Testament times, when the kingdom of God had not yet obtained that fixedness which is attributed to it in subsequent visions, therefore his throne is represented with the accompaniment of wheels. The scene, he states, “Is a judgment which transpires on the earth in the providence of God, and not a judgment at the end of the world, as often understood by the readers of revelation.”… “The scenery is to be regarded as ideal and not real. It is the celestial shadow of a terrestrial reality. The whole scene, which is impartially described as transpiring in heaven, does really take place in the providence of God on earth, so these judges and co-assessors are really men, who are made agents in executing the divine purposes relative to the overthrow of the anti-Christian dominion represented by the Beast and the Little Horn.” The professor, though differing from Calvin on some points, strongly corroborates his opinions on others. The statements on pages 26 and 28 of this volume are expanded and enforced in various passages in the Hierophant. For instance, on page 109, “That the vision and scene does not refer to what is usually termed ‘the last judgment’ to take place at some future period, and simultaneously with the final resurrection and consummation of all things, is obvious from the whole tenor of the vision. The judgment is a local judgment, and the object of it, not the whole race of men, but a particular despotic, persecuting, idolatrous, and blasphemous power, which the counsels of heaven have doomed to destruction.” This is entirely in accordance with Faber. See Calvin of Proph., volume 2, page 108. Daniel 7:13. — The Son of Man. He is usually admitted to be the

Messiah. Hengstenberg remarks upon our Lord’s reasons for using this designation of himself. He aptly compares various passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel with those of this chapter, and shews how they bear upon the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies.)

Oecolampadius refutes the notions of the Jews who treat the phrase “the Son of man,” as their own nation. He argues against Rabbi Saadias and the Chiliasts, and after fully upholding the union of the divine with the human natures in Christ, he approves of the instructive comments of Chrysostom and Cyril. His coming to the Ancient of Clays is explained by St. Paul’s assert. ion, He shall deliver up the kingdom to his Father; and thus the victory of the saints becomes that final triumph of righteousness, which shall be visibly displayed at the second advent of the Redeemer.

The possession of the kingdom by the saints of the most high, (Daniel 7:22,) was interpreted by the early Fathers, of the general spread of Christianity after the first advent. Professor Lee, in replying to Dr. Todd, has collected their testimony to the reign of Christ and his saints, as spread far and wide in the very earliest period of the Gospel history. His list of authorities will support the system of interpretation adopted by Calvin.

See Tertullian adv. Jud., page 105. Ed. 1580.

Irenoeus. Edit. Grabe, pages 45, 46, 221, etc.

Justin Martyr. Edit. Thirlby, pages 369, 328, 400.

Cyprian. adv. Jud, Book 2:passim, and De Unit. Eccl., page 108. Edit. Dodwell. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., Book 8, and elsewhere. De, Vit. Const., Book 1, chapters 7, 8, and his other writings.

Fabricii Lux. Sanct. Evan. contains similar extracts from the earliest Fathers to the same purpose.

For the Professor’s own view, see his Treatise on the Covenants, page 112 and following. He is ably supported by Professor Bush, who correctly limits this vision to the first establishment of the reign of Messiah, and the early preaching of the Gospel. The American Professor throws great light on the passage, by a clear and comprehensive criticism on the Hebrew words. His remarks on the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, are ingenious. He does not understand the word “clouds” in its ordinary sense, but as denoting “a multitude of heavenly attendants.” He quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:19, from which he concludes that the meaning is not that we shall be caught up into the clouds, but in multitudes. The Son of man being brought to the Ancient of days is said to set forth the investiture of the Son of man with that vice-regal lordship, which he, in the divine economy, held over the nations of the earth and through the perpetuity of time. “The paramount question to be resolved, is that of the true epoch of this ordained assumption by the Messiah of the majesty of the kingdom. He then determines the question exactly as Calvin does, by saying, “This we think is plainly to be placed at the Savior’s ascension.”… “It is in this passage of Daniel that we find the germ of nearly all the announcements of the New Testament, relative to the founding of that spiritual monarchy.”… “Conceiving the clouds then, in the Prophet’s vision, as being really clouds of angels, we shall be better prepared to understand the drift of the New Testament narrative, Acts 1:9. It was by this cloud of celestial attendants that he was brought, in the language of Daniel, to the Ancient of days, for him to receive the seals, as it were, of that high office which he was to fill as head of the universal spiritual empire now to be set up.” There is, therefore, we conceive, no greater mistake in regard to the whole rationale of this prophecy, than to understand the judgment and the coming of the Son of man here mentioned, as the final judgment and final coming of Christ synchronical with an anticipated physical catastrophe of the globe.

Professor Bush quotes Calvin on Daniel 7:12 with approbation, and adds the Rabbinical paraphrase of Jaachiades, in support of their joint conclusions. Vitringa, in his Dissertations on the Emblems of this Prophet, page 504, elicits a different sense. He makes the “life” and the “dominion” identical. Sir J. Newton maintains that the three beasts were, in the eye of prophecy, still living in his day, and were to be sought for where their geographical seat existed at the time of their ascendancy. — Observ. on Daniel, page 31. Although Bishop Newton and others agree with him, there is no foundation for this ingenious conjecture. Mede’s view is different still, and Bush points out “a serious and probably an insuperable objection to it;” while he glides off himself to the “leading despotisms of the East, including perhaps those of Russia and Turkey,” contrary to the sentiments expressed in page 26 of this volume See pages 162, 163.

An important question has arisen among Commentators, as to the import of the word “kings” in Daniel 7:17. Does it refer to persons or to dynasties? Professor Bush argues for a symbolical sense, and quotes Theodotion, who renders it “kingdoms.” It is next asserted, that the term kingdom is not to be applied to “a purely regal form of government,” but to “any form of national existence in which we can recognize in established ruling power.” Havernick remarks, that “kings” here stands in the concrete for dynasties or kingdoms, the representation of kingdoms for the kingdoms themselves. The word “kingship” expresses this idea of Havernick’s better than kingdom. Bush treats it as a denomination potiore, which he aptly translates “a titling from the chief.” Daniel 7:18. — The Saints of the Most High. This phrase is said by Bush to indicate the Jews, “as forming a part at least of the saints who are to be the possessors of the kingdom here spoken of.” There are strong grounds for believing that the holy people which were to be destroyed and scattered, (Daniel 8:24, and Daniel 12:7,) were the Jews. Daniel’s grief was occasioned, in great measure, by a foresight of the cruel oppressions to which his own people were to be subjected during the dominion of the Beast and Little Horn.” The plural form of the word, which Calvin accurately preserves and notices, is said to recall, “that holy and devoted people who are born from above.” Bush translates sancti altissimorum, the saints of the most High Ones.

DISSERTATION 29.

THE PROPHETIC MEANING OF “A TIME.”

Daniel 7:25

It is important to determine accurately the meaning of this and similar phrases. The word “time” is, as Calvin remarks, naturally indefinite, while its use in this Prophet leads to the conclusion that it means “years.” The passage in Daniel 4:16, “Seven times,” is usually understood to mean seven years, although nothing can fairly rest upon this interpretation. The phrase of this verse is usually taken to mean half of seven times, and is used again in Daniel 12:7. The other passages which refer to periods of time are expressed more definitely, for instance, 2300 “evenings and mornings,” Daniel 8:14-26; the seventy weeks or seven, Daniel 9:24; the 1290 “days,” Daniel 12:11, and the 1335 days, Daniel 12:12. “The terms in the first four instances,” says Bickersteth, in his Practical Guide to the Prophecies, edit. sixth, 1839, page 184, “are in themselves quite ambiguous and general. There is nothing to determine, respecting the number 2300, and the seventy weeks, whether years or days be intended; but analogy would lead us to suppose that all were to be interpreted on a common principle.” He goes on to say, “It appears from Daniel 12:7, that the close of the three times and a half is closely connected with the gathering of the Jews; and from Zechariah 1:18-21, that the power of the four Gentile monarchies is then broken; and this confirms the extended meaning of both. God looks at the whole course of this world’s history as but a few days. Daniel, when he heard the period of the times and a half announced by the angel, understood not, and on inquiry received the answer, The words are sealed to the time of the end; and an intimation is given, that even when unsealed, only the wise would understand. We thus learn that the meaning couched under this expression was purposely concealed for a time, but was afterwards to be unfolded to the wise. The promise is not of a fresh revelation, but of an explanation of a period already given. And there seems to have been a wise end in this veiling of the time, as it would have been staggering to the faith, and deadening to the hopes of the Israelites, if the whole of the interval had been openly and explicitly declared,” page

186. This excellent man was an advocate of the symbolizing sense of chronological expressions; thus on the “seven times,” he says; “this seems plainly to denote the season during which the Gentile dominion of the four monarchies should be corrupt and worldly, as afterwards exhibited in the four beasts coming up from the sea.” Again, “the seven times” would then answer to “the times of the Gentiles” mentioned by our Lord. He also makes the following statements — “The time, times, and half a time, the forty-two months and 1260 days, are the same interval; the time, times, and half, of Daniel and the Revelation are the same period; a prophetic day is a natural year; the three and a half times are the half of seven times, the whole season of Gentile power, and the same with the latter times of St. Paul. A time denotes 360 years, and chronos is equivalent to kairos,” (p. 365.) As these assertions are not to be found anywhere in Holy Scripture, Calvin has manifested his wisdom, by expounding the text as he finds it, and avoiding all conjectural statements. As a specimen, however, of a scheme on the opposite principles to those maintained in these Lectures, we will quote one final passage on this subject, headed Particular Times, (p. 366.) “The time, times, and half, and 1260 days of Revelation are the same period. The forty-two months have a date rather later, like the two dates of the seventy years’ captivity;” (yet observe the previous extract. — Ed) “The 1290 and 1335 days of Daniel both commence with the 1260 days of Revelation, or time, times, and a half, of both prophecies; the seven times of the Gentiles begin with the subjection of Israel under Shamanezer; the three and a half times begin with Justinian’s eternal code, a.d. 532-3; the forty-two months close nearly with the 1335 days; the forty-two months begin a.d. 604, or a.d. 607-8, with the re-union of the ten kingdoms, or the public establishment of idolatry; the 1335 days end in a.d. 1867-8.” The arguments in favor of this theory, directed chiefly against the Futurists, are found in the “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” from chapter. 12, page 308, to the end of the volume. Similar discussions are contained in “The Morning Watch,” passim, especially one on “The Sacred numbers,” volume 5, pages 273-285, London, 1832. The reader who is curious in such numerical calculations will find much to his taste in the volumes of this periodical.

Brooks, in his useful compendium, “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,” has devoted Daniel 10 to “Time mystically expressed.” He examines at full length the argument of Maitland, who contends for the literal meaning of days, in “An Inquiry into the grounds on which the prophetic period of Daniel and St. John has been supposed to consist of 1260 years.” Brooks brings forward the usual reasonings by which the literal meaning of the word “day” is supposed to be overthrown, and combats Maitland with much spirit. He settles it rather positively, that “the literal meaning of a time is a year, and then considers the expression of this verse 25, “may signify, mystically, if calculated by lunar time, a period of 1260 years.” Some, it is added, “have considered that a time means mystically a century of years.” Vitringa states this to be the view of the Waldenses, who hoped for a speedy termination to their persecutions, and were persuaded that the anti-christian power which opposed them could only last 350 years. Bengelius at one time adopts, and at another rejects the year-day explanation, and modifies it according to his pleasure in his “Introduction to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” translated by Robertson, pages 147, 212, 258. “Another important principle to be kept in view is, the high probability that there may be a mystical fulfillment of some of the dates and facts connected with the chronological prophecies, and a literal fulfillment likewise.” Speculations of this kind are by no means in the spirit of Calvin’s comments; he carefully avoids all such expressions as “mystical days,” yet the reader will find in this little volume many extracts from writers of repute, illustrating the prominent features of Daniel’s prophecies.

Professor Bush, in the Hierophant, page 180, comments with great critical ability upon the Hebrew word signifying “time” in this verse. He compares it with the word ˆmz, zemen, correctly rendered “season” in the authorized version. The leading sense of this word, he states, “is that of a fixed, prescribed, determinate season,” and in this respect it differs from the more general word time, as the Greek kairos, “season,” differs from chronos, time. As to the other word ˆd[ gneden is used for the most part in a wider sense, and answers more accurately to the Hebrew t[ Gneth, “time.” “We find mention made in the last chapter of Daniel of two other periods, one of 1290, the other of 1335 years.” The additional numbers expressing 30 and 45 similar periods, are called supplementary terms. At page 241 there is an able letter to Professor Stuart of Andover, U.S., on prophet, in designations of time. This learned writer is like Calvin, praeterits, and consequently his writings on this subject; are an able elucidation of the principles of these lectures. He approves of Davidson’s statement in his “Sacred I-Hermeneutics,” that days are days, and years years. So the writer maintains with no small skill and power of argumentation. Professor Bush, on the other hand, replies, “the grand principle into which the usage of employing a day for , year is to be resolved, is that of miniature symbolization.” The argument between the two American divines is then carried on at some length; it is only necessary here to refer to it, on the general principle which we have adopted in illustrating these lectures, namely, to shew that Calvin’s decision meets with many able supporters and expounders among British, Continental, and American writers, as well as numerous, earnest, and voluminous opponents.

DISSERTATION 30.

THE PLACE OF THE VISION.

Daniel 8:2

Differences have arisen as to the reality of Daniel’s transfer to Shushan and the banks of the Ulai or Choaspes. Dr. Blayney thinks Elam was a province of Babylon over which Daniel actually presided; but in its more extended sense it comprised the whole country on either side of the Eulaeus, one side being Elymais, and the other Susiana. See Pliny, Nat. Hist., Book 6. “Susiana,” says Birks, “close to the Tigris, was distinct from Persia Proper, and might still be under the power of Belshazzar.”

In this eighth chapter the Hebrew language is resumed, and used in all the following visions. This has been considered emblematical of the subjectmatter which relates mainly to the future state of Israel, and of the kingdoms in political relation to it. The visions of this chapter clearly refer to the Persian and Grecian empires. These are intimately connected with those persecutions under which the Jews groaned so heavily, through the profanation of their Temple, and the removal of their daily sacrifice. These distresses continue for 2300 days till the sanctuary is cleansed. The reader will find these points clearly and historically illustrated in “the two later visions of Daniel” previously referred to, — Daniel 1 and 2. The exposition of the Duke of Manchester is worthy of notice. He compares and connects the visions and prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, and differs from the usual schemes hitherto submitted to our notice. See pages 392397. “The vision embraces a period of time commencing from after the conquest of India by Darius, until the last end of the indignation, for the ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward, but not eastward.”

DISSERTATION 31.

THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT.

*Chapter 8:3*

The clearest modern exposition with which the Editor is acquainted is that of Birks, and it will be sufficient for our purpose to make a few extracts from his work. “The ram is expounded by the angel to be the kings of Media and Persia.” It is clear, then, that the word kings is not used in a personal sense. It is plain they are the two ruling dynasties or powers, confederate in conquest, and of which Media was superior at first, and Persia after the sole reign of Cyrus. The ram itself, and not the two horns, denotes the compound Median and Persian power. The ram was seen “pushing westward, and northward, and southward.” These words are a very clear prediction of the conquests of Cyrus, though, perhaps, they may include the later conquests of Egypt by his son Cambyses. “The vision was in the sixth or seventh year of Cyrus, when his career of victory had already begun,” (p. 10.) Two objections to this explanation are then answered; one is, that the chronology seems to require a later commencement, and the other, that the place of the ram before the river, has been thought to imply the previous establishment of the Persian empire. The most natural sense of the words “before the river,” is, “with its face to the river.” The accomplishment of this prophecy is then traced through Herodotus, and Xenophon. The narratives of Herod. Book 1:7195, respecting the overthrow of Croesus, and 152-216, respecting his victories in Upper Asia, clearly support this view of the fulfillment.

The he-goat is so clearly fulfilled in Alexander, that, no further remark seems required. Birks has translated at length the passages in Diodorus, and given a correct summary of the chronology of this period. See also Alexander in Plutarch, chapter 24, Diod. Sic., lib. 17, section 46, and Quint. Curtius, lib. 4, section. 4, 19.

ALEXANDER AND HIS SUCCESSORS

The classical passages from which correct information is obtained respecting the kingdom of Macedon, Syria, and Egypt, as far as they illustrate Daniel’s prophecies, are as follow: —

Quintus Curtius, fol. Col. Agripp., 1628, page 670 and following. This is the edition of Raderus under the title of Q. Curtii Rufi de Alexandro M. historiam Mathaei Raderi S. J. Commentarii.

Diodori Siculi, lib. 18, page 587. Wesseling, Amst., 1746, volume 2, page 258.

Polybius, 126, cap. 10, volume 4, page 353 and following. Schweigheuser’s edition.

Atheneous, Deipnosophist, lib. 5, cap. 5, and lib. 10, cap. 10.

Photius, cod. 82, and cod. 92 in epit., lib. 9.

Justin, lib. 13.

Crosius, Hist., lib. 3, chapter 23.

Dexippus and Artrian in fragments preserved by Photius.

Biblioth., cod. 82, and cod. 92.

Andrew Schott, in his edition of flee Bibliotheca of Photius, has given a tabular view of the various divisions of Alexander’s kingdom, classifying them according to the authority of each of the above-mentioned authors. See fol. Gen., 1612, page 230.

Venema, in his dissertations on the emblematical prophecies of Daniel, gives a full statement of every event, with a separate classical authority for each. His object was to shew that Alexander’s kingdom was divided into ten after his death, and that the portion of this prophecy interpreted by Calvin of the Roman empire was really fulfilled by the Greeks. Dr. Todd has quoted the original Latin, (p. 504 and following,) from Dissertation. 5, section. 3 to 12, pages 347 to 364. 4to. Leovard, 1745.

DISSERTATION 32.

THE WONDERFUL NUMBERER — ONE HOLY ONE SPEAKING TO ANOTHER.

*Chapter 8:13*

A very peculiar Hebrew word is used to designate the second Holy One. Lowth intimates its connection with the Logos. It may properly be translated, “To the excellent one.” The original word ynwmlp, palmoni, is supposed to be formed of two nouns ynwlp, peloni, and ynwmla, almoni, which are found in Ruth 4:1, and 2 Kings 6:8. Glass. gram., 4, 3, 864, as quoted in Poole’s Syn., calls them fictitious nouns, being used when the real name is purposely concealed, like the ὁ δεῖνα of the Greeks. Hence it does not signify any angel, but some remarkable one. Calvin’s opinion that it refers to Messiah is held by many other interpreters, as given by Poole in loc. Wintle adopts another view, — “the numberer of secrets,” or, “the wonderful numberer,” from the two words alp, phla, “wonderful,” used by Isaiah of Messiah in the well-known passage in chapter. 9, and hnm, “to number,” which has already come before us. He refers to Glass. Philippians page 644, 4to, and translates, “And another saint said unto that excellent one that was speaking.” Holy One is preferable to saint in this passage. Gesenius adopts the statement of Glasse; the quadriliteral arising from the combination of two words in common use. See also “The Times of Daniel,” page 399, and “The Morning Watch,” volume 5, page 276, where palmoni is translated “the numberer of secrets.” Daniel 8:13. — The Vision of the Daily Sacrifice. The translation of this passage is of great importance, Professor Lee translates as follows: —

11 By him the daily sacrifice was to be taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was to be cast down.

12 And an army was to be given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, (i.e., because the transgressors had now

come to the full: see note, page 165,) and it cast the truth to the ground, and it practiced and prospered.

13 How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 The answer is, unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

The wording of the Hebrew is peculiar here and highly deserving of remark. It stands literally thus, — “Until (the) evening (and) morning, or it may be until the evening of the morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the sanctuary (lit. holiness) shall be sanctified.” Evening and morning, I take here to be a mere periphrasis for a day; and so our translators have taken it, Genesis 1:5. The day here had in view, continues Professor Lee, “must mark the period of Daniel’s seventieth week — the numbers given above must be understood indefinitely, and as intended to designate a considerable length of time.” Referring again to Daniel 8:11, he states, this consummation could not be effected by Antiochus Epiphanes: he only suspended the service of the Temple for about three years and a half. By every consideration, therefore, it is evident that the Little Horn of Daniel’s seventh and eighth chapters, is identically the same, and that this symbolized that system of Roman rule which ruined Jerusalem, and then made war upon the sainted servants and followers of the Son of man; and in this he prospered and practiced, until he in his turn fell, as did his predecessors, to rise no more at all. (P. 168.) Wintle, with his usual judgment, translates, “until the evening (and) morning 2300.” “I insert the word and, because the vau is repeated at Daniel 8:26. I am inclined to think this vesperamane should induce us to understand these days in the first instance literally, rather than of months and years.” The great difficulty, he states, is to reconcile this period with the tyranny of Antiochus; while he does not forget the reference to Antichrist, of whom Antiochus was the type. See, also Sir Isaac Newton, Obs., chapter. 9:Rosenmuller has collected various explanations, especially C. B. Bertram; Kirms, in his historical and critical commentary, page 39; Melancthon, page 131; and Eichhorn in Apoc., t. 2, page 60. “The Times of Daniel” also contains a translation of this passage which is worth notice, page 400, although it is not so scholar-like as that quoted above.

The opinion that this period refers to the rise and duration of the Mohammedan power in the East, is ably advocated by Fry, “Second Advent,” volume 2, page 43 and following; where various explanations of the dates are given at length.

DISSERETATION 33.

THE SEVENTY WEEKS

Daniel 9:24

A great variety of opinions have been published upon this interesting period; it would be impossible to enumerate them all, and it will be sufficient to allude to those which illustrate Calvin’s assertions. The titled author of “The Times of Daniel” writes as follows, — “I endeavored to shew in the chronology that there were two periods of seventy years, — one, the service of Babylon, the other the desolation of Jerusalem, and that the desolation’s terminated with the first year of Darius Nothus. I hope to establish presently that the termination of each of these periods is a fresh epoch,” page 400. “The decree dates from the time of Daniel’s prayer. The command came forth, therefore, in the first year of Darius son of Ahasuerus,” page 402. He then strongly approves of the rendering of the passage by Hengstenberg. “Seventy weeks are cut off over thy people and over thy holy city.” Exactly Calvin’s use of the preposition super. And he adds, most Commentators observe that “cut off” is used figuratively for determined. Mede is also quoted to the same effect, works, fol. page 497. I am still able to follow Dr. Hengstenberg in the following clause, “to restrain transgression and to seal sin.” All senses of the verb, says he, unite in that of restraining. To seal sin, holds forth God’s judicial hardening of persons in sin. This passage, the Duke thinks, was fulfilled “before the passover, in the year a.d. 67.” The terminus a quo is said to be the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, whose date is given in Ptolemy’s Canon An. Nabonassar 325, which, according to the method of verifying the date here used, is b.c. 424, “which, added to the year when apostasy was no longer restrained, a.d. 66, makes 70 weeks or 490 years.” Original views of the “sealing” and the sixty-two weeks are also proposed, to which we can only refer: see pages 410-422. The closing calculation, that “we may look for the cleansing of the sanctuary a.d. 1877,” is so adverse to the interpretation of these Lectures, that we must be content with this passing allusion to it.

The opinions of certaii1 celebrated writers upon this point are here collected. Clement of Alexandria, according to the late Bishop of Lincoln, page 383, explains it thus: “The Temple was rebuilt in seven weeks: then, after an interval of sixty-two weeks, the Messiah came. then, after an interval of half a week, Nero placed an abomination in the Temple of Jerusalem: and, after another half-week, the Temple was destroyed by Vespasian.” Theodoret closes the period three years and a half after the suffering of Christ: “and so they begin the last week at the baptism of Christ,” says Willet. He quotes Zonaras, tom. 1, Annal., who commences the period at the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and ends the 62 weeks at the death of Hyrcanus. From this point to Christ’s baptism they reckon seven weeks more, and then in the midst of the last week, Messiah was slain; so there remained afterwards three years and a half for the preaching of the Gospel. Eusebius begins the 69 weeks in the sixth year of Darius Itystaspes, and ends them in the first year of Herod, about the death of Hyrcanus. He begins the 70th week at Christ’s baptism, and ends the period three years and a half afterwards. Tertullian, by beginning in the first year of Darius, counts 490 years, to the destruction of Jerusalem.

OEcolampadius confesses this passage to be one of the most difficult in Scripture, and can scarcely satisfy himself with any solution. He rather unwisely introduces chronological tables of the events of Scripture, from Adam to the time of the Herods. “With Christ,” he says, “is the fullness of the times and the completion of the seventy weeks.” He quotes the expressions of Jewish authorities, and refers to the cruelty of Herod, and the anointing of Jesus as Messiah. “They are not weeks of days, or of jubilees, or of ages,” he asserts, but of years. They most probably begin at either the first year of Cyrus, or the second of Darius. He calculates it both ways: the first period closing at the death of Antiochus the brother of Alexander, and the other at the reign of Herod. He afterwards adopts the division of this period into three parts, and explains his method of reckoning the seven weeks. The question is discussed with great judgment, and its perusal will amply repay the attentive student of this remarkable prophecy.

J. D. Michaelis has elucidated this subject, in a letter to Sir John Pringle, which the English reader will find noticed in the Monthly Review, O. S., volume 49, page 263 and following. Dr. Blayney, in a Dissertation, Oxford, 1775, 4to, contradicts the Professor’s opinions: see Monthly Review, O. S., volume 52, page 487 and following. John Uri also published at Oxford, 1788, an “Interpretation, paraphrase, and computation of this passage.”

Faber’s well-known Dissertation, London, 1811, only needs to be mentioned to be valued; while that of Dr. Stonard, London, 1826, is exceedingly elaborate, being a masterly scholastic work. Dr. Wells has prefixed to his “Help to the Understanding of Daniel,” some observations on the chronology of this prophecy. From him we learn the different methods of Scaliger, Mede, and Bishop Lloyd, while his own paraphrase and his solution of some of the difficulties in the schemes of preceding writers, are worthy of attentive perusal. Willet presents us with “The several interpretations of Daniel’s seventy weeks dispersedly handled before, summed together,” in his 55th question on this chapter, and continues the subject through the ten succeeding questions. From his comments, we ascertain the views of J. .Lucidus, lib. 7, De emendatione teenporis, Osiander, Junius, Montanus in apparat., lib. Dan., and others. His remarks on Calvin are worthy of notice here. “M. Calvin beginneth these years in the first year of Cyrus, and endeth them in the sixth of Darius the son of Hystaspes, the third king of Persia; but this cannot be; for they that give the most years unto Cyrus and Cambyses, allow but the one 30 and the other seven; excepting only Luther, who following Eusebius De Demon. Evan., giveth to each of them 20 years. Then add the six years of Darius, they will make but 43. How, then, can the seven weeks be here fulfilled? Beside, that Darius, in whose sixth (year), the Temple was reedified, called Darius of Persia, was not Darius Hystaspes the third king of Persia; but before this Darius, three other kings are named Cyrus, Assuerus, Artashasht, Ezra 4:6, 7.” This reference to Calvin occurs in his 58th question, — “When the term of seven weeks, that is 49 years began and when it ended,” page 323, Edit., 1610. One remark of Wintle’s is most important, as its correctness vindicates Calvin from every charge of inconsistency in his interpretation of these prophecies. “The original word rendered weeks throughout the prophecy, strictly signifies sevens, which word is adopted in Purver’s translation, and may be referred either to days or years.” Professor Jahn also adopts the same correct and simple translation, and his satisfactory criticism is found in his Appendix to Enchir. Hermen., Fasc. 1, page 124 and following. Vienna, 1813. The subject is also discussed by the present Editor, in his Norristan Prize Essay for 1834, page 81.Dathe also, in his Prophetic Majores, Edit. 3d., Halae, 1831, translates as follows, “The seventy, yea the seventy, are drawing to a close.” The only difference in the original is in the pointing of the Masorets; and thus the chronology which they introduced, requires all the ingenious apparatus of the profound astronomy of Sir Isaac Newton to reconcile it with the historical facts. See his Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, part 1, chapter. 10. Archbishop Seeker has dwelt much on this point, and every commentator on the Prophet has treated it with more or less wisdom and discretion. Wintle is on the whole very judicious. Professor Lee’s translation of the passage, and explanation of the Hebrew words, is exceedingly valuable. His exegetical comments admit of some variety of opinion as to their value. The seventy weeks, says he, were not “to be considered chronological in any sense, but only to name an indefinite period, the events of which, as in most similar cases, should make all sufficiently clear,” Bk. 2, chapter 1, page 160. This chronological period, and the dependent minor divisions, are ably treated by Rosenmuller, who has devoted more than usual space to their illustration. He quotes some of the best opinions of the most celebrated German writers, and throws great light upon the historical points connected with the inquiry. See his comments on this chapter. 9, pages 313-324.

Broughton has quoted largely from Jewish Rabbis; he treats Daniel’s prayer as a compendium of theology, and applies Gabriel’s answer to the baptism, miracles, and life of our Lord.

Professor Stuart, whom we have already quoted, has treated this subject with great precision by commenting critically on the Hebrew words. He adopts the rendering seventy sevens, or “seventy heptades are determined upon thy people. Heptades of what? of days or of years? No one can doubt what the answer is. Daniel had been making diligent search respecting the seventy years; and in such a connection, nothing but seventy heptades of years could be reasonably supposed to be meant by the angel.” An argument is also drawn from the double gender of the plural of this word, which is noticed by Ewald, Gram. Heb., section. 373. London, 1836. Many other arguments in favor of its general sense of “sevens” are added, implying that the connection only determines whether years or days be intended. Professor Bush brings forward the opposite views to those of Stuart, and discusses the subject with the utmost exactness of Hebrew criticism. Mede should also be consulted, works, Bk. 3, chapter. 9, page 599. Hengstenberg treats the form of the word as rarticipial and indicating a septenized period, like hebdomas in Greek, septimana in Latin, settimana in Italian, and semaine in French. Views in accordance with these are found in “The Morning Watch,” volume 5, page

327. London, 1832. This article is the more worthy of perusal, as it presents us, in an intelligible English form, the criticism of Professor Jahn, extracted from his Appendix ad Enchiridion Hermeneutica, Fasc. 1, page 124 and following. Edit., Vienna, 1813. The English translation of the passage, in accordance with Jahn’s critical exposition, is worthy of notice, particularly by those readers who wish to keep before their minds the most valuable explanations which have ever been published by British, Continental, and American Divines.

DISSERTATION 34.

HIPPOLYTUS, NICOLAUS LYRANUS, ETC.

Daniel 9:25

“Hippolytus,” says Mosheim, “whose history is much involved in darkness, is also esteemed among the most celebrated authors and martyrs of this age.” (Volume 1, page 270, edit. 1823.) Although the learned Benedictines have assisted in dispelling this darkness in their History of the Literature of France, volume 1, page 361, yet the greatest light has been thrown upon the life and opinions of this writer by the Chevalier Bunsen in his work, “Hippolytus and his Age,” 4 vols., 1852. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth has also discussed the same subject, giving an English version of the newly discovered philosophumena, with an introductory inquiry into the authorship of the treatise, and on the life and works of the writer. It is out of our province to enter on the important questions raised by these well-known writers; we must confine ourselves strictly to whatever illustrates Daniel. He wrote commentaries on various parts of the Old and New Testaments, and among these Bunsen enumerates one “On the Prophets, in particular on Ezekiel and Daniel,” volume 1, page 282. A fragment of his comment on Daniel is preserved in the edition of Fabricius, in which the Greek text is printed from a Vatican MS., tom. 1, page 271, “named by Theodoret and by Photius, c. 203. Jerome says Hippolytus’ historical explanation of the seventy weeks did not tally with history and chronology. Fabricins, 1, page 272. We have a genuine fragment of this explanation in Fabricins, 1, page 278, on Daniel’s life and times.” The Syrian MSS. discovered in the Lybian Desert, and explored by Cureton, contain, says Bunsen, quotations from the Commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus. Calvin, most probably, knew no more of his view of the seventy weeks than he found in Jerome. The existence of his treatise on Antichrist was known to the Reformers chiefly from ancient writers who had given a list of his works, but especially from Jerome. From Fabricius, Appendix ad. I. 1, page 2, we learn that a forgery was published in 1556., and that the genuine work was first edited in 1661 from two French MSS, A Latin translation was added in 1672. “His calculations,” says Bunsen, “based upon Daniel and the Apocalypse, are quite as absurd as those which we have been doomed to see printed, and praised, and believed in our days. He makes out that. Antichrist will come 500 years after Christ, from the tribe of Dan, and rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem.” This remark has caused the censure of a writer in “The Record,” who accuses Bunsen of making’ this bishop and martyr “the mouthpiece of his own unbelief in the prophecies of Daniel.” “Some writers have conceived,” says Bunsen, “that Hippolytus alludes, in his interpretation of the ten horns of the fourth beast in Daniel, to some great convulsions of the empire in his time; but this opinion seems to me entirely unfounded. All I can find in these passages indicative of the time in which they were written, (section. 28, 29,) is the existence of a very strong, iron, military government; and this seen as to point to the time when the power of Septimius Severus was firmly established, after fierce contests and sanguinary battles. The rest relates to things to come, to the last age of the world, which he thought about three centuries distant.” (Volume 1, page 274.) On page 290 we have three lists of the works of this “father,” as noticed by Eusebius, Jerome, and Lycellus. Eusebius does not mention his work on Daniel; both Jerome and Lycellus do; and Nicephorus adds it among others to the Eusebian list; and on page 242 many of his works are recorded as existing among the Escurial manuscripts. See the Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliothbque de l’Escurial, par E. Miller, 8vo, Paris, 1848. Cardinal Main, in his “Scriptorum Veterum nova Collectio,” volume 1, part 2, gives such figments of Hippolytus’ Daniel as were formerly inedited, (pp. 161-222.) On page 205, ver. 13, he illustrates Daniel’s phrase, “the old of the days,” referring it to God the Father, the Master of all, even of Christ himself.

The interest excited by the recent publications of Bunsen and Wordsworth, makes it desirable to state that fresh light has been thrown upon his life and times. Cave, in his elaborate work, is unsuccessful respecting Hippolytus. He takes up the opinion of Le Moyne, a French ecclesiastical writer of the seventeenth century, who conjectured that he was bishop of Portus Romanus, Aden in Arabia. The additional supposition that he was an Arabian by birth is also a mistake. He was bishop of the “portus,” a harbor of the city of Rome, during the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus, at the beginning of the third century. He suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Maximus the Thracian, about a.d. 236. The Chevalier’s narrative of the manner in which a lost book of his has been recovered is worthy of notice. “A French scholar and statesman of high merit, M. Villemain, sent a Greek to Mount Athos to look out for new treasures in the domain of Greek literature. The fruits of this mission were deposited, in 1842, in the great national library, already possessed of so many treasures. Among them was a MS. of no great antiquity, written in the fourteenth century, not on parchment, but on cotton paper, and it was registered as a book ‘on all heresies,’ without any indication of its author or age … . It fell to the lot of a distinguished Greek scholar and writer on literature, a functionary of that great institution, M. Emmanuel Miller, to bring forward the hidden treasure. In 1850 he offered it to the University Press at Oxford, as a work of undoubted authenticity, and as a lost treatise of Origen, ‘Against all Heresies.’” It was published in 1851, and Bunsen, on reading it, pronounced it not to be the work of Origen, but of Hippolytus; and in letters to Archdeacon Hare, he has thrown great light upon the subject, and enabled us to per, use some fragments of his comments on Daniel and the Antichrist, which Calvin could only have known through Eusebius and Jerome.

It is worthy of notice that Sir Isaac Newton, in his “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel,” etc., quotes Hippolytus thus, — “If divers of the ancients, as Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus the martyr, and Apollinaris bishop of Laodicea, applied the half week to the times of Antichrist, why may not we, by the same liberty of interpretation, apply the seven weeks to the time when Antichrist shall be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.”

Nicolaus de Lyra received his name from the place of his birth, Lire, a small town in Normandy. He flourished at the beginning of the fourteenth century: he was one of the Society of the Friars Minors at Verneuil, although he is supposed to have been born a Jew. his oostills were repeatedly printed at the close of the fifteenth and the early part of the sixteenth centuries, and were familiar to the biblical students of Calvin’s day. He was a good Hebrew scholar, and has enriched his comments with the best specimens of Rabbinical learning. He is a good interpreter of the literal sense; but his views were attacked by Paulus Burgensis, Paul bishop of Burgos, who was a converted Jew, and defended by Mattathias Doring. His works, with those of his opponent and champion, were published at Duaci, a.d. 1617; also at Antwerp, a.d. 1634, in 6 vols. folio. See also Hart. Horne, volume 2, part 2, chapter 5. In the Morning Watch, volume 1, page 147, he is considered as a forerunner of the Reformation.

Luther is there said to have written of him thus: “Ego Lyram ideo arno, et inter optimos pono, quod ubique diligenter refiner et persequitur historian.”

“Burgensis.” A notice of Paul of Burgos is found in Allport’s edition of Bishop Davenant on Justification, volume 2, page 86, note.

The Africanus here mentioned was Julius Africanus of Nicopolis, (Emmaus,) a friend of Origen’s, and rather his senior in years. He is a very early writer on chronology, about a.d. 232; and his epistle concerning the history of Susannah, together with Origen’s reply, is in Wetstein’s edition, annexed to the dialogue against the Marcionites. Mosheim calls him “a man of the most profound erudition, but the greatest part of whose learned labors are unhappily lost.” Cent. 3, part 2; see also Gieseler’s Eccl. Hist., volume 1, page 145, American translation. The treatise to which Calvin probably refers is the fragment on the genealogy of Christ preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. 1, chapter. 7, especially as Eusebius himself had just quoted this chapter of Daniel (Daniel 9:24) at the close of his sixth chapter. Other writings of his are quoted by Eusebius, lib. 6, chapter. 31, entitled “Concerning Africanus.”

Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, flourished in the second century. He is included by Gieseler among the writers against the Montanists, and is united with Melito of Sardis by Eusebius, as writers of great repute. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. 4, chapter. 26, 27. In the latter chapter he gives a list of his works. See also lib, 5, chapter. 16, 19. Another of the fourth century is mentioned by Mosheim as Bishop of Laodicea. An account of this writer is found in the English edition of Bailey’s Dictionary.

DISSERTATION 35.

ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

Daniel 9:27

Various questions have arisen respecting the correct interpretation of this phrase. The prophecy has been supposed to be accomplished first under Antiochus Epiphanes, and again by the Roman armies under Titus. Hengstenberg’s remarks were chiefly in reply to Bertholdt, Com. 2, page 584, and in explanation of our Savior’s comments, as recorded by St. Matthew. He thinks “it was then regarded by the Jews as relating to a still future occurrence — the yet impending conquest and destruction of Jerusalem.”

“A sufficient proof of this is afforded by the passage, Josephus Arch. 10:1 l, 7, ‘Daniel predicted also the Roman supremacy, and that our country should be desolated by them.’” The passage De Bell. Jud. 4:6, 3, is also quoted with this conclusion, “How general the reference of the prophecy then was to a future destruction of the city, appears from the express observation of Josephus, that even the zealots had no doubt of the correctness of this interpretation. The same interpretation is found also in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Gemarah.” (P. 215.) This reference to “thee zealots” is explained in a note to Bishop Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messias, pt. 2, page 11. They were slain standing on the battlements of the temple, and their carcasses and blood were scattered and sprinkled about the sanctuary before its final destruction. This is supposed to be a fulfillment of the prediction. Professor Lee states, “It is to be understood rather of the Roman armies, with their heathen ensigns, stationed over against the Temple, than of anything else.” (Book 2, chapter. 2, page 202.) He translates thus, “For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it (i.e., Jerusalem) desolate; even until the consummation (i.e., the complete end) and (until) that determined shall be poured upon the desolate, rather desolator;” meaning, “the people of the prince who should come as a desolator and destroy the city and the sanctuary.” (Book 2, chapter. 1, page 142.) “Let it be remembered,” says he, “all is here indefinite. No mathematical measure of time or portion of time is therefore to be thought of. The occurrence of their several events will supply the only measures of time now to be had recourse to.”

The early Reformers, Oecolampadius, Bullinger, and Osiander, treated the word “overspreading” in its literal sense of “wing,” and applied it to the wings or pinnacles of the Temple; the first of these three takes it for “the very altar and holy place where the winged cherubim were.” Augustine in his Epis. 80, ad Hesychium, interprets it of the legions and wings of the Roman armies which compassed and defiled the Temple. Irenoeus, lib. 5, ad. haer., explains it of Antichrist., whom he imagined should sit in the Temple at Jerusalem, and be worshipped as Messiah. Rosenmuller illustrates the use of the word wing from Isaiah 8:8, and 18:1, and also from Cicero, Offic. lib. 2, chapter 13. C. B. Michaelis objects to the usual sense of the “abomination of desolation’s,” while Gesenius and Winer refer the wing to the pinnacle of the Temple. Rosenmuller prefers the active sense of “the desolater,” according to the marginal reading of our authorized version, and applies the passage to Antiochus Epiphanes, quoting 1 Maccabees 1:11, 63, as fulfilling the prediction. Dr. Wells approves of this translation, but he interprets the desolater to mean “the Gentile people inhabiting the (once) countries of the Roman Empire.” (Paraphrase, page 101.)

DISSERTATION 36.

THE VISION ON THE BANKS OF THE HIDDEKEL

Daniel 10:1

This vision is referred to by Bertholdt and Griesinger in an attempt to shew its contradiction to Daniel 1:21, but their cavils have been ably answered by Hengstenberg, pages 54, 55. The error in the Alexandrine translation of this verse is discussed on page 239. With regard to the fasting of Daniel 10:2, Staudlin assumes that Daniel abstracted himself as far as possible from sensible objects, in order to obtain very high revelations, and that the reason why only Daniel saw the appearance lies in the fact, that only he had been fasting a long season and doing penance, and had thereby sharpened and sanctified his vision; see N. Beitr., page 279, ap. Heng., page 120. The celestial appearance of Daniel 10:5 and 6 is said to be “identical with the angel of the Lord, and thus also with Michael. Daniel finds himself on the banks of the Tigris, and sees hovering over its waters a human form clothed in linen, with a golden girdle about his loins.” Hengstenberg objects to the opinion that this is a representation of Gabriel. He is so terrified by the voice of the apparition that he fails into a deep swoon, and for a long time cannot recover, whereas with Gabriel, on his former single appearance, Daniel 11, he converses quite fiercely and without restraint. The angel of the Lord is present in calm silent majesty, and works with an unseen power. The man clothed in linen cannot be, as Staudlin assumes, absolutely identified with the Most High God, but is as distinct from him as the angel of the Lord from the Lord himself. For he swears not; by himself, but, with his right hand lifted up to heaven, by the eternal God. The supposition of a distinction between the man clothed in linen and Gabriel has the analogy of Daniel 8:16 in its favor. The names Gabriel and Michael are peculiar to Daniel, and occur only in such visions as from their dramatic character demand the most exact description possible of the persons concerned and the bringing of them out into stronger relief. This opinion is discussed more at length on pages 136-188.

Rosenmuller objects to consider this vision as either an ecstasy or dream. He quotes Theodoret and Jerome on the phrase, “desirable food,” and explains the period of the Prophet’s fasting according to the view of C. B. Michaelis. The attire of Daniel 10:5 is that of the high priest, although it is by no means certain that this representation portrayed “the prince of the army of Jehovah.” The likeness to chrysolite is said to be not with respect to color, but clearness and brilliancy. Bochart and Calmer suppose Uphaz and Ophir to be the same place; see Wintle’s note, which is full of information. In illustration of the “voice,” Daniel 10:6, Rosenmuller quotes Iliad 11:1. 148 and following, and enters fully into the Jewish theory of various orders of angels, in the first of which were Michael and Raphael. On this very interesting subject he has selected with great judgment. the opinions of various ancient interpreters, especially Theodoret and Jerome, as well as those of Luther, Geier, Gesenius, and Winer. “The hand that touched him,” observes Wintle, “was probably one of the attendant angels. The form of the superior spirit was scarcely visible by Daniel, and therefore it seems likely to have been one of an inferior order, whose hand he could discover as reached out unto him. (Daniel 10:18.) The Son of God is seldom introduced to human notice without a retinue of angels.” Daniel 10:13. The prince of the kingdom of Persia is supposed by some writers to be either Cyrus or Cambyses opposing the building of the Temple; and by others to refer to those guardian angels which the Orientals believed to protect different countries. Wintle adopts Theodotion’s translation of the last clause of this verse, as the sense then becomes very clear; but Rosennmuller prefers the Syriac version, “I was delayed there,” in preference to “I left him there.”

DISSERTATION 37.

MICHAEL THE PRINCE

Daniel 10:13

The appearance of angels, as recorded in these prophecies, has always given rise to much inquiry and conjecture. Henstenberg contends for the identity of Michael and the angel of the Lord, as recognized by the elder Jews, perhaps on the testimony of tradition. He contends against the assertion of Bertholdt, that the Jews derived their distinction between superior and inferior angels from the Persians, after the end of the Babylonish captivity, (2, 528.) Gesenius recognizes angel-princes, “as the earthly monarch is surrounded by his nobles, so here is Jehovah by princes of heaven.” Traces of a gradation of rank among the angels are also found in Job 33:23, according to the explanation suggested by Winer. “We go further,” adds Hengstenberg, “we can shew that those angels of higher rank who play a particular part in our book, are the very same that meet us in just the same character in the oldest books. We have already pointed out in the Christoloqie, that the doctrine of the angel or revealer of God, runs through the whole of the Old Testament, who in a twofold respect, first as the highest of all angels, then as connected with the hidden God by a oneness of essence, appears as his revealer. He then argues for the identity of Michael with the angel of Jehovah, the leader of the Israelites, the prince of the army of Jehovah, according to Exodus 32:34, and Joshua 5:13, and Zechariah 1:5. In some passages in the

Talmud, Michael as the angel of Jehovah is associated with the Shekinah. See on this interesting point Baumgarten-Crusius Bibl. Theol., pages 282, 287. Jerome on Zechariah 1; and Danz in Meuschen, Illustrations of the New Testament from the Talmud, pages 718, 733.

DISSERTATION 38.

HISTORICAL PROOFS. THREE KINGS OF PERSIA.

Daniel 11:2

“The speaker in this last vision is the Son of God himself. There are two things which in my judgment may be clearly proved; that the princes of Persia and Javan, as also Michael and Gabriel, are created angels; and that the speaker in this last vision is the angel of the covenant, the Son of God… The phrase, ‘to strengthen him,’ is also very significant. The word is mahoz, the same which occurs in the plural mahuzzim, at the close of the prophecy. Here it plainly denotes a tutelary or guardian power, exercised on behalf of Darius by the Son of God. At the close of the vision it must bear a similar meaning. The Mahuzzim are those tutelary powers, whether saints, angels, or demons, who are objects of great horror to the willful king.” — Birks, page 33. Herodotus is still a safe guide in the interpretation of this prediction. His narrative of Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes, amply illustrates and confirms it. The canon of Ptolemy agrees in the same account, only Smerdis is omitted, as usual, because his reign was less than a year. In the reign of Darius, the third successor of Cyrus, the rebuilding of the temple was renewed, under the exhortations of Haggai and Zechariah. “The fourth king,” who is far richer than all, and stirs up all against the realm of Greece, plainly answers to Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius. Those three reigns reach forward through fifty years of the world’s history, a.d. 534-485. Daniel 11:2. The fourth king was Xerxes. The four last books of

Herodotus, and the eleventh of Diodorus, are entirely occupied with his invasion of Greece. The Greek play of AEschylus, called the Persae, written within eight years to celebrate the triumph of the Greeks, is useful in conveying a vivid impression of this predicted invasion. Willet may be consulted, as he enters very fully into all the historical details, and gives his authorities in abundance; but his arrangement is very cumbrous; and his want of critical skill often renders his judgment valueless. He has raw materials in abundance, but seldom produces it “ready made to hand.” See Quest. 6, for various opinions on the identity of this fourth king, page 398, Edit. 1610.

Daniel 11:3-5. “The mighty king who shall stand up,” clearly refers to Alexander. The exposition of Calvin is substantially correct throughout this chapter; it will be sufficient to add a few dates and references.

Diodorus, lib. 18, chapter. 43, narrates the career of Ptolemy the son of Lagus, who received Egypt as his share, and successfully repelled the attacks of Perdiccas. Lib. 19, chapter. 79, continues the exploits of Ptolemy. Justin, lib. 13, chapter. 6, and 16, chapter. 2, confirms the statement of Diodorus. Daniel 11:5. “One of his princes shall be great.” This refers to

Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the kingdom of Syria. His strength is related by Appian, de Bel. Syr. sect. 164, who says he could stop a bull in his career by laying hold of him by the horn. The Arabs called the era of the Seleucidae Dilcarnain, two-horned. — See Prideaux, Connex., part 1, b. 8; Justin 19, chapter. 12, and 55, 56, 58, 62, 90, 91, 100; Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chapter. 8; Grey on Hist. of the Seleucidae, 8:35 Daniel 11:6-9. We have here the marriage of Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, with Antiochus Theus, the grandson of the great Seleucus. Birks has drawn up an elaborate list of each king of Syria and Egypt, from a.d. 323 to 164; and states the following monarchs as referred to in the corresponding verses of this chapter; viz.,

5. Ptolemy Soter, and Seleucus Nicator.

7, 8. Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Antiochus Theus.

9. Ptolemy Euergetes, and Scleucus Callinicus.

10. Seleucus Corarams, and Antiochus Magnus.

11, 12. Ptolemy Philopator.

14, 17. Ptolemy Epiphanes.

20. Seleucus Philopator.

21. Antiochus Epiphanes.

25. Ptolemy Philomotor.

He has also treated the details of the history so plainly, that we may satisfy ourselves by simply referring to chapters 6 to 11, pages 73-171. Wintle’s notes are also very explanatory; both these authors supply all the Historical Proofs which the reader of Calvin’s Daniel can require.

The annexed authorities will explain some of the historical allusions of the text.

Villius, page 298, was Publius Villius, the Roman ambassador to the court of Antiochus, who there held a conference with Hannibal.

P. Popilius Leanas, page 317. The narrative is founded on Valerius Maximus, 6, chapter. 5; Livy, 45, chapter. 12; Paterculus, 1, chapter. 10. Calvin probably adopted this anecdote from Jerome. See Fry, volume 2, page 55.

Valerius Soranus, page 349 — a Latin poet of the period of Julius Caesar.

Alexander, king of Syria, page 358. The events of his career are detailed by Josephus, Ant., 13, chapter. 9.

Physcon, page 359. See Josephus as before, and Athenaeus, 2, chapter. 23.

Carrae, page 364. For the death of Crassus there, see Lucan 1. verse. 10.5, and Pliny, lib. 5. c. 14.

DISSERTATION 39.

THE WILFUL KING

Daniel 11:36

The subject here commenced is of the deepest interest, and needs peculiar caution in its treatment. The words in which it is conveyed are obscure in themselves, and, consequently, all the early translations of them are imperfect. Calvin has thrown great light upon the original phraseology, but still reference may be profitably made to some modern translators. The sixteenth chapter of the “Two Later Visions of Daniel,” is occupied with this discussion; various views are clearly and fairly stated; some conjectures are refuted, and some conclusions enforced which differ very materially from Calvin’s. The translation of obscure passages adopted in this work are excellent, as well as those given by Elliott in his notes to pages 1327 and following, of volume 3 of his Horae Apocalypticae. Professor Lee’s translations are exceedingly full and explanatory, while his hermeneutical views agree more with Calvin’s than either Elliott’s or Birks’. See his Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and end of Prophecy, Book. 2, chapter 2, page 189 and following. Wintle’s notes are much to the point. And Bishop Newton traces the analogy between this king and Antichrist in his Dissertation., volume 3, chapter. 26. The annexed comments from Birks, page 271 and following, will explain some grammatical difficulties. Daniel 11:37. — “He shall not regard the elohim of his fathers.”

The clause is ambiguous, as the word “elohim” may receive two opposite constructions. Bishop Newton and others think it to mean, the one true God; but Mede, with many able writers, render it χορρεχτψ, the gods of his fathers, implying the false deities of the heathens. Arguments are then given in support of this view, and objections forcibly answered. “Neither shall he regard the desire of women.” The meaning of this phrase is shortly discussed. The received view, that it refers to the Messiah, is set aside, and it is taken the enlarged sense of despising and trampling upon these humanizing affections of which women are the object. Elliott, after a good Hebrew criticism, applies it to the Messiah, fortifying his opinion by Faber on the Prophecies, pages 380-385, volume 1, edit. 5; so Lee in his preface, page 126, to Euseb. Theophania — “This occurring as it does in a context speaking of deities, was probably intended to designate the Messiah.” Daniel 11:38. — “But in his estate with Eloah he will honor

Mahuzzim.” We now enter upon the second part of this description, which exhibits the new worship set up by the Willful King. Here several questions of some difficulty will arise. I will first offer what appears to me the most natural translation, and consider afterwards the chief points in dispute one by one.

“But in his estate with Eloah, he will honor Mahuzzim; even with an eloah whom his fathers knew not, he will honor them with gold, and with silver, and with precious stones, and with pleasant things. And he will offer to the strongholds of Mahuzzim, with a foreign eloah whom he will acknowledge; he will increase their glory, and will cause them to rule over many, and will divide the land for gain.” The meaning of the word Mahuzzim, fortresses or strongholds, is next described, and in conclusion, it is decided, that Mahuzzim “must here denote guardian deities or tutelary persons, who receive worship as protectors and guardians, defenses and fortresses, from their votaries.” Professor Lee’s translation is as follows,— “But in his estate he shall honor the god of forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and with pleasant things.” “Nero was the first of this series.” “Domitian was the first emperor who generally persecuted, and who, during his lifetime, assumed the title of the Lord God, and insisted upon being worshipped as a deity.” This is the Professor’s interpretation, page 192. The translations of Mede, Bishop Newton, and Dr. Gill, vary slightly from each other, but none of them are so correct as that given above. The original word, translated “offer,” has very wide and various meanings. In Exodus 10:25, it is rendered “sacrifice” to the Lord our God, and is very frequently used in this sense. The words, “a foreign god whom he will acknowledge,” are probably an explanation of the previous phrase, “a god whom his fathers knew not;” implying that the worship of this divinity was borrowed by the Willful King from some other nation, and was unknown to his fathers.

“Such, in conclusion,” says Birks, “are the results which flow from a careful inquiry into the natural meaning of this passage. The Willful King here described is one which might be expected to rise after the renewed persecution of the faithful, when imperial help had been given them, and to continue perhaps for ages, until the restoration of Israel. His title as the king, and the time appointed him in the words of the angel, prove him to be the same with the Little Horn, speaking great words against the most High. He will reject every form of heathen worship, commended to him by the long practice of his fathers, utter proud speeches of surprising arrogance, and of real blasphemy against the God of heaven, trample under his feet the strongest instincts of domestic love, and thus magnify himself against God and man. He will, however, adopt a foreign eloah derived from the Jews for his own; but will turn the very worship he pays to the Son of God into the key-stone to a wide and spreading system of idolatry, in which he will pay reverence to a multitude of guardian powers, and cause them to receive homage and worship from his people.” The comments of this able writer on Daniel 11:36-39 are so contrary to the views of Calvin, that it is only necessary here to state their variance with those of our Reformer. Some explanations are worthy of notice, as, for instance, the following— “These words apply accurately to the local persecutions of believers under the Arian emperors, and the fierce and savage cruelties of the Vandals against the confessors of the faith. When, however, the time of the end, or the predicted three times and a half should begin, these persecutions would gradually become more systematic and severe. So that the prophecy at once proceeds to describe the king, who would prosper in the time of the end, and by whom the fires would be kindled afresh with more than Pagan cruelty, against the followers of God.”

Elliott in his Horae Apocalypticae, volume 3, page 1294, has devoted a section to the elucidation of this chapter. His comments upon the Hebrew words of the original text are valuable, displaying great judgment, and throwing much light upon the Prophet’s meaning. His chronological list of the kings of Syria and Egypt is correct, and very clearly explains the history of this prophetic period. This prophecy, he states, naturally divides itself into two parts: first, that from Daniel 11:1-31, sketching the times of the Persians and Greeks; secondly, that from Daniel 11:32 to the end of Daniel 12, sketching the sequel. His comments upon the whole of Daniel 11 to verse 35, are illustrative of Calvin’s views in these Lectures; but this writer interprets verse 36 and following, in accordance with the expositions of Mede and the two Newtons. These are so fundamentally at variance with Calvin’s writings, that it would be out of place to dwell upon them here. Elliott’s notes on the Hebrew words throughout the latter portion of this chapter are most excellent, and may be trusted as scholarlike, sound, and judicious.

Chapter 6 of the “First Elements of Sacred Prophecy” is occupied by a refutation of Dr. Todd’s theory. The details of the fulfillment of each verse are plainly and accurately stated, and the objections of the Fourth Donnellan Lecture are shewn to be futile. This work is chiefly devoted to the refutation of the Futurist theories, which are directly opposite to that of Calvin. See particularly pages 135-149.

Fry in his Second Advent, chapter. 5, sect. 21, has collected the views of various English Commentators, but they all vary exceedingly from those of Calvin.

DISSERTATION 40.

THE POLLUTION OF THE SANCTUARY

Daniel 11:36, etc.

The various occasions on which the sanctuary was polluted by heathen foes are as follows: —

1. By Antiochus Epiphanes, when he set up the image of Jupiter Olympius on the divine altar. The daily sacrifice was then taken away, and Acra fortified so as to overlook the Temple.

2. The Romans polluted it under Pompey the Great, as recorded by Josephus, Antiq., 14, § 4, 2, 6. It was transitory and quickly repaired, although this was the first step towards the complete loss of liberty.

3. The next profanation occurred under Crassus, who carried off the gold and the treasures which Pompey had left. Eleazer the priest, who had the custody of the vail of the Temple, gave him a beam of solid gold as a ransom for the whole, and yet he afterwards carried away all the wealth of the sacred edifice. (Antiq., 14, 7, 1.)

4. When Herod obtained the kingdom, a.c. 38, the Romans under Sosius took the city by storm; the Jews took refuge within the Temple, but were unmercifully massacred by their cruel foes. (Antiq., 14, 16, 3.) So again a slaughter took place in the Temple by Archelaus on the first passover after Herod’s death, while the cruelties of Sabinus form a similar instance. (Wars, 2:3, 2.)

5. When Titus pitched his camp on the Mount of Olives, and the Romans brought their ensigns within the Temple, and offered sacrifices to them. (Wars, 6:6, 1.)

6. During the reign of Hadrian, after the revolt of Barchochebas, a temple was built and consecrated to Jupiter Capitolinus on the very site of the sanctuary.

DISSERTATION 41.

THE CONQUEST OF THE GLORIOUS LAND

Daniel 11:41

The sober views of our Reformer form a striking contrast to the speculations of some modern writers. Birks, for instance, considers the spread of the Turkish power as accomplishing this verse. He quotes Rycault’s History of the Ottoman Kings, and considers the conquest of Thessalonica and the subjugation of Greece by Amurath II., a.d. 1432, as the intended fulfillment. In 1514, Selim the third Turkish Emperor overthrew the Sultan of Egypt, and obtained possession of Aleppo. After other victories, he turned aside to visit Jerusalem.

The next verse is also supposed to predict his conquests; and the facts detailed by Rycault, volume 1, pages 246-248, respecting the conquest of Judea, Arabia, and Egypt, at the commencement of the sixteenth century of the Christian era., are asserted to fulfill Daniel 11:41 to 43. The last verse of this chapter is also supposed to be accomplished by the historical events recorded by Rycault, volume 1, pages 249-251. A similar opinion is given by the author of “The Revelation of St. John Considered,” Append. 1, page 467. Elltott’s sentiments are similar to these, but less precise, and not very clearly expressed. Mede and Bishop Newton think the closing verses of this chapter remain yet unfulfilled. Professor Lee treats this as accomplished by Constantine and Licinius; see pages 19.5197, and gives as his authority Hist. Univers., volume 15, pages 582-584.

Before the reader has arrived at this “point of observation,” he will probably have decided whether the Praeterist or the Futurist interpretations of these verses is the more acceptable to his own mind, and will value these references according to the conclusions to which he has already arrived.

DISSERTATION 42.

THE SEALING OF THE BOOK

Daniel 12:4

It will not be necessary here to add more than a quotation from Hengstenberg, who answers objections with his usual success, — “The command to the Prophets to shut up and seal the prophecies relates only to a symbolical action, to be understood of something internal; and after the removal of the mere drapery, the imperatives are to be resolved into futures, thus — these prophecies will be closed and sealed till the time of the end, in nearly the same manner as Zechariah (Zechariah 11:15) is commanded in a vision to take the instruments of a foolish shepherd, to intimate that some day ungodly rulers will ruin the people … . But the external acceptation of the words is still more strongly opposed by chapter. 12:9. There the angel answers Daniel’s request for more precise disclosures respecting the prophecy, by saying that he cannot furnish him with them because it is closed and sealed up till the last time.” The objections here answered are those of Bertholdt, Comm., page 795; De Wette; Bleek, pages 186, 207; and Sack, Apol., page 285. Alexander, W. L., (Edinburgh,) in his Congregational Lectures, seventh series, 1841, has a short but explanatory criticism on the meaning of “to seal” and “to shut up;” see Lecture 7, page 372.

DISSERTATION 43.

THE EXPRESSIONS RELATIVE TO TIME

Daniel 12:11

The variety of opinion as to the expressions of Time in this chapter renders it difficult to illustrate our author with sufficient brevity. The wisdom of the early reformers is conspicuous. OEcolampadius agrees with Calvin in treating these periods of days, as implying long and indefinite times — “multiplicatione dierum longum tempus antichristianae impietatis agnoseas” — by the multiplication of the days you will perceive the lengthened period of the anti-christian impiety. Junius and Polanus, as quoted by Willet, consider the days to be literal ones, and the accomplishment to have taken place during Maccabean times. He also gives the views of Hippolytus and Nicolaus de Lyra, to whom Calvin has previously referred. Melancthon adds together the 1290 and the 1335 days, making seven years and three months, beginning b.c. 145, and ending b.c. 151, when Nicanor was overcome. Bullinger understands them of the times of Antiochus, and Osiander of the duration of Antichrist, but thinks this prophecy does not properly, “but by way of analogue, concern the latter times.” The opinions of those modern interpreters who adopt the principles of Mede will be found in the works already quoted. He reckons the years from the time of Antiochus, b.c. 167, which brings us down to the 12th century, when the Waldenses and Albigenses protested against the tyranny of the Papacy; and between the forty-five years, 1123 and 1168 a.d. a great secession occurred from the dominion of the Pope, by which he thinks the prophecy to have been fulfilled. Bishop Newton, Dissertation. 26, page 387, writes as follows, — “It is, I conceive, to these great events, the fall of Antichrist, the re-establishment of the Jews, and the beginning of the glorious millennium, that the three different dates in Daniel of the 1260 years, 1290 years, and 1335 years, are to be referred.” Here the word “years” is used as if it occurred in the scriptural text.

Professor Lee considers that the events which occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus fulfilled the prediction of verse. 1. “The children of thy people,” found written in the book, are said not to be the Jews at large, but the holy remnant who embraced Jesus as Messiah, and escaped to carry the tidings of salvation to the ends of the earth. The many who slept in the dust of the earth were to awake “in a first resurrection with Christ,” Romans 6:3-6, and “some to shame and everlasting contempt, i.e., awakened to hear through the preaching of the gospel, the judgments denounced against unbelief, and to feel this in a general overthrow.” The resurrection is here interpreted of our regeneration and union with the Savior through the Spirit, and the precise period of its accomplishment is confined to the early spread of the gospel among mankind.

The “time, times, and a half” of Daniel 12:7, “must, of necessity, signify the time that should elapse from the fall of Jerusalem, to the end of Daniel’s seventieth week; for, according to the prediction enouncing this, the Temple and the City were to fall in the midst of this week,” page 199. In direct contrast to this extract, Elliott’s reference of this chapter to times yet future occurs in volume 2, page 1343. Assuming the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days to be years, the former period is said to close at the French Revolution in 1790 a.d., the second at the Greek Revolution in 1820 a.d.; and as they are “unhesitatingly” pronounced to be all three “measured from one and the same commencing epoch,” the last date must terminate a.d. 1865. Frere terminates the 1290 days in a.d. 1822, and the 1335 in a.d. 1847. See his Letter dated September 9, 1848, to the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, October 1848. Wintle refers this verse to the struggle with anti-christian powers, when Michael should stand up “to defend the cause of the Jews, and to destroy the enemies of true religion.” Note in loc.

The Duke of Manchester has devoted an Appendix to the discussion of these expressions. He justly observes; if they “are to be taken literally, then the important events of the latter part of this prophecy will be within the compass of a man’s life, and will relate to the actions of an individual. If, on the other hand, the 1290 and 1335 are years, they will extend far beyond the life of any individual, and must therefore be applied, not to a person, but to a system. Thus the whole character of the prophecy will be different.” “The prophecy of Daniel 10-12 is not symbolical, nor even figurative, but is literal. The expression translated days in Daniel 8 is different from the term rendered days in Daniel 12. The character of the prophecy, Daniel 10-12, is rather what we may call biographical, for it details the actions of individuals. I see no more warrant for saying the willful king denotes a system, than for saying the vile person, or , the raiser of taxes, or a dozen other kings, mentioned in the prophecy, denote systems. The genius of the prophecy, therefore, seems to require that the measure of time connected with the actions of the willful king, should be suitable to the reign of an individual king, and not elongated into times suitable to the continuance of a system from generation to generation. ‘Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days,’ seems to imply that some individuals would endure for the whole 1335 days.” Thus far the noble author’s remarks are completely in the spirit of Calvin, but a few sentences afterwards, he supposes the “abomination of desolation” to belong to the last days of the world, thus giving countenance to the Futurist expositions. The curious reader may consult a Review in “The Morning Watch,” volume 5, page 161, of Faber’s Second Calendar of Prophecy, in which many ingenious speculations are brought forward illustrative of Daniel’s expressions relative to Time. The various numbers of this work contain a multiplicity of laborious investigations of this subject, chiefly based upon the year-day theory.

DISSERTATION 44.

MODERN DISCOVERY THROWING ITS LIGHT ON DANIEL’S PROPHECIES.

Daniel 12:13

We now conclude these our Dissertations by a further allusion to the subject which occupied our attention in the Preface. — the marble commentary on the inspired text presented by the Nineveh monuments. Three thousand years have passed over the Assyrian mounds, and at length, while we are closing our volume, the grave is giving up its dead at the call of the intellect of modern Europe. The crusted earth, beneath which Nineveh has been so long inhumed, has now revealed the monumental history of its grandeur, the imperishable witness of its incomparable renown. We must leave the interesting narrative of the discovery of these unrivaled treasures, and the description of these singular sculptures; our attention must be directed solely to the inscriptions, by the reading of which alone these monuments become available for our purpose. Had we been unable to read them, “all the excavations must have been to no purpose, and the sculptured monuments would have been worthless as the dust from which they have been torn.” Well may we ask, in the language of an able review of Layard’s second series of monuments of Nineveh, May 16, 1853, “By what splendid accidents, then, has it happened that illumination has been thrown into the heaps, and that art, inferred for 3000 years, becomes, when brought to light, in an instant as familiar to us all as though it were but the dainty work of yesterday? How comes it that these arrow-headed, or, as they are, more generally styled, cuneiform characters, which bear no analogy whatever to modern writing of any kind, and which have been lost to the world since the Macedonian conquest, are read by our countrymen with a facility that commands astonishment, and a correctness that admits of no dispute? The history is very plain, but certainly as remarkable as it is simple. Fifty years ago the key that has finally opened the treasure-house was picked up, unawares, by Professor Grotefend of Gottingen. In the year 1802 this scholar took it into his head to decipher some inscriptions which were, and still are to be found on the walls of Persepolis, in Persia. These inscriptions, written in three different languages, are all in the cuneiform (or wedge-like) character, and were addressed, as it now appears, to the three distinct races acknowledging, in the time of Darius, the Persian sway — viz., to the Persians proper, to the Scythians, and to the Assyrians. It is worthy of remark that although the cuneiform character is extinct, the practice of addressing these races in the language peculiar to each still prevails on the spot. The modern governor of Bagdad, when he issues his edicts, must, like the great Persian king, note down his behest’s in three distinct forms of language, or the Persian, the Turk, and the Arab who submit to his rule will find it difficult to possess themselves of his wishes. When Grotefend first saw the three kinds of inscription, he concluded the first to be Persian, and proceeded to his task with this conviction. He had not studied the writing long before he discerned that all the words of all the inscriptions were separated from each other by a wedge, placed diagonally at the beginning or end of each word. With this slight knowledge for his guide, he went on a little further. He next observed that in the Persian inscription one word occurred three or four times over, with a slight terminal difference. This word he concluded to be a title. Further investigation and comparison of words induced him to guess that the inscription recorded a genealogy. The assumption was a happy one. But to whom did the titles belong? With no clue whatever to help him, how should he decide? By an examination of all the authorities, ancient and modern, he satisfied himself at least of the dynasty that had founded Persepolis, and then he tried all the names of the dynasty in succession, in the hope that some would fit. He was not disappointed. The names were Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes. Although the actual pronunciation of these names had to be discovered, yet by the aid of the Zend (the language of the ancient Persians) and of the Greek, the true method of spelling was so nearly arrived at that no doubt of the accuracy of the guess could reasonably be entertained. The achievement had been worth the pains, for twelve characters of the Persian cuneiform inscription were now well secured. Twenty-eight characters remained to be deciphered before the inscriptions could be mastered. Grotefend here rested.

“The next step was taken by M. Bournouf, a scholar intimately acquainted with the Zend language. In 1836 he added considerably to the Persian cuneiform alphabet by reading twenty-four names on one of the inscriptions at Persepolis; but a more rapid stride was made subsequently by Professor Lassen of Bonn, who, between the years 1836 and 1844, to use the words of Mr. Fergusson, the learned and ingenious restorer of the palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, ‘all but completed the task of alphabetical discovery.’

“While progress was thus making in Europe, Colonel Rawlinson, stationed at Kermanshah, in Persia, and ignorant of what had already been done in the west, was arriving at similar results by a process of his own. He, too, had begun to read the Persian cuneiform character on two inscriptions at Hamarian, the ancient Ecbatana. This was in 1835. In 1837 he had been able to decipher the most extensive Persian cuneiform inscription in the world. On the high road from Babylonia to the east stands the celebrated rock of Behistun. It is almost perpendicular, and rises abruptly to the height of 1700 feet. A portion of the rock, about 300 feet from the plain, and still very perfect, is sculptured, and contains inscriptions in the three languages already spoken of. The sculpture represents King Darius and the vanquished chiefs before him — the inscriptions detail the victories obtained over the latter by the Persian monarch. This monument, at least 2350 years old, deciphered for the first time by Colonel Rawlinson, gave to that distinguished Orientalist more than eighty proper names to deal with. It enabled him to form an alphabet. Between the Colonel and Professor Lassen no communication whatever had taken place, yet when their alphabets were compared they were found to differ only in one single character. The proof of the value of their discoveries was perfect.

“Thus far the Persian cuneiform character! To decipher it was to take the first essential step towards reading the cuneiform inscriptions on the walls at Nineveh. But for the Persepolis walls, the Behistun rock, and Colonel Rawlinson, it would have been a physical impossibility to decipher one line of the AssyriaI1 remains. In the Persian text only forty distinct characters had to be arrived at; and when once they were ascertained, the light afforded by the Zend, the Greek, and other aids, rendered translation not only possible, but certain to the patient and laborious student. The Assyrian alphabet, on the other hand, has no fewer than 150 letters; many of the characters are ideographs or hieroglyphics, representing a thing by a non-phonetic sign, and no collateral aids whatever exist to help the student to their interpretation. The reader will at once apprehend, however, that the moment the Persian cuneiform character on the Behistun rock was overcome, it must have been a comparatively easy task for the conqueror to break the mystery of the Assyrian cuneiform inscription, which, following the Persian writing on the rock, only repeated the same short history. Darius, who carved the monument in order to impress his victories upon his Assyrian subjects, was compelled to place before their eye the cuneiform character which they alone could comprehend. The Assyrian characters on the rock are the same as those on the bas-reliefs in the Assyrian palaces. Rawlinson, who first read the Persian inscriptions at Behistun, and then by their aid made out the adjacent Assyrian inscriptions, has handed over to Layard the first-fruits of his fortunate and splendid discovery, and enabled him for himself to ascertain and fix the value of the treasures he has so unexpectedly rescued from annihilation. As yet, as may readily be imagined, the knowledge of the Assyrian writing is not perfect; but the discovery has already survived its infancy. All other year or two of scholastic investigation, another practical visit to the ancient mounds, and the decipherment will be complete! Fortunate Englishmen! Enviable day-laborers in the noblest vocation that can engage the immortal faculties of man! What glory shall surpass that of the enterprising, painstaking, and heroic men who shall have restored to us, after the lapse of thousands of years, the history and actual stony presence of the world-renowned Nineveh, and enabled us to read with our own eyes, as if it were our mother tongue, the language suspended on the lips of men for ages, though written to record events in which the prophets of Almighty God took a living interest!”

The following narrative of discoveries which have been made since our Preface was written, will most appropriately close our attempt to illustrate in every possible way these valuable Lectures: — “When Mr. Layard returned to the scene of operations in 1848, he lost no time in proceeding with his excavations. During his absence a small number of men had been employed at Kouyunjik by Mr. Rassam, the English vice-consul, who, as the agent of the British Museum, had carried on the works suspended by Mr. Layard, though rather with the view of preventing interference on the part of others than of prosecuting excavations to any great extent. Mr. Rassam’s labors, limited as they were, had not been fruitless. He had dug his way to new chambers, and had exposed additional sculptures. The latter were of great interest, and portrayed more completely than any yet discovered the history of an Assyrian conquest, from the going out of the monarch to battle to his triumphal return after a complete victory. The opinion formerly entertained by Mr. Layard with respect to this palace was now confirmed. He was convinced that the ruins at Kouyunjik constituted one great building, built by one and the same king. He was still further satisfied that Kouyunjik and Khorsabad were contemporary structures, and that the north-west palace at Nimroud had a much higher antiquity than either.”

That portion of the subject which applies most to our purpose is the result obtained from the inscriptions with which the sculptures are accompanied. In the language of the review already quoted — “The king of Assyria himself is represented superintending the building of the mounds upon which the palace with its bulls is to be built. This king, as the cuneiform inscription shews, is Sennacherib; and the sculptures, as Rawlinson and the initiated are permitted to read, celebrate the building at Nineveh of the great palace and its adjacent temples — the work of this great king. The inscriptions on the bulls at Kouyunjik record most minutely the manner in which the edifice was built, its general plan, and the various materials employed in decorating the halls, chambers, and roofs. Some of the inscriptions have a thrilling interest. They indicate that the Jews, taken in captivity by the Assyrian king, were compelled to assist in the erection of the palaces of their conquerors, and that wood for the building was brought from Mount Lebanon, precisely as Solomon had conveyed its cedars for the choice woodwork of the temple of the Lord. There is an awful strangeness in thus being brought face to face, as it were, with the solemn mysteries of the Bible and with our own earliest sacred recollections.

“During the month of December (1848) the treasure-seekers were rewarded with a rare harvest. A facade of the south-east side of the palace at Kouyunjik, forming apparently the chief entrance to the building, was discovered. It was 180 feet long, and presented no fewer than ten colossal bulls, with six human figures of gigantic proportions. The bulls were more or less injured; some of them were even shattered to pieces, but fortunately the lower parts of all remained untouched, and consequently the inscriptions were preserved. Two of these inscriptions contained the annals of six years of the reign of Sennacherib, ‘besides numerous particulars connected with the religion of the Assyrians, their gods, their temples, and the erection of their palaces.’ There can be no reasonable doubt of the accuracy of the translation made of these writings, and now given in Mr. Layard’s volume. ⁶⁵ The very differences and variations that occur when the cuneiform character is submitted to more than one translator attest to the correctness of the general interpretation. Colonel Rawlinson has translated into English the particular inscriptions of which we speak; and Dr. Hincks, an equally competent scholar, has done the same — both independently of each other; and there is no material discrepancy in their views. The inscription informs us that in the first year of his reign Sennacherib defeated Berodach-Baladan, king of Car-Duniyas, a city and country frequently mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. It is not for the first time that the reader hears of this king, for he will remember how, When Hezekiah was sick, ‘at that time Berodach-Baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah,’ who boastfully shewed to the messengers all the treasures of his house. The Assyrian monument and holy writ thus begin to reflect light upon each other. But this is only a gleam of the illumination that follows. In the third year of his reign, according to the inscriptions, Sennacherib overran with his armies the whole of Syria. ‘Hezekiah,’ so runs the cuneiform writing, ‘king of Judah, who had not submitted to my authority, forty-six of his principal cities, and fortresses and villages depending upon them of which I took no account, I captured, and carried away their spoil. I shut up himself within Jerusalem, his capital city.’ The next passage, says Mr. Layard, is somewhat defaced, but enough remains to shew that he took from Hezekiah the treasure he had collected in Jerusalem — thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, besides his sons, his daughters, and his slaves. The reader has not waited for us to remind him that in the 2nd Book of Kings it is written how ‘in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them … And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and Thirty Talents of Gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house.’ It is something to have won from the earth such testimony on behalf of inspired Scripture. It is also something to have obtained from holy writ such evidence in favor of the monumental records of long-buried Nineveh.

¹Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. Being the result of a Second Expedition, undertaken for the Trustees of the British Museum.

By Austin H. Layard, M.P. London: Murray, 1853.Layard’s Monuments of, Nineveh. Second Series. London: Murray, 1853.

“At a later period a chamber was discovered in which the sculptures were in better preservation than any before found at Kouyunjik. The slabs were almost entire, and the inscription was complete. The bas-reliefs represented the siege and capture, by the Assyrians, of a city of great extent and importance. ‘In no other sculptures were so many armed warriors seen drawn up in array before a besieged city.’ The sculptures occupied thirteen slabs, and told the whole narrative of the attack, the conquest, and the destruction of the enemy. The captives, as they appear in the bas-reliefs, have been stripped of their ornaments and fine raiment, are barefooted and half-clothed. But it is impossible to mistake the race to which they belong. They are Jews; for the stamp is on the countenance as it is impressed upon the features of their descendants at this very hour. The Assyrian sculptor has noted the characteristic lines and drawn them with surprising truth. To what city they belong we likewise know, for, above the figure of the king, who commands in person, it is declared, that ‘Sennacherib, the mighty king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lachish, gives permission for its slaughter.’ That it was slaughtered we have good reason to believe, for is it not written in the Bible that Sennacherib had quitted Lachish, having vanquished it, before his generals returned with the tribute extorted from Hezekiah?

“If evidence were still wanting to prove the identity of the king who built Kouyunjik with the Sennacherib of the Old Testament, it would be sufficient to call attention to one other most remarkable discovery that has been made in these mysterious mounds. In a passage in the south-west corner of the Kouyunjik palace, Mr. Layard stumbled upon a large number of pieces of fine clay, bearing the impressions of seals, which there can be no doubt had been affixed, like modern official seals of wax, to documents written on leather or parchment. The writings themselves have, of course, decayed, but, curiously enough, the holes for the string by which the seal was fastened are still visible; and in some instances the ashes of the string itself may be seen, together with the unmistakable marks of the finger and thumb. Four of these seals are purely Egyptian. Two of them are impressions of a royal signet. ‘It is,’ says Mr. Layard, ‘one well known to Egyptian scholars, as that of the second Sabaco, the AEthiopian of the twenty-fifth dynasty. On the same piece of clay is impressed an Assyrian seal, with a, device representing a priest ministering before the king, probably a royal signet.’ We entreat the reader’s attention to what follows. Sabaco reigned in Egypt at the end of the seventh century before Christ, the very time at which Sennacherib ascended the throne. ‘He is probably the So mentioned in the 2 Kings 17:4 as having received ambassadors from Hoshea, king of Israel, who, by entering into a league with the Egyptians, called down the vengeance of Shalmaneser, whose tributary he was, which led to the first great captivity of the people of Samaria. Shalmaneser we know to have been an immediate predecessor of Sennacherib, and Tirhakah, the Egyptian king, who was defeated by the Assyrians near Lachish, was the immediate successor of Sabaco II. It would seem, that a peace having been concluded between the Egyptians and one of the Assyrian monarchs, probably Sennacherib, the royal signets of the two kings, thus found together, were attached to the treaty, which was deposited among the archives of the kingdom.’ The document itself has perished, but the proof of the alliance between the two kings remains, and is actually reproduced from the archive-chamber of the old Assyrian king. The illustration of Scripture-history is complete, and the testimony in favor of the correct interpretation of the cuneiform character perfect.”

Long as this extract is, it gives but a slight specimen of the surprising amount of scriptural illustration derived from this new and unexpected source. We add a last and final one: — “Ten years have scarcely elapsed since the first discovery of ruins on the site of Nineveh was made, and already there lies before us an amount of information, having regard to the history of the old Assyrian people, of which we had previously not the most distant conception. When Mr. Layard published, in 1849, the account of his first Assyrian researches, the monuments recovered were comparatively scanty, and the inscriptions impressed upon them could not be deciphered. Now, a completed history can be traced in the sculptured remains, and the inscriptions may be followed with the same facility as the Greek or any other character. That they may be read with immense profit and instruction is evident from the startling facts which they have hitherto revealed. Some of these facts we venture briefly to place before the reader. We have previously hinted that the earliest king of whose reign we have any detailed account is the builder of the north-west palace at Nimrod, the most ancient edifice yet beheld in Assyria. His records, however, furnish the names of five, if not seven, of his predecessors, some of whom it is believed founded palaces, afterwards erected by their successors. The son of this king, it is certain, built the center palace of Nimroud, and raised the obelisk, now in the British Museum, upon which the principal events of his reign are inscribed. Upon that obelisk are names corresponding to names that are found in the Old Testament. The fortunate coincidence furnishes at once the means of fixing specific dates, and enables Mr. Layard to place the accession of the Assyrian monarch who built the oldest Nimroud palace at the latter part of the tenth century before Christ. The builder of the palace of Khorsabad is proved to have been the Sargon mentioned by Isaiah. The ruins of his palace supply the most complete details of his reign; and from the reign of Sargon a complete list has been obtained of all the kings down to the fall of the empire. The son of Sargon was Sennacherib, who ascended the throne in the year 703 b.c. We know from the Bible that Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon, and we now ascertain from the monuments that one of the palaces at Nimroud was the work of his reign. The son of Esarhaddon built; the south-east palace on the mound of Nimroud; and, although no part of his history has been as yet recovered, there is good reason for concluding him to have been the Sardanapalus who, conquered (b.c. 606) by the Medes and Babylonians under Cyaxares, made one funeral pile of his palace, his wealth, and his wives.

“While it is certain that there is no mention of Nineveh before the 12th century b.c. Mr. Layard is still of opinion that the city and empire existed long before that period. Egyptian remains found at Karnak refer to a country called Assyria, and the enterprising explorer is not without hope that further investigation will supply him with still more ancient records than any he now possesses. The monuments of Nineveh, as far as they go, corroborate all extant history in describing the monarch as a thorough Eastern despot, ‘unchecked by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property of his subjects; rather adored as a god than feared as a man, and yet himself claiming that authority and general obedience in virtue of his reverence for the national deities and the national religion.’ The dominion of the king, according to the inscriptions, extended to the central provinces of Asia Minor and Armenia northward; to the western provinces of Persia eastward; to the west as far as Lydia and Syria; and to the south to Babylonia and the northern part of Arabia. ‘The empire appears to have been at all times a kind of confederation formed by many tributary States, whose kings were so far independent that they were only bound to furnish troops to the supreme lord in time of war, and to pay them yearly a certain tribute.’ The Jewish tribes, it is now proved, held their dependent position upon the Assyrian king from a very early period; and it is curious to observe that, wherever an expedition against the kings of Israel is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, it is invariably stated to have been undertaken on the ground that they had not paid their customary tribute.

“At every step sacred history is illustrated, illuminated, and explained by the speaking stones of Nineveh; and in this regard alone the Assyrian discoveries have a significance beyond any revelation that has been made in modern times. Even the architecture of the sacred people may be rendered visible to the eye by comparing it with that of the Assyrian structures; and certainly not the least instructive result of all Mr. Layard’s labors is the ingenious analogy drawn by Mr. Fergusson in his ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ between the temple of Solomon and the palace of the Assyrian king.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

HAVING brought our DISSERTATIONS on the HISTORICAL portion of this sacred book to a close, we have still another duty to discharge in editing these Commentaries. We have already defended our Reformer from the charges of the German Neologist, and from the censures of the fanciful expounders of prophecy; We have now merely to offer a few comments on the PRACTICAL INFERENCES which CALVIN so ably draws from the inspired narrative. While perusing this volume, the reader must often have felt the difference between the state of the world in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and his own. Those were emphatically days of visions, and marvels, and visibly divine interpositions. We, on the contrary, pass on along the even tenor of the walk of life, without expecting to behold a hand-writing on the wall, or to experience the all-devouring heat of a “burning fiery furnace.” We see no vision in the night season foretelling the wonders of an unknown future, and expect neither magician nor prophet to expound with the authority of heaven the images of our sleeping hours. Yet, with our Reformer, we see the world agitated in all quarters with unexpected revolutions. Oppression, and intrigue, and tyranny, prevail among the rulers of Europe and of Christendom, and there seems no human means adequate to the task of stemming the tide of recklessness and infidelity as it overflows the nations. If these comments on scriptural prophecy are to be useful in our day and generation, they need some connecting links of interpretation which may apply the general principles enunciated to the practical problem to be worked out. Otherwise, we either make no intelligent use of such a history as this volume contains, or else we apply it wrong. The latter error is a very common one; and as many are liable to its commission, we trust these CONCLUDING REMARKS will be found suitable and instructive. It may appear to many readers that CALVIN in his PRACTICAL EXHORTATIONS overlooks this difference between a miraculous dispensation and the ordinary condition of God’s people under the New Covenant. If he be somewhat open to this charge, it is readily accounted for by the times in which he lived. CALVIN, like Daniel, was an exile from his fatherland. The house of Valois and their tyrant kings were to him the exact counterparts of the Babylonian monarchs. They were absolute sovereigns, and most ferocious persecutors of the people of the Lord. The Medici, the Guises, and the Lorraines of his day were to him the very antitypes of the nobles who fawned upon Nebuchadnezzar, and of the presidents who inveigled Darius. In his DEDICATORY EPISTLE prefixed to this volume, the pious in France are represented as in a position exactly similar to that of the Jews during their captivity. The parallel being in each case so striking and so different to what we see and experience in these days, we need not be surprised at CALVIN’S expectation of special interpositions, and at our own backwardness to appreciate the full suitability of his comments. Now there is clearly a sense in which such “special deliverance’s” are real, and a sense in which they are not. And as this is a point of some importance involving the idea of the Almighty which our Reformer has presented to us in the preceding pages, we shall comment at some length on a few passages of importance.

For instance, on Daniel 2:21, and following, we have a full reply to unbelieving objections to God’s providential government of the world. The profane are said to consider all things acted upon by a “blind impulse,” and “others affirm the human race to be a kind of sport to God, since men are tossed about like balls.” The chief cavils of the Reformation Period were those which proceeded from complete skepticism. Philosophers having thrown off the superstitions of Popery naturally doubted and disputed all things. The reasoners of CALVIN’S days were something like those intelligent Hindoos who are now worshippers of neither Brahma nor Christ. They are in a transition state, and having unlearned so much, they scarcely know where to lay the foundation-stone of trustworthy belief. Throughout these Lectures, our author is constantly answering the arguments of those contemporaries who felt the hollowness of Rome, and had not yet tried the firmness of Geneva. Still to us his replies may not be convincing. This remark applies to the following passage. “If the sun always rose and set at the same period, or at least certain symmetrical changes took place yearly, without any casual change; if the days of winter were not short, and those of summer not long, we might then discover the same order of nature, and in this way God would be rejected from his dominion.” Here we must remember that in Calvin’s days most men were ignorant of those general laws and all-pervading principles by which the Author of nature governs and sustains the universe. In his day, there was scarcely any choice between the system which represented the Almighty removed in a kind of Epicurean repose far away from the works of his hand, and a system which supposed him to interfere arbitrarily and suddenly in favor of one party, and to rim discomfiture of another. Since this period, the researches of modern science have discovered for us the numerous, the simple, and seemingly self-acting principles, according to which the days of winter are short, and those of summer long. We can contemplate humbly “the same order of nature” from year to year with undeviating regularity, and yet never be tempted “to reject God from his dominion.” Yea, the marvel is this, the more we are trained to view the comprehensive theories of physical astronomy, and chemistry, and magnetism, the more are we led to adore and to magnify the Great and the All-powerful Original. Such studies do not lead us to “erect nature into a deity,” and to reject the Creator from his own dominion. They rather lead us to detect the fallacy in the expression “nature does this or that;” they prove to us that there is no such existence as “nature,” but that the word is but an expression for a complex and comprehensive idea of external objects, in the minds of men. The Almighty is seen by the true naturalist, in all his works, not as interposing visibly and surprisingly at one time, and leaving all things to themselves at another; but rather as impressing on every created particle of matter its own condition of obedience to certain laws which we call either mechanical or chemical, vital or organic. And it is the merciful arrangement of providence that a persevering study of God’s works prepares the mind for an intelligent perusal of his word. The habit of looking for such general principles as gravitation, attraction, organization, and development, of applying these theories to practice by the process of mathematical reasoning, or anatomical dexterity, and of arriving at results indisputably true, — this habit of mind is an excellent preparative for the equally discursive pursuit of revealed theology. Thus we readily detect the fallacy of ascribing the events of life to either fortune, or chance, or nature. CALVIN had to contend with them as if they were realities; we may profit by Locke’s chapter on complex ideas, and treat them as expressions comprehending many separate existence’s, so related to each other that we form “a collective idea” of the whole.

By continuing this process of thought we are enabled to explain, although not to defend certain phrases of CALVIN’S respecting the prerogatives of God. On Daniel 5:11, men are said to “mingle God and angels in complete confusion,” and on Daniel 5:21, God is said to be “excluded from the government of the world,” The moment our attention is turned to the point, we perceive that the ideas only of God and angels can be mingled, and in imagination only can men exclude the Almighty from his sway over the wills of mankind. Such phrases, we must remember, are the remnants of that realism which lingered in the minds of many of the Reformers, and still clings to the writings of some of their successors. Such expressions as we meet with on Daniel 6:10, “Draw down God from heaven,” and on Daniel 6:16, “to deprive the Almighty of his sway,” are better avoided. The same thought may be expressed in language more adapted to our enlarged views of the glory of our Creator. The Hebrew Prophets, it has been said, “dramatized the particulars of their mission,” and their symbolical portraits of the Almighty were afterwards received as exact and literal descriptions of his character. The Jewish people, even in the time of Daniel, were but in the infancy of moral and intellectual growth; and to them the well-known proverb most aptly applies, “Omne ignotum, pro magnifico.” Everything marvelous was attributed at once to the direct agency of a deity, disturbing rather than controlling the occurrences of life. Thus the world, and its surprising tumults, successes, struggles, and reverses, appeared but a scene of fortuitous and capricious chance. But the more we advance from infancy to manhood, the more we gain power to methodize these moral phenomena under some fixed and intelligible arrangement.

It is possible to present from the word of God another reply to the Epicurean suppositions of CALVIN’S day, on principles in advance of those which he adopts. While he represents kings as actually contending with the Almighty, and really attempting to hurl him from his throne in heaven, we must remember that such language can only be suggestive. The foundation of all true reverence for Deity is the idea of an infinite and invisible Being, of whose wisdom and might the material universe is the product, and of whose moral nature the conscience of man is the image. When asked for rigid proof of this assertion, we are constrained to refer it to that faith which is peculiarly his gift. The double postulate of that essential existence which is spiritual, and of something in ourselves, which is his image, is the necessary rock upon which we must be placed before we can understand our origin and our destiny — our position in the universe — our moral relation to that system of providence into which we find ourselves born. And this series of providential occurrences is in many respects exactly the opposite to that described in these six chapters of Daniel. Miraculous and supernatural agency is here variously employed to counteract what are known to us as the ordinary laws of nature. The simple will of the Almighty annihilates the effect of fire in the furnace, and the ferocity of lions in their den. A sweeping act of his power converts one despot into the appearance of a beast of prey, and affrights another by the ominous appearance of a hand writing vengeance on a wall. We cannot expect such special revelations, judgments, or deliverance’s. Our study of the character of Deity is contained in the revealed record of such wonders, and in the present and past history of man and of the physical world. Moral and natural philosophy, under the guidance of revealed religion, is for us the exponent of the idea of Deity. The omnipresence of mind in outward nature is now all but visible to every student. Vast as the universe is, we know it to be pervaded by a moral purpose, and this presents that view of Deity which provides for adoration, and love, and reverence, without limit, and satisfies the longings for worship which are implanted deeply in the human soul. Thus we clothe the idea of an infinite spirit with the attributes of a human conscience; we are not satisfied with “a dynamic center of the universe,” we desire to feel our souls overflow with that mingled wonder and love which constitutes the highest and noblest worship of him who is GOOD. The history of nations and of families impresses upon us the idea of a personal providential Divinity, having fellow-feeling with the wants and distresses, the joys and the sorrows of mankind. Now, we also believe that there are general, harmonious, everacting laws of his providential government as well as of his physical. And the study of ordinary sciences disciplines the mind, and qualifies it to perceive, and arrange, and reason upon analogous laws in the moral and religious government of our immortal spirits. A firm persuasion that there is no disorder or disturbance in God’s moral sway — that he is not influenced by caprice, or swayed by favoritism, or turned aside by passionate entreaty, is necessary as the key-stone to the arch of Christian wisdom. Those very confusions of which our Reformer writes so vigorously in his DEDICATORY EPISTLE, ascribing them to the “red and sanguinary cohorts and horned beasts,” were all in accordance with those uniformity’s of action which we now designate general laws. So far from considering it possible for God to “sit at ease in heaven and desert and betray his own cause,” our firm reliance on the permanence of those principles which underlie and encompass all others, is thereby tested and increased. The phenomena of political government, of religious persecution, and of social outbursts of fury and fanaticism, obey laws as orderly and as undeviating as those which regulate the motion of a planet or the passage of electricity along the wire. Through and by means of this “setting up and pulling down of kings,” the Almighty speaks a language addressed alike to our reason, our conscience, and our faith. But the great guarantee of our spiritual improvement is the fundamental belief that there is harmony, and classification, and inflexible regularity throughout the whole moral government of God. The very possibility of accident, or favoritism, or isolated marvel, must be banished from our thoughts. We know, by long course of proof and experience, that they do not exist in the physical world, and we cannot allow them a single foot-print within the domain of our moral and spiritual nature. Nothing here can be an anomaly, nothing an exception. In the uncultivated mind, there is an avidity for the marvelous, and a morbid eagerness for a cheap and easy solution of the solemn mysteries concerning God and the soul; but our educated religious life is like “a star hovering on the horizon’s verge between night and morning.” Thus, by faith we stand at the parting of the two roads, imagined by Plate’s great Parmenides, between the seeming and the true. As this star shines brighter over our path, mere external ceremonies and notional expressions become more and more objects of distrust; and the ideas of God and of the soul, of sin and of conscience, of heaven and of glory, become more and more vivid and real to us. And if any are afraid that the pursuit of either scientific, or moral, or religious truth, according to the principles here laid down, will injure true religion or saving faith, the single antidote to this fear is found in the exhortation, “Have faith in God.” (Mark 11:22.) Throughout these LECTURES our Reformer ever clings to this scriptural principle, and even illustrates his subject ably, practically, and improvingly; while he all along labors under the difficult task of rendering a narrative interspersed with miracle available for the improvement of modern Christians who live under a totally different dispensation.

As another illustration of this difficulty, we may turn to Daniel 6:25-27, where our commentator asserts of the profane, that they so unite minor deities with the true that “he lies hid in a crowd, although he enjoys a slight pre-eminence.” Such simple and racy language is easily intelligible, but scarcely dignified enough. It justifies the assertion that in the infancy of great truths, language is an index of our ignorance rather than of our knowledge. Truly enough all men “wander confusedly” when they attempt to render palpable to others their contemplations of a Deity. This idea is the most vague and comprehensive of all — a universal solvent of all problems in the early stage of our religious existence. The Egyptians and the Greeks saw a god everywhere — in hill, in brook, in bird and beast. They manifested no lack of faith in the existence of beings far superior to themselves; and when the priest set up the ugly idol in its gorgeous temple, he never imagined he was creating a god for either himself or the people. He only attempted, after his fashion, to give fixity and embodiment to the ideas of Deity which were floating about indefinitely in the minds of the multitude. But the interval was wide indeed between these metaphorical symbols and the simple abstract idea of one self-acting Being ruling the conscience and swaying the future destinies of all men. When the tree of knowledge was separated from the tree of life, a dark and forlorn interval succeeded, during which mankind underwent long struggles of disquietude in “feeling after” the Almighty One. And we have been permitted to find him. To believe in his permanent presence and providence, to cling to him with the trust of a child to a parent, to follow after him, with no voice but his word acting on conscience and cheering while it guides, to trust him even amid the darkest prospects, — this it is to have faith in God. And this trust is not the mere result of reason, or understanding, or sentiment, or speculation. It is woven into our deepest instincts and our noblest aspirations. It unites them all. It is completed in love. What the profane call Nature, all who sympathize in Darius’s proclamation concerning Daniel’s God, feel to be a legislation of love. A parent whose government is unerring and complete is ever setting before us the unalterable Law as an exhibition of unchanging love. The very severity and uncompromising character of this idea of Deity proves the crowning beneficence of his kingship over the powers of this world. Inflexible justice and unerring certainty become the highest proofs of all-pervading benevolence. Herein lies the perfection of constancy and truth. The conscience is thus felt to be the vicegerent of this Divinity within. Forms of thought and expression must change, and since CALVIN’S time, in the course of three centuries, they have passed through many changes; and man’s religious condition must always be modified by the extension of his knowledge, his experience, and his educated capacities. Many habitual modes of thought current in the days of Oecolampadius and Willet have been set aside; the disturbance of feeling which this occasioned has subsided, and our comprehension of God’s moral sway over the affairs of men has been enlarged and purified by the change. His hand-writing is now legible to us on ten thousand walls where of old it was a blank. The wonder which has been removed from special facts has been transferred to general laws; and if “the dream and its interpretation” are not now sent as proofs of his providence, there has sprung up instead equally striking indications of it in every dewdrop and in every flower.

The PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT which is so appositely made of every occurrence throughout this historical portion of the LECTURES, constitutes a large share of their value. They always plead fervently for justice; always and everywhere they place justice first. They shew us that the absolute will of the most unbending tyranny must ultimately yield to the Divine omnipotence of justice, and that all defenses which human power may raise against human rights are utterly vain. He who would be god-like must first be just, and whatever else may be avoided, there is no escape from an avenging judge and a self-torturing conscience. These LECTURES encourage us to harbor no distrust that permanent evil will arise to us from doing manfully our duty; they banish all fear that religion should suffer from the withdrawing of any supports which are proved to be unsound. They stir us up to do the work assigned to us while yet it is day with affectionate fidelity and all earnestness of zeal, and are specially instructive in an age like ours, more remarkable for the variety of its creeds than the intensity of its faith. Certainly the ancient spirit of righteousness, which flourished so vigorously under the crushing despotism of the House of Valois, is not strong within us. That spirit may be characterized as moral courage and religious earnestness combined with love to Christ and readiness to peril life for his name. And while it has almost died out in these days, the practical exhortations of these LECTURES may, by God’s blessing, aid in its revival.

Connected with the practical exposition of our Prophet, we find a passage in Daniel 5 which demands our notice. In commenting on Daniel 5:5, and explaining that the hand which wrote upon the wall was not real, but only a figure, it is said, “Scripture often uses this form of speech, and especially when treating external symbols.” “Est ergo haec etiam sacramentalis loquutio, ut ita loquar.” It would surprise us to find the word “sacramental” introduced here, if we were unacquainted with the modes of thought and expression in which CALVIN was brought up. But when we remember the very strong hold which the phraseology of the schoolmen had upon the minds of all who were early imbued with it, we enter at once into the fullness of its meaning. We have already stated in our DISSERTATIONS ON EZEKIEL, that the theology of Europe was, during the middle ages, entirely moulded according to the teaching of either the Realists or the Nominalists. It was so then, and it is so now. These two classes of mental cultivation still govern the theological studies of mankind, and will probably do so till the end of our Christian dispensation. The theology of Rome is the growth of the scholastic philosophy built up by the Realists; the teaching of the Reformers springs entirely from that of the Nominalists. All leanings to Rome have in them the essence of Realism, made manifest by some Romanizing tendencies; and all UltraProtestantism verges towards a series of negatives based upon Nominalism. We have already alluded to the first nominalist, to whom Luther and Melancthon own their deep obligations. “The real originator of the Protestant principle,” says the author of The Vindication of Protestant Principles, “the first man who truly emancipated himself from the trammels of Popish ecclesiolatry, the first, in fact, who referred everything to Scripture, and asserted the right of private judgment in its interpretation, was our own countryman, William of Ockham, in Surrey.” He died at Munich in the year 1347, just 170 years before Luther fastened his ninety-five propositions to the church doors at Wittenberg. Leopold Ranke also asserts that the celebrated nominalist, Gabriel Biel, was chiefly an epitomizer of this favorite writer of Melancthon’s. (See Vindic. Prot. Prin.) The Zurich Letters (Ep. 23, Park. Soc.) inform us of the language of Bishop Jewel when writing to Peter Martyr, 5th November 1559, — “We have deserted the ranks of Scotus and Aquinas for those of the Occamists and Nominalists,” 1842. This sentence condenses under a short formula the very essence of the controversies which now agitate Christendom at large. We cannot dwell here on the proofs of this important statement; we can only remind the reader of these LECTURES that he will find some lingering traces of the realism which once pervaded the theology of Europe, and in which CALVIN was brought up. We all know how exceedingly difficult it is utterly to efface the earliest impressions made upon an earnest and deeply speculative mind. Whenever, for instance, some of the expressions with respect to the Almighty seem alien to our present modes of thinking, we are now able to trace them to their source, and to set them aside as remnants of a system which our Reformer energetically and vigorously opposed. He is always leading us to cultivate the idea of a moral mind pervading all that we know and read of now, and can know hereafter. This germinant truth shines like light within our souls; the images and visions, the trials and triumphs of Daniel and his companions, are no longer insulated atoms in chaos — a mighty maze, and all without a plan — but portions of one organic whole, in which we are personally bound up for both time and eternity. And the more we surrender ourselves to this trust in our Parent Spirit, the more shall we find our ignorance of the plans of Providence removed, and the cloud of mystery hanging over the prevalence of evil brightened and dispersed. Thus the discovery of the laws by which the universe is governed by no means excludes the Supreme Cause from our contemplation; on the contrary, he becomes more manifest to us by his pervading and perpetual presence.

Throughout these LECTURES we are ever taught that we can see God only by being pure in heart. The preparation for spiritual insight into holy mysteries is purity of conscience and singleness of eye. But even these able comments do not clear up everything. Our lot on earth must be to walk more by faith than by sight. This is the chief exercise of the soul, which is essential to its vitality and growth. We must have at times our mountains of vision as well as our valleys of the shadow of death. Never let us doubt the essential permanence of justice, and righteousness, and truthfulness. By this we shall be borne up through regions of cloud into realms of light. Thus will our spirituality be strengthened and refined: thus we shall be permitted to obtain larger perceptions of God’s character and maturer judgments of his purposes.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

There Are Two Main Divisions, —

1. THE HISTORICAL PORTION. —

2. THE PROPHETICAL PORTION.

Each Occupies Six Chapters.

1. THE HISTORICAL PORTION.

CHAPTER 1 TO 4

Sect. 1. The captivity of King Jehoiakim about B.C. 607 — the treatment of Daniel and his three companions — their superiority as they stood before the king. (Chap. 1)

2. King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream — forgotten — submitted to the magicians — their failure and destruction — Daniel’s proposal and success — the secret revealed to him and communicated to the king — the image described and explained — the four kingdoms — the elevation of Daniel and his companions to high honor, about B.C. 603. (Chap. 2)

3. The golden image on the Plains of Dura — the accusation against Daniel’s three companions — their reply to the king — their condemnation to the burning fiery furnace — their preservation — the king’s astonishment — his proclamation and promotion of the three confessors over the province of Babylon, about B.C. 580. (Chap. 3)

4. Nebuchadnezzar’s confession of the power of the Most High — his dream respecting the Tree, the Watcher, and the Holy One — Daniel’s interpretation — its accomplishment — the king driven from among men — his madness, and his restoration to reason and re-establishment in his kingdom, about B.C. 570-563. (Chap. 4)

5. The impious feast of Belshazzar — the handwriting — the magicians’ ignorance — Daniel’s interpretation — its fulfillment — Belshazzar slain — Darius the conqueror, about B.C. 538. (Chap. 5)

6. One hundred and twenty princes set over the kingdom — three presidents — the unalterable decree — Daniel’s habit of prayer continued — his accusation and condemnation to the lions’ den — his miraculous deliverance — the king’s rejoicing and decree — the Prophet’s prosperity till the reign of Cyrus, about B.C. 537. (Chap. 6)

2. PROPHETICAL PORTION.

CHAPTER 7 TO 12

Sect. 1. Daniel’s own dream — the four beasts — the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man — the explanation of this dream — the fourth beast being the Roman Empire, and the ten horns the Roman Senate — the kingdom given to the Son of Man — fulfilled, according to CALVIN, at the first advent of Christ and the early propagation of the Gospel, — about B.C. 555. (Chap. 7)

2. Daniel’s vision at Shushan — the ram and the he-goat — the little horn — the cleansing of the sanctuary — the appearance of Gabriel — the explanation of the vision — the king of fierce countenance said to be the power of heathen Rome — the Prince of princes — the truth of the vision of the evening and morning — Daniel’s fainting and astonishment, — about B.C. 553. (Chap. 8)

3. The Prophet, after studying the writings of Jeremiah, anticipates the close of the captivity — he prays and confesses his sins at full length in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus — while he is praying the angel Gabriel is sent to instruct him — he is informed of the celebrated period of the seventy weeks — of the coming of Messiah the prince and of the overspreading of desolation’s, which events are historically explained in the course of these Lectures, — about B.C. 538. (Chap. 9)

4. A vision by the river Hiddekel in the third year of King Cyrus — during the Prophet’s terror an angel addresses him, touches him, and inspires him with confidence, and then returns to contend with the prince of Persia, together with another angel called Michael your prince. This vision being introductory to the following prophecy “noted in the Scripture of truth,” — about B.C. 534. (Chap. 10)

5. The prophecy of the Scriptures of truth detailed at full length by the angel — the three kings of Persia — the fourth Xerxes — the mighty king Alexander and the division of his empire into four parts — two monarchies specially dwelt upon rathe kings of the north being the Seleucidae, and those of the south the Ptolemidae or Lagidae — their various wars, intermarriages, treaties, and successes — fully elucidated by historical testimony throughout these Lectures — the willful king (ver. 16) interpreted of Antiochus the Great — the vile person (ver. 21) being Antiochus Epiphanes — the willful king (ver. 36) being the heathen Roman Empire — the remainder of the prophecy being ingeniously accommodated to the well—known character of the Roman conquests in the East, — about B.C. 534. (Chap 11)

6. Michael the prince stands up for the people — the certainty of a future resurrection proclaimed — two angels appear on the banks of the river — the Prophet inquires concerning the timing of these events — the time, times, and a half — the closing and sealing of the words till the time of the end — the abomination of desolation set up — the 1290 days — the 1335 days — the angel’s command to stand in thy lot at the end of the days — these periods said to be completed at the first advent of Christ and the early history of the Gospel dispensation, including the destruction of Jerusalem and the persecutions of the Church under the heathen Emperors of Rome, — about B.C. 534. (Chap. 12)

A NOTICE OF SOME ANCIENT CODEXES AND VERSIONS.

Those of the Septuagint are of most importance. Dr. WELLS has compared the Alexandrian and Roman MSS., and arranged in parallel columns their various readings, adding also the Hebrew original. We have remarked in the Preface, p. 49, that early in the second century Theodotion’s version was substituted for that of the Septuagint. Rosenmuller has remarked its variations from the original Hebrew and Chaldee text, particularly in chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 6. He cites various examples, and refers us to. Eichhorn and Bertholdt for details. Jerome followed Origen, who used a mark to denote any difference between his copy of the Alexandrian version and the Hebrew text. Hengstenberg, p. 234 and following, English Translation, has answered some objections of the Neologians concerning this point. Daniel juxta LXX. was first edited at Rome by the Society for Propagating the Faith, in the year A.D. 1772, fol., from a codex discovered in the Chisian Library. It is accompanied with a Latin version, with the Septuagint chronology, with the Greek and Latin of Hippolytus, and with the Greek and Latin of Theodotion’s version. It was reprinted at Gottingen, A.D. 1774, and again at Trajectum ad Rhen., A.D. 1775, by Ch. Segaar, (Utrecht.) See Masch’s Bibl. Sac., part 2. vol. 2. pp. 320-322. Various other collations of these two codexes have been made. Dr. HOLMES, formerly Dean of Winchester, published in A.D. 1805, the

Book of Daniel according to the texts of Theodotion and the Septuagint. For this edition 311 MSS. were collated, and their variations marked. The Sixtine or Roman edition of 1587 has been adopted, while the Complutensian and Aldine variations, as well as those of Dr. Grabe, have all been noticed.

VERSIONS.

There are three chief versions made from the Septuagint text: viz., the Syriac, the old Latin or Italic, and the Arabic. They are useful in determining the original Greek phrases used by the Alexandrine translators. the Vulgate Latin forms a fourth and later version, and their differences and agreements have been carefully noticed by Dr. ]&’ells. The Syriac version was edited, translated into Latin, and illustrated by a preface and critical notes by Cajetanus Buggatus, Mediolani, (Milan,) A.D. 1788, with the following title, — Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex Tetraplis desumptam. Ex codice Syro-Estranghelo Bibliothecae Ambrosianae Syriace. Wintle in his notes makes good use of the variations of these versions as well as Rosenmuller in his elaborate expositions of the text. We are informed by Jerome that Theodotion’s Greek version of Daniel was universally used in the Greek and Eastern Churches.

Another Greek version of Daniel occurs in an edition of a codex in the Library of St. Mark’s at Venice, first published and illustrated with notes by Jo. Bapt. Caspare D’Ansse de Villoison. Argentorati, A.D. 1784.

A codex rescriptus, containing fragments of Daniel in a Latin version made before the time of Jerome, was discovered in the University Library at Wurtzburg by Dr. Feder. The fragments were published by Dr. Munter, Hafniae, A.D. 1821, 8VO. The codex is supposed to be as old as the sixth or seventh century.

A LIST OF THE MOST ANCIENT AND MODERN BRITISH AND FOREIGN EXPOSITIONS OF DANIEL,

With Concise Epitomes Of The Contents Of The Most Important.

1 JEWISH COMMENTATORS.

DR. KENNICOTT first edited a Hebrew interpretation of the Chaldee chapters of Daniel and Ezra from an ancient codex. It was translated and re-edited by J. L. SHULZE. Hal., 1782.

BUXTORF edited a Hebrew Commentary on Daniel by Rabbi Saadiah Hag- gaon, who lived in Egypt and died about the middle of the tenth century. Basil., A.D. 1618.

R. SOLOMON JARCHI’S Commentary on Daniel is exceedingly full and clear in its verbal explanations. The edition of J. F. BREITHAUPT, Gotham, 1713, is very convenient, and full of most valuable Hebrew criticisms.

R. ISAAC ABARBANEL, who is frequently refuted by CALVIN in the preceding Lectures, has been mentioned in our Ezekiel, vol. 2 p. 403. He entities his comments on Daniel, “The Fountains of Salvation.” They were first published at Naples, A.D. 1497: again in A.D. 1551, without the name of any place, and again at Amsterdam, A.D. 1647.

R. JOSEPH TEITZAK, who lived in the fifteenth century, wrote a Commentary on Daniel, published at Venice, A.D. 1608.

R. JOSEPH the son of David the son of JOSEPH JACHIA, commonly called JACCHIADES, who died A.D. 1539, wrote a

Paraphrase on Daniel, in much repute: published at Amsterdam, A.D. 1633.

R. MOSES ALSCHECH, who lived at the close of the sixteenth century, called his Commentary on this Prophet, “The Rose of Sharon:” published at Zaphetae, A.D. 1568, and at Venice, A.D. 1592.

R. SAMUEL, son of R. JUDAH VALERIUS, entitled his comment on this Prophet, “The Vision of the Time Appointed.” Venice, A.D. 1586.

2 EARLY FATHERS.

The Greek Commentary on this Prophet by HIPPOLYTUS, Bishop of the harbor of Rome, has been already mentioned. It was first edited at Paris, A.D. 1672, in a general collection of the Greek Fathers, and afterwards Jo. Alb. Fabricius published the whole of his works at Hamburgh, A.D. 1716 and 1718. His explanations of chaps, 7:to 12:are edited from the Chisian codex according to the Septuagint translation, which, as we have formerly stated, was first published at Rome, A.D. 1772.

EPHREM SYRUS wrote his Commentary on this Prophet about A.D. 370. It was published at Rome, A.D. 1740, by Peter Benedict, both in Syriac and Latin. See vol. 2 p. 203 and following.

JEROME’S valuable exposition of this Prophet is found in vol. 5 of his works, p. 2. Edit. Vallarsii. Venice, A.D. 1768.

THEODORET’S valuable comments on Daniel are found in vol. 2 pt. 2 p. 1053, of the edition of his works by J. L. Schulze. Hal. Saxon., A.D. 1 768.

3 EARLY REFORMERS.

MARTINI LUTHERI Auslegung des Propheten Daniels, consists of three parts, published at different times at Wittemberg, from A.D. 1530 to 1546. See Jo. G. Walch’s preface to Luther’s Works, vol. 6 p. 13, and p. 1422 and following.

JO. OECOLAMPADII Commentariorum in Danielem, Libri Duo. Basileae, A.D. 1530, 1543, and 1562: also, Geneva, A.D. 1553, 1567, and 1578. A very valuable exposition, and more in accordance with modern views of Antichrist and the spiritual nature of our Lord’s kingdom, than the Lectures of CALVIN.

PHILIPPI MELANCTHONIS Commentarius in Danielem Prophetam. Wittemberg, A.D. 1543: published also in his works, and translated into German by Justus Jonas. P. 2 p. 416. A.D. 1546.

4 AUTHORS QUOTED BY POOLE IN HIS SYNOPSOSIS ON DANIEL.

AS POOLE merely gives the name of his authors without any hint as to the titles and dates of their works, the following information will be of use. It is confined exclusively to Daniel

VICTORINI STRIGELII, Danielis Prophetae Concio. Lipsiae, A.D. 1565, 1571, 1572. 8vo.

BENEDICTI PERERII, Com. in Danielem. Romae, A.D. 1586: also Lugduni, A.D. 1588, 1591, 1602: et Antverpiae, 1594

FRANCISCI Juan, Expositio Prophetae Danielis. Heidelberg, A.D. 1593: Geuevae, 1594.

AMANDI POLANI A POLENSDORF in Danielem Prophetam Commentarius. Basil., A.D. 1593, 4to, et 1606, 8vo.

JOANNES MALDONATI, Commentarii in prophetas quatuor Jeremiam, Ezekiel, Baruch, et Danielem. Moguntiae, A.D. 1611.

The translation is good; the comments short and explanatory of the Hebrew words; and it is to be expected that a Jesuit would occasionally direct his shafts against “Calvinianis.”

HUGONE BROUGHTONO, Commentarius in Danielem primum Anglice scriptus. First published in English in London, A.D. 1596 and 1597. Jo. Boreel translated it into Latin at Basil, A.D. 1599. Small 4to.

The Latin translation is materially influenced by Rabbinical comments on the Hebrew and Chaldee text. The work is very valuable as a repository of historical information in the words of the original Greek historians.

HEXAPLA IN DANIELEM BY ANDREW WILLET. Cambridge, A.D. 1610.

A very valuable collection of the opinions of others, and a good study for those who are interested in the variety of speculations which have been invented concerning the prophecies of this book. The difficult questions “handled” are 536, and the knotty controversies undertaken are 134. In addition to most of the standard writers quoted by Poole, Pintus is introduced, whose work is entitled, Hectoris Pinti, Commentarii in

Danielem, Lamentationes, Jeremiae, et Nahum. Conimbrae, A.D. 1582. Venetiis, A.D. 15S3. Colon., A.D. 1587. Antverpiae, A.D. 1595.

POOLE also quotes the translations of this Prophet made by Pagninus, Montanus, and Malvenda, who are Roman Catholics; and Munster, Junius and Tremellius, and Castalio, who are Protestants. Their various merits are given by H. Horne, vol. 2. part 2. pp. 62, 64, who states the authorities from which he derives his own information.

5 FOREIGN INTERPRETERS.

THE best of these are German. Their variety is great; a few only can be noticed here; others will be found in abundance in Rosenmuller’s Elenchus Interpretum.

MARTINI GEIERI, Praelectiones Academicae in Danielem. Lipsiae, A.D. 1667, 1684, 1697, 1702: and repeated in vol. it. of his works. Amsterdam, A.D. 1695, folio. “One of the most valuable,” writes H. Horne, “of all Geier’s expository works.”

PRODROMUS DANIELICUS auctore JO. GER. KERKHERDERE. Lovanii, A.D. 1711. 12mo.

A small yet learned volume by the historian to his Catholic Majesty Charles III., containing many criticisms and attempts to reconcile historical difficulties. In many points very illustrative of CALVIN’S sentiments.

HERMAN VENEMA, Dissertationes ad vaticinia Danielis emblematica, cap. 2, 7, et 8. Leovardiae, A.D. 1745: another vol. contains his exposition of cap. 11:4; 12:3. Leovardiae, A.D. 1752. 4to.

CH. B. MICHAELIS, Annotationes philologico-exegeticae in Danielem. Hal., A.D. 1720.

J. D. MICHAELIS, Epistolae de LXX. Hebdomadibus Danielis. London, A.D. 1773.

H. HAVERNICK’S New Commentary on the Book of Daniel. The original title is, Neue critische untersuchungen uber das buch Daniel. Von Heinrich Havernick. Hamburgh, A.D. 1838. This small volume of the excellent Professor at Rostock is much esteemed.

EMST. WILM. HENGSTENBERG. Die Authentic des Daniel und die integritat des Sachariah. Berlin, A.D. 1831.

This work is now accessible to the English reader through the translation of the Revelation B. P. Pratten. Edinburgh, Clark, A.D. 1848.

Its contents are as follow: —

THE GENUINENESS OF DANIEL.

Chap. 1 — History of attacks on the Book of Daniel.

Chap. 2 — Reply to objections.

Sect. 1 Alleged Greek Words — 2 Impure Hebrew — 3 Silence of Jesus Sirach — 4 Position in the Canon — 5 Depreciatory statements of the Jews — 6 The O. T. referred to as a complete Whole — 7 Aimless profusion of miracles — 8 Historical errors — 9 Irreconcilable contradictions — 10 Improbable and suspicious accounts — 11 Later ideas and usages — 12 Unusual indefiniteness of the prophecies — 13 This definiteness ceases with Antiochus Epiphanes — 14 Other objections — 1. The passage, Daniel 12; 2. Correspondence in ideas and expressions with much later Books; 3. Marks of Jewish national pride; 4. Absence of all higher moral tendency; 5. Passages which speak in praise of Daniel.

Chap. 3 — Arguments for the Genuineness.

Sect. 1 Testimony of the author himself — 2 Reception into the Canon, and general acknowledgment of Canonicity — 3 Testimony of Christ and the Apostles — 4 Traces of the Book in pre-Maceabean times — 1 The passage of Josephus, Arch. 11:8; 2. 1 Macc. 2, 59, 60; 3. The LXX. of Deuteronomy 32:8, and Isaiah 30 4; Badness of the Alex. version of Daniel, which was nearly contemporary with the alleged original composition —

5 Character of the language;

1. Use of Hebrew and Aramaean; 2. Correspondence of its Aramaean, with that of Ezra, and deviation from that of the Targums —

6 Exact knowledge of history —

7 Familiar acquaintance with the institutions, manners, and customs of the times of Daniel —

8 Other arguments;

1. The entire peculiarity of prophetic style, and the mode of representation adopted in the Book; 2. Several things at variance with the spirit of the Maccabean times; 3. Exact agreement of the historical part and the prophecies; 4. Immediate conjunction of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Messianic times. As the Professor refers to many Neologian works for the purpose of refuting their wild extravagancies, the titles of the four following ones are given in full. See their characters delineated in our Preface.

Daniel aus dem Hebraisch-Aramaischen neu ubersetzt und erklart, mit einer vollstandigen Einleitung, und einigen historischen und exegetischen Excursen. Von LEONHARD BERTHOLDT, erste und zweyte Halfte. Erlangen, 1806, 1808, in octon.

G. F. GRIESINGER’S Neue Ansicht der Aufsatze im Buche Daniel. Stuttg. u. Tubing., 1815, in octon.

Ueber Verfasser und Zweck des Buchs Daniel. Revision der in neuerer Zeit daruber gefuhrten Untersuchungen. Von FRIEDR. BLEEK. In der Theologischen Zeitschrift herausgeg. von Schleiermacher, de Wette, u. Lucke, p. 3. Berlin, 1822, in octon.

HER. GOD. KIRMSS Commentatio historico-critica, exhibens descriptionem et censuram recentium de Danielis libro opinionum. Jenae, 1828, in quat.

A list of other interpretations better known on the Continent than in either Great Britain or America, will be found in ROSENMULLER’S “elenchus interpretum.” His own elaborate Scholia in DANIELEM, Lipsiae, 1832, have proved very serviceable for the illustration of these Lectures.

The title of the following French work is worthy of mention. Daniel le prophete dans une suite de Lecons pour une Ecole du Dimanche. 4 vols. Partridge and Oakey, publishers to the Evangelical Alliance.

6 AMERICAN WORKS.

A Critical and Historical Interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel. By N. S. Folsom. Boston, 12mo, 1842.

A work on the system of Professor Stuart; displaying considerable historical research, and more explanatory of CALVIN’S views than some modern British works.

The Prophecies of Daniel, Nos. I. and II. By GEORGE BUSH, Professor of Hebrew in New York City University. New York, 1844.

The Hebrew and Chaldee originals with several of the ancient versions. The comments are strictly exegetical. Most valuable to the critical reader of this Prophet. See a Sketch of its contents in the American Biblical Repository. October, 1844.

7 BRITISH COMMENTATORS.

ROBERTI ROLLOCI Commentarius in Librum Danielis Prophetae. Edinburgi, 1591, 4to.

The Book of Daniel, explained after the following method, etc. By Dr. EDWARD WELLS. Oxford, 1716.

The Septuagint version is printed in parallel columns with the English version, and useful annotations added.

Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John. By Sir ISAAC NEWTON. London, 1733, 4to.

The Astronomical fame of the author has bestowed great celebrity upon the calculations of this work.

An Essay towards the Interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel, with occasional remarks upon some of the most celebrated Commentators on them. By RICHARD AMNER. London, 1776, 8vo.

The opinion of Grotius and Le Clerc is followed here, making the times of Antiochus Epiphanes the termination of the events predicted. See British Critic, O. S., vol. 13 p. 290 and following.

Daniel, an Improved Version attempted, with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, Critical, Historical, and Explanatory. By THOMAS WINTLE, B.D. London, 1807, 4to, 1838, 8vo.

The best English version with which the Editor is acquainted. The notes are sufficiently copious and very scholar-like; many references to it have already been made in illustrating these Lectures.

A Dissertation by way of Inquiry into the true import and application of the Vision related, Daniel 9:20 to the end, usually called Daniel’s Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, etc. By BENJAMIN BLAYNEY, B.D. Oxford, 1775, 4to.

A Dissertation on Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. By GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D. London, 1811, 8vo

A Dissertation on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel the Prophet. By the Rev. JOHN STONARD, D.D. London, 1826, 8vo.

Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. By a Layman. London, 1836, 12mo. A Dissertation concerning the Chronological Numbers recorded in the Prophecies of Daniel. By the Revelation PHILIP ALLWOOD, B.D. London, 1833, 8vo.

The Times of Daniel, Chronological and Prophetical. By GEORGE DUKE OF MANCHESTER. London, 1845, 8vo.

A very elaborate and original work, in which the chronology is re-arranged on a basis varying from that commonly received.

The Four Prophetic Empires and the Kingdom of Messiah, being an exposition of the first two visions of Daniel. By the REVELATION T. R. BIRKS, M.A. London, 1845.

The Two Later Visions of Daniel: historically explained. By the Revelation T. R. BIRKS, M.A. London, 1846.

A very clear and useful historical compendium. The first sixteen chapters are a practical comment on these Lectures. Frequent extracts have already been made.

An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy. By SAMUEL LEE, D.D. London, 1849.

The Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St. John, etc. By SAMUEL LEE, D.D. London, 1851.

These works of this lamented scholar are quite in the spirit of CALVIN’S interpretations. The adherents to CALVIN’S views of these prophecies will find much profit from their perusal.

Prophetic Studies, or Lectures on Daniel. By JOHN CUMMING, D.D. Sixth thousand. London, 1852.

Remarks on the Prophetic Visions of the Book of Daniel, etc. By S. P. TREGELLES, LL.D. 1853.

The works of other authors are enumerated by H. Horne, vol. 2 pt. 11, p. 290, etc., and by Ed Bickersteth in his “Practical Guide to the Prophecies,” p. 401. London, 1839.

Providence, Prophecy, and Popery, as exhibited in the first seven chapters of Daniel. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHITE, minister of the Original Secession Church, Haddington. 12mo, 1848.

Studies on the Book of Daniel: a Course of Lectures by J. N. DARBY. Translated from the French, and revised by the Author, 12mo, 1848.

Lectures on the Prophet Daniel, considered in a Series of Lessons for a Sunday School. By the Rev. L. GAUSSEN of Geneva. 8vo, 1848.

Lectures, Expository and Practical, on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. By the Rev. CHARLES POPHAM MILES. 2 vols 12 mo.

A CONNECTED TRANSLATION OF

THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL

ACCORDING TO THE VIEWS OF CALVIN’S COMMENTARIES.

¹ In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon arrived at Jerusalem and besieged it.

² And God delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, and part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar, into the house of his god; and he placed the vessels in the treasure-house of his god.

³ Then the king commanded Aspenaz, the chief of the eunuchs, to bring some of the children of Israel, and of the royal seed, and of the nobles, ⁴ Youths in whom there was no blemish, but of beautiful aspect, skilled in all prudence, and understanding knowledge, and capable of expressing their thoughts, and in whom was rigor, that they might stand in the king’s palace and be taught the literature and language of the Chaldees.

⁵ And the king appointed them a daily allotment of the royal food, and of the wine of his own drinking; thus nourishing them for three years, that at the end they should stand before the king.

⁶ Now, among these youths there were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Misael, and Azariah.

⁷ The chief of the eunuchs gave them each names: he called Daniel, Belteshazzar; Hananiah, Shadrach; and Misael, Meshach; and Azariah, Abednego.

⁸ And Daniel determined in his heart not to pollute himself with the portion of the king’s food and drink: and he requested the chief of the eunuchs that he might not thus defile himself.

⁹ Now, God had placed Daniel in favor and pity before the chief of the eunuchs.

¹⁰ And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, — I am afraid of my lord the king, he has appointed your food and drink, for he will observe your faces emaciated when compared with the youths your equals, thus ye will endanger my head with the king.

¹¹ Then said Daniel to Meltzar, whom the chief of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Misael, and Azariah, — ¹² Try thy servants for ten days: let nothing but pulse be given us to eat and water to drink.

¹³ Then let our countenances be inspected before thy face, and the countenances of the youths who eat a portion of the royal diet, and deal with thy servants, according to what thou shalt behold.

¹⁴ So he listened to their advice, and proved them for ten days.

¹⁵ And at the end of the ten days their countenances appeared plump, and they were fatter than all the other youths who had partaken of the royal diet.

¹⁶ Then Meltzar removed both their portion of food and of wine, and gave them pulse.

¹⁷ Thus God gave to these four youths knowledge, and science in all literature, and wisdom; and Daniel received the power of understanding all visions and dreams.

¹⁸ At the end of the period at which the king commanded them to be brought before him, the chief of the eunuchs introduced them to Nebuchadnezzar.

¹⁹ Then the king addressed them: and among them all none was like Daniel, Hananiah, Misael, and Azariah, as they stood before the king.

²⁰ And in every expression of wisdom and intelligence, in which they were examined by the king, he found them ten times superior to all the soothsayers and astrologers throughout his whole realm.

²¹ And Daniel continued until the first year of king Cyrus.

¹ Now, in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams: and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep became interrupted.

² Then the king commanded them to call together the astrologers and soothsayers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans, to declare to the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

³ And the king said to them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled for understanding the dream, ⁴ And the Chaldeans said to the king in Syriac: O king, live for ever! Tell thy servants the dream, and we will declare the interpretation.

⁵ The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, — The matter is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me both the dream and its interpretation, ye shall be cut in pieces and your bones shall become a dunghill:

⁶ But if ye will show the dream and its interpretation, ye shall receive from me large rewards, and gifts, and much honor; therefore declare to me the dream and its interpretation.

⁷ They answered a second time and said: Let the king narrate the dream to his servants, and we will declare its interpretation.

⁸ The king answered and said: In truth I perceive that ye would gain time, because ye know that the dream has fallen out of your mind, ⁹ Besides, if ye will not declare to me the dream, there is but one sentence for you: as ye have prepared a lying and corrupt discourse to relate before me, until the time be changed, wherefore narrate the dream to me, and I shall know your ability to declare its interpretation.

¹⁰ The Chaldeans replied before the king, saying: There is not a man upon earth who can explain the king’s matter; besides, no king, or prince, or prefect ever made such a request to any magician, or astrologer, or Chaldean:

¹¹ And the subject of the king’s inquiry is precious, and none can explain it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

¹² On this account the king was filled with anger and fury, and ordered the destruction of all the wise men of Babylon.

¹³ Then the edict went forth, and the wise men were slain, and they sought Daniel and his companions for the purpose of slaying them.

¹⁴ Then Daniel inquired concerning the counsel, and the edict of Arioch the captain of the royal guards, who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.

¹⁵ He announced and said to Arioch, the king’s captain: Wherefore is the decree so urgent from the king’s presence? Then Arioch explained the matter to Daniel.

¹⁶ Then Daniel entered and asked the king to give him time, and he would bring the interpretation to the king.

¹⁷ Then Daniel went home, and opened the subject to Hananiah, and Misael, and Azariah, his companions:

¹⁸ That they might implore mercy from the God of heaven concerning this secret, and that Daniel and his companions should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

¹⁹ Then the secret was revealed to Daniel in a vision by night: then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

²⁰ Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever! Wisdom and might are his:

²¹ It is he who changeth times and seasons: He appoints and removes kings: He gives wisdom to the wise, And knowledge to those who are skilled in science.

²² He reveals hidden and secret things, He knows what lies hid in darkness, And light dwells with him.

²³ O God of my fathers, I confess to thee and praise thee: For thou hast given me wisdom and strength: Thou hast now revealed to me what we desired of thee: Thou hast made known to us the king’s request.

²⁴ Therefore Daniel went unto Arioch, whom the king had ordered to slay the wise men of Babylon; he went and said thus unto him: Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: Introduce me to the king, and I will show him the interpretation.

²⁵ Then Arioch hastily introduced Daniel to the king, and said thus to him: I have found a man among the sons of the captivity of Judah, who will make known the interpretation to the king.

²⁶ The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to tell me the dream which I saw, as well as its interpretation?

²⁷ Daniel answered the king by saying: The wise men and the magi, the astrologers and sorcerers, cannot declare to the king what he demands;

²⁸ But there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets: He has declared to King Nebuchadnezzar the events of the latter days: This is thy dream, this is the vision of thy head upon thy couch.

²⁹ Thy thoughts, O king, came up to thee upon thy bed, as to what shall be hereafter: He who reveals secrets has explained the future to thee.

³⁰ And as to me, this secret was not revealed to me through my superiority in wisdom over other living men, but that I should explain the interpretation to the king, and that thou shouldst know the thoughts of thy heart.

³¹ Thou, O king, wast looking, and beheld a great image! This great image and its excellent splendor stood before thee, And its form was terrible.

³² The head of this image was of pure gold: Its breast and its arms were of silver: Its belly and thighs of brass.

³³ Its legs of iron: Its feet partly of iron and partly of clay:

³⁴ Thou wast looking until a stone was cut out without human hand, It struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them.

³⁵ Then the iron and the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, were broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer thrashing-floor; and the wind carried them away, and no place was found for them: and the stone which struck the image became a great mountains and filled the whole earth.

³⁶ This is the dream; and we will declare its interpretation before the king.

³⁷ Thou, O king, art a king of kings: For the God of heaven has given to thee a kingdom of power, and strength, and glory.

³⁸ And wherever the dwelling—place of the children of men, of the beasts of the field, and of the fowls of heaven exists, He hath given it into thine handy and hath made thee ruler over all, Thou art this head of gold.

³⁹ And after this shall arise another kingdom inferior to them, And another of brass — a third kingdom shall succeed, And it shall bear sway over all the earth.

⁴⁰ Then a fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: For as iron breaks all things in pieces and reduces them to atoms, And as iron bruises all these things, So shall this empire bruise and brake to pieces.

⁴¹ And whereas thou didst behold the feet and the toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron: The kingdom shall be divided: the strength of iron shall be in it: Because thou sawest iron mingled with the moistened clay.

⁴² And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay; So that kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile:

⁴³ And whereas thou didst behold iron mixed with testaceous clay, So they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: But they shall not adhere to one another, as iron will not mingle with clay.

⁴⁴ And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: And this kingdom shall not be left to any other people, But it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, And it shall stand for ever.

⁴⁵ Besides this thou didst behold the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which broke the iron, brass, clay, silver, and gold. The great God has made known the coming events of futurity: The dream is true, and the interpretation of it is correct.

⁴⁶ Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel; and commanded men to offer to him a sacrifice and a sweet-smelling fragrance.

⁴⁷ The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Truly your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since thou hast been able to reveal this secret.

⁴⁸ Then the king exalted Daniel, and gave him many valuable presents, and appointed him ruler of the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the elders over all the wise men of Babylon.

⁴⁹ Then Daniel made a request of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the administration of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was at the king’s gate.

¹ Nebuchadnezzar the king made a golden image; its height was sixty cubits, its breadth six cubits. He erected it on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.

² Then King: Nebuchadnezzar sent to gather together the princes, the satraps, and the magistrates, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the presidents, and all the governors of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected.

³ Then the princes, the senators, and the magistrates, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the presidents, and all the governors of the provinces collected together at the dedication of the image which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected. And when they stood before the image which Nebuchadnezzar had erected, ⁴ A herald proclaimed in the midst of the multitude, O people, nations, and languages, to you it is spoken:

⁵ Whenever ye shall hear the sound of the trumpet, harp, pipe, psaltery, sackbut, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye must fall down and worship the golden image which King Nebuchadnezzar has erected.

⁶ And whosoever shall not bend the knee and adore, shall be instantly cast into the midst of a furnace of burning fire.

⁷ Therefore at the very same hour, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, harp, pipe, psaltery, sackbut, dulcimer, and all musical instruments, all people, languages, and nations, fell down adoring the golden image which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected.

⁸ Wherefore the Chaldeans immediately approached and vociferously accused the Jews.

⁹ They spoke, and said to King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever.

¹⁰ Thou, O king, hast issued an edict, that as soon as every man shall hear the sound of the trumpet, harp, pipe, psaltery, sackbut, dulcimer, and all musical instruments, he shall fall down and adore the golden image.

¹¹ And he who shall not fall down and adore, shall be east into the midst of a furnace of burning fire.

¹² There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the administration of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: these men have not paid attention to thee, O king: they do not worship thy gods, and they do not adore the image which thou hast erected.

¹³ Then Nebuchadnezzar, with rage and fury, commanded Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to be brought before him: then those men (the Chaldeans) brought them up before the king.

¹⁴ Nebuchadnezzar spoke, and said to them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that ye do not worship my gods, nor yet adore the image which I have erected?

¹⁵ Now, are ye prepared, as soon as ye shall hear the sound of the trumpet, harp, pipe, psaltery, sackbut, dulcimer, and all musical instruments, to fall down and adore the image which I have made? For if ye will not adore it, ye shall be east the stone hour into the midst of a furnace of burning fire: and who is that God who shall deliver you from my hand?

¹⁶ Shadrach, Meshaeh, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, we are not anxious about our reply to thee concerning this matter.

¹⁷ Behold! our God whom we worship is powerful. He can free us from the furnace of burning fire, and he will deliver us out of thy hand, O king.

¹⁸ But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not worship thy gods, and we will not adore the golden image which thou hast erected.

¹⁹ Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the figure of his face was changed towards Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: he spoke and commanded the furnace to be heated seven times more than it was usual to heat it.

²⁰ And he commanded the very strongest of his attendants to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to east them into the furnace of burning fire.

²¹ Then those men were bound in their mantles, and turbans, and garments, and were east into the furnace of burning fire.

²² Because the king’s order was urgent, and he had commanded the furnace to be made so exceedingly hot, the extremity of the flame slew the men who had taken up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

²³ And those three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound in the midst of the furnace of burning fire.

²⁴ Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was terrified, and rose in haste, and spoke, and said to his counselors, Did we not cast these men bound into the furnace? They answered and said to the king, True, O king!

²⁵ He answered and said, But I see four men loose, walking in the fire, and they have no hurt: and the aspect of the fourth is like the Son of a God.

²⁶ Then Nebuchadnezzar approached the door of the furnace of burning fire; he spoke and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the most High God, come forth and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the midst of the fire.

²⁷ Then the satraps, generals, prefects, and counselors of the king assembled to behold those men, over whose body the fire had no power, and a hair of their head was not burnt, neither were their garments changed, nor had the smell of fire passed over them.

²⁸ Nebuchadnezzar spoke and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and preserved his servants, who have trusted in him and changed the king’s edict, and delivered up their bodies, that they might neither worship nor adorn any god except their own God.

²⁹ Hence I issue a decree, that any nation, people, and tongue, which shall utter a perverse speech against the God of these men, namely, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and his house shall be reduced to a dungheap: because there is no other God who can deliver after this method.

³⁰ Then the king rendered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego prosperous in the province of Babylon.

¹ Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all people, nations, and tongues, which dwell on the whole earth, peace be multiplied unto you!

² It pleases me to narrate the signs and wonders which the High God has wrought towards me.

³ How great are his signs! how mighty his wonders! His kingdom everlasting — his dominion from age to age.

⁴ I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace:

⁵ I saw a dream which terrified me: and the thoughts upon my bed, and the visions of my head disturbed me.

⁶ And I issued a decree for bringing all the wise men of Babylon before me, who should explain the interpretation of my dream to me.

⁷ Then the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers entered, and I told my dream before them, and they did not furnish me with its interpretation.

⁸ At length Daniel was brought before me, whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, and I told my dream before him.

⁹ O Belteshazzar, prince of the magi, because I know the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret overcomes thee, explain the visions of the dream which I saw and its interpretation.

¹⁰ These were the visions of my head upon my bed: I saw, and behold! a tree in the midst of the land, and its height was great.

¹¹ The tree grew and became strong, and its height reached to heaven, and its aspect to the extremity of the earth.

¹² Its leaves were beautiful, and its fruit plentiful, and food for all was in it: the beast of the field took shelter under it, and the fowls of heaven dwelt in its branches, and all flesh was nourished by it.

¹³ I was gazing in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven.

¹⁴ He cried with a loud voice, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and tear off its leaves, pluck off its boughs, and scatter its fruits: Let the beast flee away from its shadow, and the birds from its branches.

¹⁵ But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, and with a band of iron and brass, in the herb of the field; and let it be wet with the rain of heaven, and let its portion be with the beast in the herb of the field.

¹⁶ Let his heart be changed from a human heart, and let the heart of a beast be given to him: and let seven times pass over him.

¹⁷ The edict is in the decree of the watchers, and the demand in the word of the holy ones, That living men may know the Most High to be ruler in the kingdom of men, He will give it to whom he will, And will raise up the humble man as its ruler:

¹⁸ I King Nebuchadnezzar saw this dream: and do thou Belteshazzar declare the interpretation, since all the wise men of my kingdom cannot unfold it to me: but thou canst do it, because the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.

¹⁹ Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, became stupified for almost one hour, and his thoughts disturbed him. The king answered and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream and its interpretation distress thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, O my lord, may the dream be for thine enemies, and its interpretation for thy foes.

²⁰ The tree which thou sawest so great and strong, whose magnitude reached to heaven, and its aspect over the whole earth;

²¹ Whose foliage was beautiful, and whose fruit was copious, In which was food for all, and under which dwelt the beasts of the field, and on whose branches rested the birds of heaven, ²² Is thyself, O king; Thou hast become great and strong; Thy magnitude has been multiplied, and extended to the heavens; Thy power to the ends of the earth.

²³ When the king saw a watcher and a holy one descend from heaven, who said, Hew down the tree and destroy it; leave only the stump of its roots in the earth; and let it be with a band of iron and brass in the herb of the field, and let it be washed with the dew of heaven, and let its portion be with the beast of the field, until seven times pass over it.

²⁴ This is the interpretation, O king: this is the decree of the most High, which concerns the lord my king.

²⁵ They shall drive thee from men, and thy habitation shall be with the beasts of the field; they shall feed thee with grass like oxen, and shall moisten thee with the dew of heaven; and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou shalt acknowledge the most High as the ruler over the kingdom of men, who will give it to whomsoever he will.

²⁶ And when they spoke of leaving the stump of the tree’s roots: thy kingdom shall stand for thee, from which thou shalt acknowledge that there is dominion in the heavens.

²⁷ Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee; break away thy sins by righteousness, and thy iniquities by pity to the poor. Behold, there shall be a prolongation to thy peace, (a medicine for thine errors.)

²⁸ All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar.

²⁹ After twelve months he was walking in the palace of his kingdom at Babylon.

³⁰ The king spoke, and said, Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal seat of the kingdom, in the mightiness of my valor, and in the splendor of my excellency?

³¹ While the speech was in the mouth of the king, a voice descended from heaven, They say unto thee, O King Nebuchadnezzar, thy kingdom has departed from thee.

³² They shall expel thee from among men, and thy habitation shall be with the beasts of the field; they shall make thee eat grass like oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou shalt acknowledge a lofty ruler in the kingdom of men, and who shall give it to whomsoever he pleases.

³³ In that hour was the word completed upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was cast out from men, and eat grass like oxen, and was moistened by the dew of heaven, until his nails became like claws, and his hair like the wings of eagles.

³⁴ And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar raised my eyes to heaven, and my intellect returned to me, and I blessed him on high, and praised and glorified him living for ever, because his power is eternal, and his kingdom of perpetual duration.

³⁵ And all the dwellers on the earth are considered as nothing; and he does according to his pleasure in the army of the heavens, and among the dwellers upon earth; there is none who can hinder his hand, or say unto him, Why dost thou act thus?

³⁶ At the determined time my intellect returned to me, and I returned to the excellency of my kingdom; my honor and my dignity was restored to me, and my counselors and elders consulted me again; and I was established in my kingdom, and more ample dignity was added to me.

³⁷ Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise, and extol, and glorify the king of heaven, because all his works are truth, and his ways are judgment: and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

¹ Belshazzar the king made a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles, and drank wine before the thousand.

² Belshazzar having tasted the wine, commanded (men) to bring the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had brought from the Temple at Jerusalem, that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines, might drink from them.

³ Then they brought the golden vessels which had been taken from the house of God at Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines, drank from them.

⁴ They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, of brass and iron, of wood and stone.

⁵ In the same hour the fingers of a man’s hand came forth, and wrote in the neighborhood of the candlestick on the surface of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the palm of the hand as it was writing.

⁶ Then the king’s countenance changed, and his thoughts affrighted him, and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote against each other.

⁷ The king cried mightily that the magi, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers, should be brought in; and the king spoke and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and declare its interpretation to me, shall be clothed in purple, with a chain of gold about his neck, and shall rank third in the kingdom.

⁸ Then entered all the king’s wise men, and were unable to read the writing, and to explain to the king its interpretation.

⁹ Then king Belshazzar was much frightened, and his countenance was changed, and his princes became anxious.

¹⁰ The queen, in consequence of the words of the king and his nobles, entered into the banqueting-house, and spoke and said: O king! live for ever — Let not thy thoughts frighten thee, nor let thy countenance be changed.

¹¹ There is a man in thy kingdom in whom exists the spirit of the holy gods, and in the days of thy father, intelligence, and knowledge, and wisdom, like that of the gods, were found in him; and King Nebuchadnezzar, thy father — the king, I say, thy father — made him chief of the magi, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.

¹² Because an enlarged mind, and a discerning understanding, the interpretation of dreams, the revelation of secrets, and the solution of difficulties were found in him, namely, Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar; now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.

¹³ Then Daniel was introduced before the king. The king spoke and said to Daniel: Art thou that Daniel of the sons of the captivity of Judah, whom my father led away from Judah?

¹⁴ I have heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee; and intelligence, knowledge, and superior wisdom have been found in thee.

¹⁵ And now the wise men and magicians have been brought before me for the purpose of reading this writing, and of unfolding its interpretation to me; and they cannot declare the interpretation of the matter.

¹⁶ And I heard of thee, that thou canst solve difficulties and unravel secrets; now, if thou canst read this writing, and explain its interpretation to me, thou shalt be clothed in purple with a chain of gold round thy neck, and shalt hold the third rank in the kingdom.

¹⁷ Then answered Daniel and said before the king: Let thy gifts be for thyself, and give thy rewards to another. Yet I will read the writing to the king, and reveal its interpretation to him.

¹⁸ O king, the High God gave to King Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, an empire, and magnificence, and loftiness, and splendor.

¹⁹ And on account of the magnificence which God conferred upon him, all people, nations, and tongues trembled, and were frightened at the sight of him; whom he wished to slay, was slain, (vol. 1 p. 332, note,) and whom he wished, he raised up, and whom he wished, he cast down.

²⁰ But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit hardened to pride, he was cast down from the throne of his kingdom, and they deprived him of his glory.

²¹ And he was driven away from the children of men, and his heart was placed among the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was moistened with the dew of heaven, until he acknowledged the rule of the most high God in the kingdom of men, and his appointing over it whom he wills.

²² And thou, O Belshazzar his son, hast not humbled thine heart, although thou knowest all this.

²³ And thou hast raised thyself against the God of heaven when they brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thy nobles, thy wives and concubines, drank wine from them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass and iron, of wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor understand; and thou hast not honored God, in whose hand is thy breath, and in whose power are all things.

²⁴ At that time a portion of a hand was sent from God’s presence, and this writing was marked down.

²⁵ And this is the writing which was engraven. MENE, MENE, it has been numbered. TEKEL, it has been weighed. UPHARSIN, and they are dividing.

²⁶ This is the interpretation of the sentence, — MENE, God has numbered and finished thy kingdom.

²⁷ TEKEL, weigh, or it has been weighed — thou hast been weighed in a balance, and hast been found wanting.

²⁸ PERES for Upharsin, thy kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

²⁹ Then Belshazzar commanded, and they clothed Daniel in purple, and a chain of gold was placed around his neck, and they cried out before him that he was the third ruler in the kingdom.

³⁰ In that night Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans was slain.

³¹ And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, when he was sixtytwo years old.

¹ It pleased Darius, and he set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty presidents of the provinces, who should be over the whole kingdom.

² And over them were three satraps, of whom Daniel was one, that the presidents of the provinces should render an account to them, and the king should suffer no loss.

³ Then Daniel himself was superior to the satraps and presidents of the provinces, because a nobler spirit was in him; and the king was thinking of elevating him over the whole kingdom.

⁴ Then the satraps and presidents of the provinces sought to find an occasion against Daniel in his administration of the kingdom, and they could find neither occasion nor fault, because he was trustworthy, and neither fault nor crime was found in him.

⁵ Then those men said, we shall not find in this Daniel any occasion, unless we find it against him as to the law of his God.

⁶ Then the satraps and presidents of the provinces came in a body to the king, and spoke thus to him, King Darius, live for ever!

⁷ All the presidents of the kingdom, the senators and governors of provinces, the counselors and the generals, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to confirm the edict, that whoever should ask a petition from any god or man for thirty days, except of thee, O king, shall be cast into the lions’ den.

⁸ Now, O king, establish the edict, and sign the writing which is immutable, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away.

⁹ Wherefore King Darius signed the writing and the decree.

¹⁰ But when Daniel knew the writing to have been signed, he entered into his house, and his windows being open in his chamber towards Jerusalem, three times every day he bent upon his knees and prayed, and confessed before his God, as he was accustomed to do.

¹¹ Then these men assembled, and found Daniel uttering prayers and supplications before his God.

¹² Then they approached, and said before the king concerning the edict: Hast thou not signed an diet, that if any man shall ask anything from any god or man even for thirty days, except of thee, O king, he should be cast into the lions’ den? The king answered and said, — The saying is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which passes not away.

¹³ Then they spoke, and said before the king: Daniel, who is of the children of the captivity of Judah, has not given his mind to thee, O king, nor to the edict which thou hast signed, but prays according to his custom three times a day.

¹⁴ Then the king, on hearing those words, was much grieved within himself, and applied his heart to deliver Daniel, and was anxious to snatch him away even to the setting of the sun.

¹⁵ Then those men assembled around the king and said, — Know, O king, this is the law of the Medes and Persians; No edict or statute which the king has established can be changed.

¹⁶ Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and east him into the lions’ den. The king answered, and said to Daniel: Thy God, whom thou servest continually, will surely deliver thee.

¹⁷ And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the cave; and the king sealed it with his own ring, and with the ring of his nobles, lest the decree concerning Daniel should be changed.

¹⁸ Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting, and musical instruments were not brought before him, and sleep departed from him.

¹⁹ Then the king rose in the morning, as soon as it was light, and came in haste to the lions’ den.

²⁰ And when he approached the den, he cried with a sorrowful voice to Daniel, and the king spoke and said to Daniel, Daniel! servant of the living God: Could thy God, whom thou servest continually, preserve thee from the lions?

²¹ Then Daniel said unto the king, O king, live for ever!

²² My God sent his angel, and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me, since integrity before him was found in me, and also before thee, O king, I have committed nothing wrong.

²³ Then the king was highly delighted within himself, and commanded Daniel to be brought out of the den; and Daniel was brought out of the den, and no injury was found upon him, because he trusted in his God.

²⁴ And the king commanded, and they brought those men who had invented the accusation against Daniel, and they were cast into the den, themselves, their children, and their wives, and before they arrived at the pavement of the den, the lions obtained the mastery of them, and broke in pieces all their bones.

²⁵ Then King Darius wrote to all people, nations, and languages, which dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you!

²⁶ I have issued a decree throughout the whole of the dominions of my kingdom, that they may fear and be afraid at the presence of the God of Daniel, because he is the living God, and endureth for ever; and his kingdom shall not be overthrown, and his dominion shall be for ever.

²⁷ In delivering and rescuing, and uttering signs and wonders in heaven and earth; for he delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.

²⁸ So Daniel himself lived prosperously in the reigns of Darius, and of Cyrus the Persian.

¹ In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream, and visions of his head upon his bed. He wrote the dream at the time, and related the sum of the words.

² Daniel spoke and explained; I saw in my vision by night, and behold! four winds of heaven contending in a great sea.

³ And four large beasts came forth from the sea, differing among themselves.

⁴ The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings; I kept looking till the wings were plucked, and it was raised from the ground, and stood on its feet like a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.

⁵ And behold a second beast following, like a bear, and it was raised on one side, and three tusks were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, Arise, devour much flesh.

⁶ After this I looked, and behold another beast like a leopard, and the wings of a bird were on its back; the beast had four heads, and dominion was granted to it.

⁷ I looked again after this in the visions of the night, and behold! a fourth beast, formidable and terrible, and exceedingly strong; it had large iron teeth, devouring and crushing, and trampling the remnants under its feet; it was different from all the former beasts, and had ten horns.

⁸ I was attentive to the horns, and behold another small horn grew up among the others; and three of the former horns were torn away from its face; and behold! eyes like human eyes were in that horn, and a mouth speaking boastfully.

⁹ I continued looking till thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days was seated. His raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool; his throne was sparks of fire, and its wheels burning flame.

¹⁰ A river of fire flowed forth, and went out from his presence; a thousand thousand waited upon him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; judgment was fixed, and books were opened.

¹¹ Then I continued looking on account of the utterance of boasting words which the horn uttered; I continued gazing till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and given up to the burning of fire.

¹² And they had taken away their dominion from the rest of the beasts, and long life was given to them even for a time and a time.

¹³ I saw in visions of the night, and behold in the clouds of heaven, as it were, the Son of man came, and advanced even to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

¹⁴ And power was given unto him, and glory, and a kingdom, and all people, nations, and languages, shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion which shall never be taken away, and his kingdom shall never be abolished.

¹⁵ As to me, Daniel, my breath was stopped within my bodyand the visions of my head frightened me.

¹⁶ I approached one of those who were present, and inquired of him the truth concerning all these things, and he informed me, and opened up for me the explanation of these events.

¹⁷ These four great beasts which thou sawest, are four kingdoms which shall arise out of the earth:

¹⁸ And they shall possess the kingdom of the saints of the most High, and these shall obtain the dominion even for an age, and for ages of ages.

¹⁹ Then I desired the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, and very terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and his claws of brass, devouring, and crushing, and trampling the remnants under its feet.

²⁰ Also concerning the ten horns which were on its head, and of the last which rose up when the three former ones had fallen, namely, the horn which had eyes, and a mouth speaking grandly, whose aspect was more mighty than its fellows.

²¹ I continued gazing, and this horn made war with the holy ones, and prevailed against them.

²² Then came the Ancient of days, and judgment was given to the saints of the lofty ones, and the time arrived, and the saints received the kingdom.

²³ Thus he stated, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be different from all the former kingdoms, and shall devour the Whole earth, and shall crush it, and break it completely in pieces.

²⁴ Also the ten horns from that kingdom are ten kings which shall arise, and another shall arise after them, which shall be distinguished from the former ones, and shall afflict the three kings.

²⁵ And he shall speak words towards the region of the Highest, and he shall crush the saints of the lofty ones, and shall presume to alter times and the law; and it shall be delivered into his hand for a time, and times, and the division of a time.

²⁶ And judgment shall be established, and they shall take away his power, to disperse and destroy it even unto the end.

²⁷ Then the kingdom and the power, and the magnitude of their sway under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the holy lofty ones, which kingdom is everlasting, and all powers shall serve it and become obedient to it.

²⁸ Therefore an end of the matter. As to me Daniel, my thoughts troubled me much; And my countenance was changed upon me, And I laid up the matter in my heart.

¹ In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared unto me Daniel, in addition to the vision previously offered to me.

² I saw in a vision, and while I was seeing, I happened to be in Susan the capital, which is in the province of Elam. I saw in a vision, and behold I was near the river Ulai.

³ Then I raised my eyes and looked, and behold, A single ram stood before the river; it had two horns: The horns were lofty, and one was higher than the other, And this lofty one grew up last.

⁴ I saw the ram butting westward, and northward, and southward; No beasts could stand before him: No one could snatch anything from his hand: Thus he did according to his pleasure, and magnified himself.

⁵ And I was attentive, and behold! A he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, And yet he never touched the ground: The goat, too, had a remarkable horn between its eyes.

⁶ Then he approached the ram possessing the two horns, which I had seen standing on the river’s bank, And he ran at him with the fury of his bravery.

⁷ Then I saw him approach the ram, and exasperate himself against him, He smote the ram, and broke both his horns; The ram had no power to stand before his face: For he threw the ram upon the ground and trampled upon him, And no one could deliver the ram from his power.

⁸ Then the he-goat magnified himself amazingly; And when he was in his strength, his mighty horn was broken; The four conspicuous ones arose in its place towards the four winds of heaven.

⁹ And from one of these came forth a single small horn, And magnified himself surprisingly towards the south, and the east, and the desirable land.

¹⁰ Then it magnified itself towards the heavenly army, And it cast down upon the earth some of that army and of the stars, and trampled upon them.

¹¹ Besides this, it magnified itself against the prince of the army, and the continual sacrifice was removed from him, and the place of his sanctuary was profaned.

¹² And time was given to the continual sacrifice, in consequence of wickedness, and it shall cast forth truth upon the ground, and shall succeed, and fare prosperously.

¹³ Then I heard a holy one speaking, And the speaking holy one said to the wonderful one, How long will the vision of the perpetual sacrifice, and the desolating wickedness be permitted to last? How long will the sanctuary and the army be trampled down?

¹⁴ And he said to me, Unto evenings and mornings 2300: Then the sanctuary shall be re-cleansed.

¹⁵ know it happened while I Daniel was gazing on the vision, and was seeking intelligence, Behold! there stood before me as it were the appearance of a man.

¹⁶ Then I heard a man’s voice in Ulai, which cried, and said, Gabriel, teach this man the vision.

¹⁷ Then he approached my standing-place; And at his arrival I was frightened and fell upon my face, Then he said to me, Understand, O son of man; Because the vision is for a definite time.

¹⁸ Moreover, while he was talking to me, I swooned away with my face to the ground; then he touched me, and restored me to my place as before.

¹⁹ Then he said, Behold! I will inform thee of what shall happen at the close of the indignation: For the end of the period is determined.

²⁰ The ram which thou sawest with two horns, represents the kings of the Medes and Persians.

²¹ The he-goat is the king of Greece, (Jayan,) and the great horn between his eyes is the first king.

²² But this was broken, and as four horns stood forth in its stead, so four kingdoms shall arise out of the nation, yet not to be compared with him in strength.

²³ And at the end of their kingdom, when these wicked ones have departed, a king shall exist, fierce of countenance, and skilled in enigmas.

²⁴ And his fortitude shall be strengthened, but not by his own strength: He shall overthrow wonderfully, and prosper, and succeed, and destroy the mighty, and the people of the holy ones.

²⁵ And according to his intelligence his craft shall prosper in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in peace he shall destroy multitudes. Even against the prince of princes shall he stand up, and shall be broken without hand.

²⁶ The vision of the morning and evening which has been pronounced is truth. Do thou therefore seal up the vision, because it extends to many days.

²⁷ Then I Daniel suffered deep sorrow and languor for some days: Yet I rose and did the king’s business; I was struck with astonishment at the vision, yet no one perceived it.

¹ In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was appointed king over the kingdom of the Chaldees.

² In the first year of this reign, I Daniel diligently considered in books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had come to Jeremiah the Prophet, to complete the seventy years appointed for the desolation of Jerusalem.

³ Then I raised my face towards the Lord God, to inquire by prayer and supplication, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.

⁴ And I prayed to Jehovah my God, and confessed, and said, O Lord God, great and terrible, keeping the covenant and mercy towards those who love thee and keep thy commandments;

⁵ We have sinned and acted perversely: We have conducted ourselves wickedly, and have rebelled: We have transgressed thy precepts and thy judgments:

⁶ We have not listened to thy servants the prophets, who have spoken in thy name to our kings, our princes, cur fathers, and all the people of the land.

⁷ With thee, O Lord, is righteousness, but with us confusion of face, As at this day: to all Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, far and near, whither thou hast driven them, on account of their transgression by which they have transgressed against thee.

⁸ O Lord, to us belongs confusion of face, To our kings, our princes, our fathers, because we have sinned against thee.

⁹ To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, Although we have been rebellious against him.

¹⁰ We have not listened to the voice of Jehovah our God, that we should walk in his laws, which he has set before our face by the hands of his servants the prophets.

¹¹ Even all Israel have transgressed thy law, and have declined to listen to thy voice, Therefore the curse is poured down upon us: And the oath which is written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, Because we have sinned against him.

¹² And he has established his word which he had spoken against us, and against our rulers who governed us, by bringing upon us a great calamity: For under the whole heaven nothing has occurred like that which has happened to Jerusalem.

¹³ As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: Yet we have not deprecated the wrath of Jehovah our God, to turn away from our iniquities, and to become attentive to thy truth.

¹⁴ And Jehovah has watched over the evil, and sent it forth upon us: Because Jehovah our God is just in all the works which he performs, And yet we have not listened to his voice.

¹⁵ And now, O Lord our God, who didst lead thy people out of the land of Egypt with a strong hand, and hast made thyself a name as the fact itself has proved, we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

¹⁶ O Lord, according to all thy righteous dealings, let thine anger be turned away, I pray thee: Let thine indignation cease from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain; For through our sins, and through the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people have become a reproach to all our neighbors.

¹⁷ Hearken now, O our God, to the prayers of thy servant, and to his supplications: Make thy face to shine on the desolated sanctuary, for the Lord’s sake.

¹⁸ Incline, O my God, thine ear, and hear: open thine eyes and behold our distresses, and the desolation of the city called by thy name: Because we do not pour out our supplications before thy face on account of our own righteousness, but by reason of thy many mercies.

¹⁹ O Lord, hear; O Lord, be propitious; O Lord, attend and perform; Delay not for thine own sake, O my God, since thy name is invoked in behalf of thy city and thy people.

²⁰ And while I was yet speaking, and praying, and confessing my sins, and those of my people Israel, and while I was speaking my petition before Jehovah my God, on behalf of the mountain of the sanctuary of my God;

²¹ Even, while I was yet uttering my prayer, The man Gabriel, whom I had before seen in a vision, flying swiftly, Touched me about the time of the evening sacrifice.

²² Then he taught me, and spoke to me, and said, O Daniel, I have now come forth, to afford thee needful information.

²³ At the beginning of thy prayers the word went forth, which I am come to declare, because thou art greatly beloved: Attend therefore to the word, and understand the vision.

²⁴ Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to close up wickedness, and seal up sin, and expiate iniquity, and bring in eternal righteousness, and seal up the vision and the prophecy, and anoint the holy of holies.

²⁵ Take notice therefore and understand, From the going forth of the word concerning the return of the people, And the rebuilding of Jerusalem to Messiah the Leader, Seventy weeks, and sixtytwo weeks; then the people shall be brought back, And the street and the wall shall be rebuilt, and that too amidst the perplexities (or “in the narrow limit”) of the times.

²⁶ Then after the sixty—two weeks, Christ shall be cut off, and become nothing: The people of the coming leader shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: Its end shall be with an inundation: And at the close of the war a completion of desolation’s.

²⁷ And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; And for half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease; And upon the spreading of abominations he shall be astonished, And at the close, he shall pour the full accomplishment upon the desolator.

¹ In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a revelation was made to Daniel, called Belteshazzar; and the word was most true and the times most extended; and he understood the word, and fully comprehended the vision.

² In those days I Daniel gave myself up to mourning for three weeks of days.

³ I did not eat any delicate food; neither flesh nor wine entered my mouth: Nor did I anoint myself at all, till three weeks of days were fulfilled.

⁴ On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, I was upon the banks of the great river Hiddekel;

⁵ Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold! a man clothed in linen vesture, His loins were girt with the gold of Uphaz:

⁶ His body was like the chrysolite, His face like the appearance of lightning, and his eyes like lamps of fire, His arms and his feet were as bright as polished brass, And the voice of his words like the sound of a tumult.

⁷ I Daniel alone saw the vision: For the men who were with me saw no vision; Yea, rather, great terror fell upon them, and they fled into hiding places.

⁸ Then I Daniel was left alone, And I saw this great vision: Then there remained no strength within me: My comeliness was turned to corruption, and I did not retain my strength.

⁹ Yet I heard the voice of his words; And when I heard the voice of his words, I fell down in a swoon with my face towards the ground.

¹⁰ And behold! a hand touched me, and raised me upon my knees, and upon the palms of my hands.

¹¹ Then he said to me, O Daniel! a man of desires, Understand the words which I address to thee, And stand upright, because I am now sent unto thee. When he had spoken this word unto me, I stood up trembling.

¹² Then he said unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day on which thou didst apply thy heart to understanding, and to afflicting thyself before the face of thy God, thy words were heard. And I am come through thy words.

¹³ The prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me for twenty-one days; And, lo, Michael, one of the chief leaders, came to my assistance; And I was left among the kings of the Persians.

¹⁴ Now I am come to disclose to thee what shall occur to thy people at the close of the days; for still the vision is for days.

¹⁵ While he was speaking to me according to these words, I placed my face upon the ground, and became dumb.

¹⁶ When, lo! one bearing the form of the sons of men touched my lips; And I opened my mouth and spoke, and said to the person standing before me, O lord, my sorrows are turned upon me in vision, and I cannot retain my strength.

¹⁷ And how could the servant of this my lord speak with this my lord? Henceforth no strength remained in me and no breath was left in me.

¹⁸ Then a second time, he who bore a human appearance, touched me, and strengthened me, and said, ¹⁹ Fear not, O man of desires, peace be to thee, Take courage and be strong. And while he was addressing me, I became strong, Then I said, Let my Lord speak, because thou hast strengthened me.

²⁰ He said next, Surely thou knowest why I am come to thee, I am now going to return to contend with the prince of Persia; And when I am gone, behold, the prince of Javan (Greece) will come.

²¹ But I will declare unto thee what is deeply graven in the scripture of truth: For there is not one who will stand by me in these affairs, Except Michael your prince.

¹ In the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood both to strengthen and to succor him: and now I will declare to thee the truth.

² Behold, three kings shall yet stand up in Persia, and a fourth shall be enriched with great riches above them all: and when he is grown strong through his wealth, he shall stir up the whole against the kingdom of Jayan (Greece.)

³ Then a mighty king shall stand up, and shall rule with extended dominion, and shall do according to his will.

⁴ And when he shall be established, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be dispersed towards the four winds of heaven, yet not to his posterity, nor yet according to the dominion which he exercised; for his kingdom shall be extirpated, and shall be for others, who are not of his posterity.

⁵ A king of the south shall then become strong, being one of his princes, and he shall be strengthened against him, and shall become supreme, and his dominion shall be extensive.

⁶ At the end of the years, they shall become allies, and the daughter of the king of the south shall, come to the king of the north for the purpose of making peace: Yet his arm shall not retain its strength; neither shall he stand, nor his seed, but she shall be delivered up with her attendants, and her mother, and whoever supported her at that time.

⁷ Yet there shall stand up a shoot from her root in its own rank: it shall come with an army, and shall reach the fortifications of the king of the north, and shall act among the people, and shall prevail.

⁸ Their gods also with their molten images, with their precious vessels of silver and gold, shall they carry into captivity to Egypt, and he shall stand for more years than the king of the north.

⁹ And the king of the north shall come into the kingdom, and shall return to his own land.

¹⁰ But his sons shall be provoked, and shall assemble a multitude of mighty forces; and shall advance rapidly, and overflow, and pass through: he shall return and shall be stirred up even to his own fortress.

¹¹ Then the king of the south shall be exasperated, and shall go forth to make war against the king of the north: he shall set in motion a large multitude, and that multitude shall be delivered into his hand.

¹² Then that multitude shall be taken away, and his heart shall be elated: He shall east down tens of thousands, and yet he shall not become strong.

¹³ For the king of the north shall return, and shall collect a greater multitude than before And at the end of the times of the years, he shall come swiftly with a great army, and with much wealth.

¹⁴ And at those times many shall stand up against the king of the south (Egypt), and sons, robbers of thy people, shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, but yet they shall fail.

¹⁵ For the king of the north shall come, and shall east up a rampart, and shall take the city of fortifications, and the arms of the south shall not stand, nor yet the people of his levies, for there shall be no strength for standing.

¹⁶ Also when coming he shall do unto him according to his will, and none shall stand before his face, and he shall stand in the desirable land which shall be consumed in his hand.

¹⁷ And he shall set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom to make alliances with him; he shall accomplish this: he shall give the daughter of women to him to corrupt her, but she shall not stand by him, nor be under his power.

¹⁸ Then he shall turn his face towards the islands, and shall take many: and a prince shall set at rest his reproach against him: hence he shall not turn his reproach upon himself.

¹⁹ And he shall turn his face towards the fortifications of his own land, and shall stumbles and fall, and never be found.

²⁰ Next there shall stand up in his place one who shall send forth an exactor, or raiser of tribute, in honor of his kingdom, but within a few days he shall perish, yet not either in anger or in battle.

²¹ Then a contemptible person shall succeed him, on whom they shall not confer the honor of royalty, but he shall come stealthily, and shall seize the kingdom by flatteries.

²² His auxiliaries shall be overwhelmed by a deluge before his sight: they shall be utterly broken, as well as the leader of the covenant.

²³ After conjunction with him shall he practice deceit, and shall ascend, and prevail with a small band.

²⁴ He shall advance in peace into the richest portion of the province, and shall do what neither his father nor his father’s father had done: he shall distribute among them spoils, and booty, and wealth, and he shall think many thoughts respecting fortified cities, and that for a time.

²⁵ And he shall stir up his strength and his breast against the king of the south, with a great army; and the king of the south shall be roused up to battle with a large and very powerful army: and he shall not stand, because they shall agitate perfidious counsels against him.

²⁶ Those who partake of his table shall ruin him, and his army shall be overwhelmed, and many shall fall wounded.

²⁷ The heart of both these kings shall be inclined to evil; at the same table shall they speak deceitfully: yet it shall not prosper, because the end is yet for a defined period.

²⁸ Then shall he return to his own land with great wealth; and his heart shall be towards the covenant of holiness, and he shall accomplish his purpose, and return to his own land.

²⁹ After a time he shall return, and shall come to the south; But this expedition small not succeed as the former one.

³⁰ For ships of Chittim shall advance against him, and he shall be humbled, and return, and shall be indignant against the holy covenant, and shall do his work, and return and apply his mind to the deserters of the holy covenant.

³¹ And arms shall stand up from him; and they shall profane the sanctuary of Ms strength, and abolish the continual sacrifice, and set up the abomination which shall make desolate.

³² Now those who act impiously against the covenant will he seduce with flatteries, but the people who know their God shall be strengthened and will practice it.

³³ And the wise among the people shall teach many, yet they shall fall by the sword, and by the flame, by exile, and by rapine, for many days.

³⁴ Yet in their fall they shall be assisted with moderate help, and many shall join themselves to them through flatteries.

³⁵ Also some of those who have understanding shall fall, to prove, and purge, and whiten them even for a definite time, since it is still for an appointed time.

³⁶ And the king shall act according to his will, and shall raise himself, and magnify himself above every deity, and against the God of gods shall he speak wonderful things; He shall prosper also unto the consummation of the anger, Since the decision has been made.

³⁷ He shall not attend to either the God of his fathers, nor to the desire of women: He shall not attend to any deity, for he shall magnify himself above them all.

³⁸ And the God of fortresses shall he honor in his own place; And a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and with desirable things.

³⁹ Then he shall attack the fortifications of strength with the strange god whom he has acknowledged: He shall multiply the glory, and cause them to reign over many; for he shall divide the land for a price.

⁴⁰ After a fixed time, the king of the south shall attack him; Then the king of the north shall rush at him like a whirlwind, with chariots and horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter his lands, and shall overflow and pass through.

⁴¹ He shall also arrive at the land of desire, (Judea;) Many regions shall fall, but these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, Moab, and the heads of the children of Ammon.

⁴² Then he shall extend his hand over the lands, and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

⁴³ He shall have dominion over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the desirable things of Egypt, and Libya and Ethiopia in his progress.

⁴⁴ But rumors shall disturb him from the east and from the north; he shall go forth with great anger to destroy many, and to devote them to utter destruction.

⁴⁵ And he shall fix the tabernacle of his palace between the seas, near the mountain of the desire of holiness; Then he shall come to his end, and no one shall help him.

¹ Moreover, at that time shall Michael the mighty prince stand up, standing for the sons of thy people; And there shall be a time of affliction, such as was not from the existence of nations until that period. Yet at this period thy people shall escape, every one who shall be found written in the book.

² And many of those who sleep, and have been reduced to earth and dust, shall awake; some to perpetual life, and others to shame and continued abomination.

³ Then the wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; And those who have turned many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

⁴ And thou, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal up the book, till the time appointed. Many shall investigate, and knowledge shall be increased.

⁵ Then I Daniel was gazing, and behold two others standing, One on this side, and the other on that of the river’s bank.

⁶ And one of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be to the end of these wonders?”

⁷ Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river; He raised his right hand and his left towards the heavens, and swore by him who liveth for ever, That it should be for the appointed time, times, and half a time; And at the completion of the dispersion of the holy people, All these things shall be accomplished.

⁸ Then I heard, but I did not understand; and I said, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these events?

⁹ Then he said, Depart, Daniel, because the words are closed and sealed up to the time appointed.

¹⁰ Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; Yet the impious shall act impiously: And the impious will not understand, but the prudent will understand.

¹¹ From the time of taking away the continual sacrifice, to the setting up of the desolating abomination, shall be 1290 days.

¹² Blessed is he who shall have waited, and shall have arrived at the 1335 days.

¹³ And do thou go until the end, and rest; And thou shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

END OF CONNECTED TRANSLATION OF DANIEL

FOOTNOTES

htç shetheh, to drink. — Calvin.

DISSERTATIONS

DISSERTATIONS