explains it, (ver. 20:) "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia; and the rough goat the king of Grecia; and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king (Alexander.) Now that broken, whereas four horns stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power." Here too is the division of his empire among his generals. But then, (ver. 9,)"Out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceeding great towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven ; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression; and it practised and prospered."

Of this part of the vision there is much dispute. It also is thus explained by the angel, (ver. 22 :) "And in the latter time of their kingdom when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."

It is assuredly some very great and momentous course of history that is here fore-signified. There is indeed much difference of opinion respecting the application of the prophecy; and it is a point of some consequence to the question we are trying, since with these actions commences the period upon which the whole argument turns. I hope, however, when I have disproved the reasoning upon which Mr. Pym presumes to have determined it, to show that to whomsoever these actions be attributed, they must commence at a period much later than the time at which Mr. Pym begins :-First, that his argument is not authentic, grounded on a mistatement of Scripture;-Secondly, that his conclusion is, as nearly as one may judge in such matters, and by the obvious force of the context, impossible. Some have made the little horn and its antitype to be intended for Antiochus Epiphanes; an idea perfectly futile for many reasons. In the first place, there are many horns in the vision, and none of them represent an individual, but every one a several power; whereas Antiochus Epiphanes was in his time the representative of one of the four horns, or kingdoms. But the little horn should be a new kingdom arising out of that region, (Syria,) or some other one of the four. Alexander, it is true, is distinguished as a single horn; but then Alexander is the representative of a power that rose and fell with himself. Again, so inconsiderable a person as Antiochus Epiphanes is no adequate fulfilment of this prophecy, which occupies more space, and bespeaks a history of events of greater magnitude, than all that relates to all the other powers pre

figured in the vision put together. Again, what is said afterwards of the length of the vision of the desolation, which is the period Mr. Pym would determine, puts Antiochus Epiphanes out of the question, unless the period be computed literally as so many natural days, not prophetic days, or years, which would destroy Mr. Pym's argument still more entirely, as it is the computation by years which he makes use of. If the Roman power, imperial and papal, be regarded as the true antitype, then Antiochus Epiphanes may be looked upon as a sign or earnest of the proper fulfilment to be hereafter, as David was a temporary fulfilment, and at the same time an earnest of the more eminent accomplishment that was to be made in Christ, of the kingdom prophesied to arise out of Judah. Then even the period, as having a gradual commencement in him, would begin some 300 years later than the point of time from which Mr. Pym dates it.

Another explanation of the prophecy applies it to Mahomet, which would bring us down to a far later point; but upon that I will not stand. This opinion, however, I am bound to say, Mr. Keith has very well argued, and has made out a very plausible case; whether the matter be his own, or taken from some precedent interpreter, I know not, as it is not his invariable custom to attribute what he borrows.

But the more commonly received interpretation is that supported by Bishop Newton, who refers the prophecy to the Roman power, first the imperial, then the papal as successor to it.

Between these two opinions I shall not presume to judge. Particular parts seem to favour each.

It is a doubt, however, that leaves the question of time, which Mr. Pym decides so positively, one of indeterminable ambiguity. For most assuredly the period of time, which he has undertaken to demonstrate, does not commence at the point from which he dates its commencement, but is synchronous with the assaults of this little horn upon the religious rites and place of the sanctuary; for it is thus expressed immediately following the description of the violence of the little horn, and the period here spoken of is that which Mr. Pym dates from the point he chooses, grounding the whole argument, or at least drawing the whole pressure of his "Warning" from it. "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, 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? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Chap. viii. 13, 14.

Now in the next (the ninth) chapter is related another vision, which Daniel saw" in the first year "in of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes." This, according to every computation, is several years later than the date of the second vision, that of the preceding chapter, in the third year of Belshazzar: the chronology of Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester, which is adopted in Mant's Bible, makes the interval fifteen years. The relation is, that Daniel knowing by the books of Jeremiah that the seventy years, the period of captivity which the Jews were to

complete in Babylon, had now expired, set his face unto the Lord with prayer and supplication, making confession of sins and entreating the pardon of God; saying, "O Lord,-keeping covenant and mercy to them that love him, we have sinned, and have rebelled, departing from thy precepts. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; yea, all Israel have trangressed thy law, therefore the curse is found upon us; and God confirmed his words, which he spake against us, by bringing upon us a great evil. And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt; according to all thy righteousness let thine anger and fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain :-O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate," &c. (ver. 4—19.) Here we see the whole substance, nature, and object of Daniel's prayer, all therefore that his thoughts were employed about at this time. How totally unconnected with the long-past matters of the preceding chapter. This is to be attended to, as it is a part of scripture which Mr. Pym has astonishingly perplexed, confused, and misrepresented. What follows in the context is most consistent with, and bears immediately upon the subject of the prayer. " And whiles I was speaking in prayer, and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God;-yea, whiles I was yet speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,