Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IV.

THE CONSUMMATION-OR ERA OF THE SECOND

ADVENT.

THE grand question, Is the time of the second advent of the Saviour revealed in the word of God? seems to lie at the foundation of our investigations of the prophecies. If it is not revealed, we shall labor in vain to ascertain it; if it is matter of revelation, it is a proper subject of discussion and examination until we arrive at the truth on the subject. That there is a diversity of opinion on the meaning of the prophecies, is no reason why we should not study and endeavor to understand the subject; for there is probably not a subject in the Bible which is not controverted, and on which great and learned men do not disagree. If this fact is a valid reason for the neglect of the prophecies, it is a good reason why we should throw away the whole Bible.

The great argument usually urged against the investigation of the prophetic periods is, that the Saviour declared (Matt. xxiv.) "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, but my Father only." To this objection I shall for the present only reply, that what was not known either to men or angels 1800 years ago, may, for all that, be a matter of revelation, and be

understood at the time and by the age for whose benefit the prediction was specially given. In the proper place this objection will be more fully

met.

I shall now endeavor to show, 1st, that the fact and time of Christ's second coming are both revealed in the 8th chapter of Daniel; and 2d, when, according to that revelation, the event will take place.

The question and answer contained in Daniel viii. 13, 14, has so often been examined and put to the torture, that one would be almost inclined to the opinion that nearly all has been said upon it that can be said. But yet I have a disposition to try it once more. I shall give the text without the italicised or inserted words.

1. The question. "How long the vision, the daily and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"

It is presumed no one will dispute that this is the true and correct reading of the original. First, "How long the vision?" What vision? The true answer to this question will be a decis ion of the dispute, whether the days are to be understood literally or figuratively. If the vision includes only the little horn, and that little horn is Antiochus, then the days are literal, or rather general and indefinite. But if the vision includes the ram with his two horns, the rough goat with his great horn between his eyes, and the four horns, together with the little horn out of one of the four, then, let the little horn be what it may, the days must be figurative, and mean something more than literal days. Now, reader, just read

the text again, together with the context. "How long THE VISION, the daily and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" What is the vision? Reader, think. Were not the ram and goat a part of the vision? Does not Daniel, when relating the vision, commence it with the ram having two horns? Does not Gabriel, when told to make Daniel understand the vision, begin his instruction on the import of the imagery, by saying, "The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia?" Then the ram was a part of the vision. If this be correct, then professor Stuart, professor Chase, and a host of others who follow in their wake, are incorrect in restricting the vision to the little horn out of one of the four notable horns of the goat.

1.2. The answer. "Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The literal rendering is, 2300 evening morning, the Hebrew mode of expressing a day; as in Genesis 1st chapter:-"The evening and the morning is the first day," "second day,

&c.

Mr. Dowling contends that the period is only 1150 days. That the number relates to the Jew. ish sacrifices; and there being two Jewish sacrifices a day, there would be only half as many days as there were sacrifices. According to him, it was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, by his taking away or prohibiting the Jewish offerings 1150 days. Professor Stuart, however, allows them to be 2300 literal days, and finds them fulfilled in the same person. But one thing is very

unfortunate for their cause; neither of them have yet been able to show from history the fulfilment of the period either in whole or part. I assert it without fear of contradiction, that it has never yet been shown that the time was fulfilled in Antiochus.

VARIOUS READINGS OF THE PERIOD.

It has been sometimes urged, as a reason why we cannot depend on the calculation of this period, that there are various readings, and it is uncertain which is the correct one. The reading of all the Hebrew manuscripts is 2300. The Septuagint, or Greek version, is 2400. The Latin of Jerome, 2200.

The Hebrew copies being the oldest, and all the copies agreeing in the reading, it is but a reasonable conclusion that it is the correct reading. As for the reading of Jerome, there are few who place any confidence in it. On the reading of the Septuagint, I beg leave to introduce the following extract from "Begg's Connected View," 3:

p.

66

It is in mercy to His people, although it will and to the condemnation of the wicked, that God has given such clear and determinate intimation of the things that are to come hereafter;' and any attempt to throw unnecessary doubt upon the certainty of the 'times' revealed, calls for severe reprehension. To this charge there is reason to fear the Examinator of Mr. Irving's Opinions, in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor for 1828, (p. 476,) has exposed himself, when, in order to strengthen his argument for the impossibility of de

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

termining the commencement of the mighty year of God's glory,' he fixes upon a misprint of one of the dates in our version of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. 'In regard to the long period of Daniel,' there is, in reality, no reason for its being disputed, whether we should read, with the Hebrew, 2300, or with the Septuagint, 2400 years.' Although all our common editions of the Septuagint have this typographical error, being printed from an edition into which it had crept, yet the manuscript in the Vatican, from which that very edition was printed, has 2300, and not 2400. And of all the principal standard editions of the Septuagint, that alone from which ours are taken has this error. Let not, then, the carelessness of men be charged upon the Most High, nor the errors of copyists on the Spirit of inspiration. For a full statement on this subject, see The Scheme of Prophetic Arrangement of the Rev. Edward Irving and Mr. Frere critically examined by William Cunninghame, Esq. of Lainshaw.'"

The 2300 days being the correct reading, and "the vision," including the ram, the goat, and all the horns, they must be understood, not as days, but years. It is perfectly immaterial to my present purpose whether "the little horn" is Rome, entire, pagan and papal; or whether it is popery alone; nor yet whether it is Mahomedism. The question will not turn on that point, but on the import of "The last end of the indignation," and "the cleansing of the sanctuary."

« PreviousContinue »