utter dilapidation of the temple. A discussion of the point, how it happened, that such an assertion should lead them to inquire respecting the second advent of Christ and the end of the world. p. 161.

2. A discussion of the phrases, which they employed. p. 165.

III. An examination of the prophecy itself. p. 175.

1. The signs, which announced the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. p. 176.

(1.) False Christs. p. 176.

(2.) Wars and rumours of wars. p. 177.

(3.) Nation rising up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. p. 177.

(4.) Earthquakes. p. 177.

(5.) Famines and pestilences. p. 178.

(6.) Fearful sights and great signs from heaven. p. 178. (7.) A previous persecution of the Christians. p. 179. (8.) Import of the phrase, The end is not yet. p. 179. 2. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. p. 183. (1.) The abomination of desolation. p. 183.

(2.) False Christs and false prophets springing up synchronically. p. 183.

3. The period of the tribulation of the Jews. p. 184. 4. Events which occur synchronically with the close of that tribulation. p. 185.

(1.) Error of Bp. Newton and others in the interpretation of those events. p. 186.

(2.) The real period to which the events ought to be ascribed. p. 188.

5. They are the signs of the approaching second advent of Christ. p. 195.

6. The literal end of the world must be distinguished from the day of the second advent. p. 199.

IV. The difficulties presented by the text, This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled. p. 202.

1. The solution proposed by Mr. Mede. p. 204.

(1.) First objection to it. p. 204.

(2.) Second objection. p. 205.

(3.) Third

(3.) Third objection. p. 205.

2. The solution proposed by Bp. Horsley. p. 206. (1.) First objection to it. p. 207.

(2.) Second objection. p. 212.

3. The solution proposed by an anonymous writer. (1.) First objection to it. p. 215.

(2.) Second objection. p. 217.

(3.) Third objection. p. 218.

4. The solution which is finally adopted. p. 219.

(1.) Respecting the proper translation of the word yentai, p. 219.

(2.) Objection, from the use of the word all, answered. p. 220.

(3.) Scripture is best interpreted by Scripture. p. 222.
(4.) Respecting the word, which Christ must have actually
used in the Hebrew language, and which is expressed
by the Greek yanızı, p. 225.

(5.) Conclusion. p. 225.

DISSER T. IV.

A vindication of the protestant mode of calculating the 1260 days in opposition to that adopted by the Romanists. p. 227.

PROTESTANT expositors contend, that the prophetic 1260

days are 1260 natural years: popish expositors, on the contrary, maintain, that they are no more than 1260 natural days. 227.

p.

I. The first objection against the protestant mode of computation, brought by Mr. Rutter on the part of the Romanists, is the opinion of Jerome and certain others of the fathers. p. 235.

1. From the very necessity of the case, the fathers are incompetent interpreters of the prophecies of Daniel

and

and St. John: they lived before the accomplishment of those predictions, which they undertook to explain. p. 235.

2. Yet, when their opinions are fairly stated and weighed, they will actually be found to confirm, not the papal,

but the protestant, principle of exposition. p. 236. (1.) All are agreed, that the Roman Empire is symbolized by the fourth beast of Daniel and by the seven-headed beast of the Apocalypse. This beast puts forth ten horns; which, as all acknowledge, symbolize ten kingdoms or sovereignties into which the Roman Empire was to be divided. And these ten horns or kingdoms the popish expositor Bp. Walmesley pronounces very rightly to be the ten Gothic kingdoms, which sprang up within the limits of the Roman Empire during the course of the fifth and sixth centuries. p. 236.

(2.) Behind and among the ten horns, so judiciously interpreted by Bp. Walmesley, Daniel beheld an eleventh little horn arise diverse from the ten larger horns; before which three of those horns were eradicated. Now the fathers rightly pronounce, as every man must do that reads the prophecy with even no more than a common degree of attention, that the little horn was to spring up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten primary horns. But the ten primary horns, as Bp. Walmesley contends with much propriety, are the ten primary Gothic kingdoms. Therefore, according to the exposition of the bishop himself when viewed conjointly with the exposition of the fathers, the little horn must have sprung up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten primary Gothic kingdoms. p. 237. (3.) The question then is, how the 1260 days, which constitute the period allotted to the little horn's tyranny, are to be reckoned. On this point, the fathers had no ground for speaking positively before the event; though, from the express words of the prophecy, they

both

both might and did pronounce that the little horn was to spring up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns p. 239.

(4.) Whatever then may be the power intended by the little horn, the fathers and Bp. Walmesley, when viewed conjointly, require us to seek its rise in the course of that period during which the Roman Empire was parcelled out into ten kingdoms. For the fathers declare, that the little horn was to spring up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns: and Bp. Walmesley declares, that the ten horns are those ten Gothic kingdoms, into which the Roman Empire was divided during the fifth and sixth centuries. Hence, if we admit BOTH their opinions, which we protestants are quite ready to do, the little horn must have sprung up during the fifth or sixth centuries SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten primary Gothic kingdoms. p. 241.

(5.) Such then being the premises alike stated by each

party, the event itself will plainly determine the right mode of computing the 1260 days. If a power, cor. responding with the character of the little horn, sprang up SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten Gothic kingdoms; and exercised a remarkable tyranny over the saints of God, during the precise term of 1260 natural days: then the prophetic 1260 days are no doubt 1260 natural days. But, if a power, corresponding with the character of the little horn, then actually indeed sprang up; while yet the tyranny, which it soon began to exercise over the saints, lasted much longer than 1260 natural days: then the prophetic 1260 days must inevitably be 1260 solar years, be cause the days in question can only be either natural days or natural years; otherwise Daniel stands convicted of being a false prophet. p. 242.

(6.) From this conclusion it is impossible for a Romanist to escape: unless he either denies the rise of the

VOL. III.

a

little

little horn to be SYNCHRONICAL with the rise of the ten horns, in which case he contradicts both the exposition of the fathers and the manifest sense of the prophecy itself; or rejects Bp. Walmesley's interpretation of the ten horns, in which case hè runs directly counter to history. For, if (as the fathers declare) the little horn rises SYNCHRONICALLY with the ten horns, and if (as Bp. Walmesley has proved) the ten horns are the ten primary Gothic kingdoms: it will inevitably follow, that the rise of the little horn and the rise of the ten Gothic kingdoms are SYNCHRONICAL. p. 242.

3. How then, it will naturally be asked, do Bp. Walmesley and Mr. Rutter contrive to arrange the rise of the little horn, consistently with their own principles, and yet so as to avoid the protestant application of it? They inform us, that this little horn, whose rise is made even by their own principles SYNCHRONICAL with the rise of the ten Góthic kingdoms during the fifth and sixth centuries, has NOT YET appeared; but that it will HEREAFTER appear as the seventh head of the Roman beast, when, in the character of Antichrist, it will reign exactly 1260 natural days. p. 243.

(1.) The gross inconsistency of this arrangement, both with chronology, and with analogical homogeneity. p. 244.

(2.) The impossibility that the acknowledged SYNCHRONICAL prophesying of the two witnesses can be future: because, from the very premises admitted both by Romanists and by Protestants, the 1260 days, during which the little horn reigns and during which the two witnesses prophesy in sackcloth, however they are to be computed, must have commenced soon after the fifth and sixth centuries; during which, as we have seen, the little horn itself must have sprung up in its quality of a kingdom. p. 246.

4. St.