given them for the same reason that the great persecutor and oppressor of the saints in the western empire is also called "the little horn." It is the same kind of power, and therefore might be signified by the same name.'

This interpretation, however, as it appears to us, must be rejected for the following reasons :— 1. Because the prophecies of this chapter are exclusively restricted to the Persian and Grecian monarchies, the second and third beasts spoken of in Dan. vii. 3-8; and, therefore, any interpretation which transgresses these limits cannot be the true one (Dan. viii. 20, 21). 2. Because it is unequivocally affirmed, ver. 9, that this little horn rose out of one of the four horns of the Grecian empire. The Roman power, however, did not come forth from any of the four horns of the great he-goat, but was a different power, and obtained dominion, first over the kingdom of Greece, and then over the other kingdoms of the goat, by war and conquest. 3. Because it confounds this little horn with the other little horn spoken of in chap. vii. 8, as if it were identified with the Papacy; whereas these two horns are evidently different

from each other, the first coming forth out of one of the four horns of the Grecian empire, and the second rising among the ten horns of the Roman empire in the West. 4. And lastly, this interpretation must be rejected, because it makes the rough goat, which is the third beast, or symbol of the Grecian empire out of which this little horn rose, exactly the same as the fourth beast, or Roman empire, and that too in a prophecy in which the fourth beast is not even named or referred to. For these reasons we submit that the little horn spoken of in this passage cannot be the symbol of the Roman power, according to the theory of Sir Isaac and of Bishop Newton.

Neither can this little horn be regarded as the symbol of the Mohammedan power according to the theory of Mr Faber, T. Scott the commentator, and other students of prophecy. This theory is liable to the same objections as that of Bishop Newton. Besides, the Mohammedan power can in no sense be said to have risen out of one of the four horns of the he-goat, as it did not come into existence until ages after the four kingdoms of the Grecian empire had been destroyed by the Roman

armies. Having thus no connection whatever with that empire, it cannot be symbolized by the horn which came forth out of one of the four notable horns of the he-goat.

The interpretation given of this prophecy by writers of the olden times, is in accordance with its various parts, and appears to be the true one. These, whether Jewish or Christian, supposed the little horn to be the symbol of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, and of Demetrius his successor, who both profaned the temple of God, and cruelly persecuted the Jewish nation. 'Our nation,' says Josephus, suffered these calamities under Antiochus Epiphanes, as Daniel saw, and many years before wrote what things should come to pass.' 'Antiochus Epiphanes,' says St Jerome, 'fought against Ptolemy Philometor, and the Egyptians, —that is, against the South and again against the East, and those who attempted a change of government in Persia; and lastly he fought against the Jews, took Judea, entered into Jerusalem, and in the temple of God set up the image of Jupiter Olympius.' That Antiochus Epiphanes is the enemy of the church, symbolized by the little horn of the

Grecian empire, might be proven from the fact, that the predictions contained in the passage concerning him appear to have been literally fulfilled in the events of the wars which he and his successor waged against the Jewish nation. But as this would occupy too much of our space, we must content ourselves with referring the reader to the first seven chapters of the first book of Maccabees, where he will find these predictions illustrated and verified in the historical records of that dark and disastrous period of the Jewish church. Having now seen that Antiochus Epiphanes is the enemy of the church who is symbolized by the little horn of the rough goat, we must next consider,—

II. Whether the 2300 days, during which time this enemy persecutes the church, are to be regarded as natural or prophetical days?—The words used and translated days in Dan. viii. 14 are not the same as the words employed in Dan. xii. 11, 12, and which are literally rendered days in these verses. In the Hebrew those are evenings and mornings,' and they are so translated in the margin, and also in ver. 26. The vision of the evening and the

morning which was told is true.'

Since, then, the

Spirit of God employs these words, mornings,' in regard to the little

evenings and horn of the

Grecian empire, and since they are different from the word days' used in Dan. xii. 11, 12, and from that also used by John (Rev. xi. 3, xii. 6), it is evident that there must be a reason for this difference, and that we cannot be warranted to interpret them as if they were of the same meaning and denoted the same portion of time. Accordingly we find that an evening and morning is in Hebrew a notation of time for a natural day: "The evening and the morning were the fourth day' (Gen. i. 19). Now if the 2300 evenings and mornings are natural days, then reckoning thirty days to a month, and twelve months to a year, this number of days amounts to six years four months and twenty days. This period of time is consequently the length of 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 when it is accom

plished the sanctuary shall

be cleansed, and the

host trodden under foot. Having thus shown

B