terms of the promise made to Daniel, in the 13th verse.-It does not lead us to consider the general resurrection as a part of the ful- filment of this prophecy.-Brief notices of other predictions, in the Scripture of Truth, corresponding with this latter part of Daniel's last Great number of close agreements, between the latter part of the prophecy and a continuous train of events recorded in history.— Tabular view of the agreements. They are too numerous to be the results of chance. The explanation of Porphyry, and other adver- saries of the Christian Faith, inadmissible here; for Christians and Jews could not have combined to add this part to Daniel, after the events took place. The prophecy thus conclusively proves itself DANIEL'S LAST VISION AND PROPHECY. CONTENTS. The passage of Daniel's Last Prophecy, which is THE following observations refer to that part of Daniel's Last Vision and Prophecy which commences with the thirty-first verse of the eleventh chapter, and goes on to the conclusion of the Book. Regarding the former part of the Vision and Prophecy, down to the end of the thir- tieth verse of that chapter, there has been little difference of opinion among commentators. They have explained it, as referring to the Kings of Persia, Alexander the Great, and his successors in the kingdoms of Syria and B these several monarchs. So accurately do these events correspond with the predictions in this part of Daniel, that the infidel, Porphyry, could not evade the force of the argument, thence arising, for the Divine Inspiration of the prophecy, otherwise than by asserting that the prophecy was written after the events. But, while commentators thus agree in their interpretations so far down in the prophecy, they differ greatly from each other respecting all that follows the thirtieth verse referred to. We shall well express their several agreements and differences in the language that Bishop Newton employs, when he has brought his own interpretations down to the point where the differences begin. "Thus far," says he, "the meaning and the completion of the prophecy is sufficiently clear and evident; there is more obscurity and difficulty in the part that remains to be considered. Thus far commentators are in the main agreed, and few or none have deviated much out of the common road: but hereafter they pursue so many different paths, that it is not always easy to know whom it is best and safest to follow. Some, as Porphyry among the ancients, and Grotius among the moderns, contend that the whole was literally accomplished in Antiochus Epiphanes. Others, as Jerome, and most of the Christian Fathers, consider Antiochus as a type of Antichrist; as, in the seventy-second Psalm, Solomon is exhibited as a type of Christ, and many things are said of the one, which are only applicable to the other. Some, again, understand what remains, partly of the tyranny of Antiochus, and partly of the great apostacy of the latter days, or the days of the Roman empire. Others, again, apply it wholly to the invasion and tyranny of the Romans, the subsequent corruptions in the church, and alterations in the empire. There is no writer or commentator, whom we would choose to follow implicitly in all things; but in this we may agree with one, in that with another, and in some instances, perhaps, differ from all.” This accomplished interpreter then proceeds to examine the interpretations, which, before his time, had been put on this part of Daniel, and endeavours to establish his own; which, in brief terms, is, that from the thirty-first to the thirty-fifth verse of the eleventh chapter, both inclusive, the prophecy refers to the power of the Romans, the destruction of Jerusalem by that people, and the extension, persecution, and corruptions of Christianity; that, from the thirty-sixth verse to the end of the chapter, it refers to the papal superstitions, and the wars of the Saracens and Turks; and that the beginning, at least, of the twelfth chapter refers to the general resurrection. The interpretation of Bishop Newton has been very generally received as the right one, by succeeding writers, although some have differed from him; as for instance, the Rev. Edward Cooper, who, in a treatise on the subject of some prophecies, dedicated to the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, has referred the prophecy, at the thirty-sixth verse of the eleventh chapter of Daniel, to Napoleon Bonaparte.t Bishop Newton's "Dissertations on the Prophecies" ;-Dissert. XVII. + The Crisis. By the Rev. Edward Cooper. Lond. 1825. |