v. 2; and again in his second Epistle ii. 5, " Re“member ye not, that when I was with you, I told

66

you these things?"-What things? Things respecting "the man of sin, the son of perdition, "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that “is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as a god sitteth in the temple of God showing him"self that he is a god," ver. 3, 4: now the body or community here personified as the son of perdition, is the very king of whom Daniel predicted, "he shall do according to his will, and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvellous things against the God of gods," &c. Dan. xi. 36; and the things respecting this man of sin and the manner of his destruction were among those that were sealed up-" But thou Daniel, "shut up the words, and seal the book, to the time

of the end," ch. xii. 4. This being the fact, the sealed book must have been opened before Paul wrote his Epistles; or, in other words, the Apocalypse had been given to the churches before that time, which was the point to be proved; for it is plain, from John's words, that up to the period when he saw the seals removed, neither Peter nor Paul, nor any one in heaven or on earth, or under the earth, had been "found worthy to open "the book, nor to inspect it," Rev. v. 4;—an assertion which would not be true, had Paul written his Epistles before that time.

While on this subject I shall take the opportunity to offer a few farther observations by no means foreign to the ultimate intention of the present publication. If the Book of Daniel was to continue sealed till the time of the end of the Jewish dispensation-if no human powers, however ingeniously exerted, could unfold or explain the sealed parts till the MESSIAH should give the true meaning of them-how should it be possible that, by following Jewish interpretations, the Christian Church should ever attain a right understanding of their import? Need we wonder, then, that Commentators should miss their aim, when, treading in the steps of the Jewish Doctors, they continue to consider Jerusalem as the holy city-the temple as the sanctuary—the Jewish High Priest as the Prince of the Host-Antiochus Epiphanes as the polluter of the sanctuary, the taker away of the daily [service], the author of the transgression of desolation; and the Roman armies under Titus, as those intended by the destroyer of the city and the sanctuary? Ought we not rather to be surprised that they could ever think it possible that light should be expected on this subject from those who have " eyes, but see not, and ears but hear not unto "this day," (Rom. xi. 8); or that they could overlook the numerous intimations given in the Scriptures respecting the substitution of another

tabernacle-another sanctuary, or holy placeanother holy city, for those which existed under the Jewis dispensation?

Of little avail will it be to admit these truths generally, if we do not follow them to all their consequences. "The Priesthood being changed

66

(Heb. vii. 12), there is made, of necessity, a

change also of the law" and of every thing connected with it. The first covenant had a worldly sanctuary (Heb. ix. 1), and in this a place called, by eminence, "the holiest of all," (ver. 3), into which the High Priest entered alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people (ver. 7): the Holy Spirit signifying that the way into the true holiest of all, was not made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing, which was only a figure for the time then present, until the time of the reformation by CHRIST. Now, if the Mosaic institutions were to continue only till the time of the reformation by CHRIST, and if Jerusalem, the temple, &c. had no other sanctity than the legal holiness derived from these institutions, is it not absurd in those who call themselves Christians, to continue, with blind Jewish predilection, to apply to that "Jerusalem, which is in bondage "with her children," (Gal. iv. 25), events which were to happen subsequently to the coming of HIM, to whom Moses and all the Prophets bore

witness, as the end of the law?-Have we not "a HIGH PRIEST who is set on the right hand of the "Throne of the Majesty of the Heavens; a Minister "of the SANCTUARY and of the TRUE TABERNACLE "which the LORD pitched, and not man?” (Heb. viii. 1, 2.) Hath not CHRIST Come a High Priest of good things by a greater and more perfect tabernacle than the one made with hands? (Heb. ix. 11). He hath not entered into "the holy places "made with hands, the figures of the true, but "into Heaven itself." (xi. 24.) Instead of the Jerusalem which is in bondage, have we not the Jerusalem which is above, and free? (Gal. iv. 26.) In one word-Has not the time come in which the true worshippers worship THE FATHER in the Spirit and Truth of all the figurative institutions of Moses (John iv. 23), being free from all bondage to the former weak, beggarly, worldly elements or rudiments? (Gal. iv. 3, 9.)

From these few observations, it is evident that things spoken of the city, the sanctuary, the sacrifice, the oblation, &c. and referring to periods subsequent to the anointing of the Most Holy (Dan. ix. 24), have no relation to the city which formerly was called holy, or to the worldly sanctuary and to the ritual of Moses. They are mere adaptations of old terms to the time of the New Testament dispensation.

As to the term "Prince of the Host," it never

was applied, in the Scriptures, nor any similar term, to the Jewish High Priest; and to make such an application of it is not only arbitrary, but contrary to the express plan and tenor of both the Old Dispensation and the New. This is a point of some moment, but it will not require many words to set it in a clear light.Both of them were to have a High Priest, and (not to insist here on other characteristic diffe rences), there was to be this distinguishing circumstance between the two-the Priests under the law could only be of the tribe of Levi, and could have none of the prerogatives of Royalty, which belonged to another tribe, that of Judah. The New Dispensation, on the contrary, has a REGAL HIGH PRIEST" a High Priest after the "order of Melchisedec," (Heb. vii.) who was King of Salem, and also Priest of the Most High GOD. -The Christian Church has A GREAT HIGH PRIEST, who is passed into the Heavens, JESUS the Son of GOD (Heb. iv. 14), whom God hath constituted both LORD (ruler, king, prince), and CHRIST (Acts ii. 36), agreeably to what had been before prophesied of him, " I have anointed my King upon Zion, the hill of my Holiness." He is the PRINCE OF THE HOST-it is the name which he carries on his vesture and on his thigh

“KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS" (Rev. xix. 16); for "the host," in Daniel, as will be