Rome, and specially that power as exercised by NERO, is, beyond all reasonable question, symbolized by the beast described in Rev. xiii. 3, seq.

"Whenever the beast is distinguished from the seven heads, it then is employed as a generic symbol of the imperial power; but when particular and specific actions or qualities of a personal and distinctive nature are predicted of the beast, it designates the imperial power as individually exercised, e. g. by Nero.

"To recount the efforts which have been made to interpret these passages, would of itself require somewhat of a volume. I have never seen, and cannot find, but one probable solution; and that is drawn from the history of the times, and particularly the history of what was said and generally believed respecting Nero, during his life-time, and even long after his death."

"The most usual one, by far, seems to have been, that Nero would be assassinated, receive a wound apparently deadly, recover from it, and subsequently go to the East and return from it with great power, ravage Palestine, lay waste the church, and finally re-enter Rome with fire and sword, and avenge himself of all his former enemies.

"Thus much for the belief of the heathen in general. Nor was this belief confined to them. Christians widely participated in it. Passages in abundance are to be found in parts of the Sibylline Oracles, some of which were written about A. D. 80, and others early in the second century, which show most plainly how vivid the persuasion was, that Nero would again make his appearance, notwithstanding his apparently deadly wound."

"The question is not now, at least with me it is not, whether the writer of the Apocalypse did himself participate in this vulgar belief respecting Nero's re-appearance. I have no apprehension that he cherished such views as these; certainly not, if he were (as I believe) an inspired man. My apprehension is, that in describing the beast, i. e. Nero, instead of calling him by name, (which would have been, in connection with what he said, a treasonable offence,) he has adverted to him as the person respecting whom the reports in question were current, and purposely adverted to him in such a way, in order that his readers might easily know who was meant.

He

"Several circumstances serve to confirm this view of the case. After describing the beast whose deadly wound was healed, in Rev. xiii. 3— 8, he adds immediately: If any man has an ear, let him hear,' i. e. let the reader very attentively consider who is meant in this case. then subjoins: If any one leads into exile, he shall go away into exile;' Rev. xiii. 10. In other words: He, of whom I have been speaking, is the individual who exiles Christians; but mark well! he shall himself speedily be exiled.' chapter xvii., the effort to guide his readers and put them on their guard against an erroneous construction of his words, is still more visible. After speaking of the beast which was, and is not, and will come up from the abyss,' he exclaims: Ωδεὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν, here is a meaning which comprises wisdom.' In other words: Some special sagacity is needed in the interpretation of this passage.

In

"By speaking in this way does not John show.

that he does not expect his words, i. e. his description of the beast, to be understood as if he employed them simply to express his own individual belief, but only that he introduces upon the scene the person of whom such things are reported, viz., such as that his deadly wound is healed, and that he will again resume his imperial power?

"Is there any more difficulty in such a supposition, than there is when the Saviour says to the Pharisees: If I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?' Matt. xii. 27. Is there any more, than when Jesus speaks of unclean spirits as walking through desert places, seeking rest and finding none?' Matt. xii. 43. In both cases the popular opinion is cited, without any remark whether it is true or untrue. The speaker had another and different purpose in view. So here; John's object was secretly to intimate to his readers, who was meant by the beast; and in order to accomplish this object, he has repeated those things which popular rumor had spread abroad respecting him, or at least alluded to them. But, as I have already noted, he has taken care, in each case, to give a caution to his readers how they interpret this, or what use they make of it. On any other ground, why should these cautions be inserted in these particular places, and omitted in all the other symbolical parts of the Apocalypse?

"If the reader is satisfied, with me, that John might describe Nero in this way, it will be easy to show him how well the description comports with the substance of the common rumor, According to this, Nero was to be assassinated, and

to receive a wound apparently deadly, and yet to recover from it. So says Rev. xiii. 3: One of the heads [i. e. Nero] was smitten as it were unto death, and yet his deadly wound was healed.' What can be more exact?"

The paragraph commencing with the words, "Is there any more difficulty," &c., clearly proves that although he, in the year 1819, censured Semler for using the principle of accommodation, yet he has here employed it himself; thus sanc tioning a principle of interpretation which he once justly denounced as dangerous, as one that would pave the way for a denial of the authority of the Bible.

By the way, it may be remarked that the prediction in Daniel ix. has been "a rock of offence" to the German Rationalists. Bertholdt, Bleek and Hitzig, maintain that this part of Daniel is a forgery by some writer, who, because the time fixed by Jeremiah for the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of their temple had long passed without a fulfilment, has attempted a sort of parody or mystical interpretation of the 70 years! Bertholdt and Rosenmüller tell us that Messiah the prince, is Alexander. Bleek and Hitzig maintain that he is Seleucus Philopater, the predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes. In reference to this and other theories respecting the interpretation of Daniel, Hegsterburg forcibly remarks: "The reference to the Maccabees and the whole non-Messianic interpretation, will remain false, as long as the word of Christ remains true; therefore to all eternity. That the passage, Matt. xxiv. 15, refers to this prophecy, has been shown in Beitr 1, p. 263; and that the Lord cites it as

a real prophecy, which concerned the destruction of the city and temple, to be first fulfilled at a future time, in the same place, p. 266."

The Rev. C. Newton, of Mass., published in the Christian Watchman of March 31, 1843, an "Exposition of the 9th chapter of Daniel," from which we shall make some extracts in proof of our assertion that Neology has influenced the opinions of the American clergy. The editor. of that paper, the Rev. E. Thresher, makes the following remark respecting the "Exposition:" "The student of prophecy will find on our first page, the views of the Rev. Calvin Newton, upon the closing part of the 9th chapter of Daniel. Mr. Newton is a very sensible man and a ripe scholar." But let us hear the author. After some preliminary remarks, in reference to the prayer of the prophet, he says:

"Such piety was regarded in heaven, and Gabriel was instantly commissioned to descend, and relieve Daniel's anxieties. (See verses 20 -23.) In verses 22, 23, the angel positively declares, that he has appeared to give Daniel the information which his heart desired; and that was certainly information about the termination of the captivity, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Now, since God, and the heavenly messengers who do his will, cannot lie nor deceive, to my own mind it is certain, that Gabriel's remarks must apply to the subject of Daniel's prayer. This point being settled, I proceed to an interpretation of verses 24-27, accordingly.

"Here let it be remarked, that, in the Hebrew, the word signifying seventy, and that signifying weeks or sevens, aside from the pointing of the