<

6

3. Ver. 46, 47, "Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation, and sweet odours unto him." Upon this placem Porphyry says, it is not reasonable to believe, that a proud king should worship a captive: as if,' says Jerom, it were not true that the Lycaonians intended to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, when they 'were surprised at the greatness of the miracles which they ' had seen. [Acts xiv.] The fault lies in the heathen people, 'who reckon every being above them to be a god. The scriptures are not to be blamed, which only relate things truly as they happened. And it may be said, that the 'king himself sufficiently explains the grounds of his worship, and his offering sacrifices and incense, in his own words which follow. Ver. 47," The king answered unto Daniel, and said; Of a truth it is, that your God is a God ' of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets; seeing thou couldst reveal this secret." Therefore the king did not so much worship Daniel as God in Daniel, who had revealed those secrets.'

6

And lest that solution should not satisfy, Jerom proposeth another, which I need not mention.

6

4.--ver. 48, "Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts." Here,' says" Jerom, 'the reviler of the church, (probably meaning Porphyry, 'the same that had been mentioned before,) takes upon him 'to blame the prophet for not refusing those gifts, and for readily accepting Babylonish honours; not considering,' as Jerom adds, that therefore the king had the dream, and 'the secrets of it had been revealed to Daniel, that he might

m Hunc locum calumniatur Porphyrius, quod nunquam superbissimus rex captivum adoraverit: quasi non et Lycaones ob signorum magnitudinem Paulo et Barnabæ voluerint hostias immolare. Error ergo est Gentilium, qui omne quod supra se est deos putant. Scripturæ non debet imputari, quæ simpliciter refert universa quæ gesta sunt. Sed et hoc possumus dicere, quod causas adorandi et immolandarum victimarum, et incensi et sacrificii, ipse rex exposuerit, dicens ad Danielem, Danielem, Vere Deus vester Deus deorum est, et Dominus regum'--Ergo non tam Danielem, quam in Daniele adorat Deum, qui mysteria revelavit. Quod si displicet hoc, dicendum est—— Ib. p. 1081, 1082.

n Et in hoc calumniator ecclesiæ, prophetam reprehendere nititur, quare non recusârit munera, et honorem Babylonium libenter susceperit; non considerans, ideo regem vidisse somnium, et interpretationis mysteria per puerum revelata, ut Daniel cresceret, et in loco captivitatis princeps omnium fieret Chaldæorum, et Dei omnipotentia nosceretur. Quod quidem et in Joseph apud Pharaonem et Ægyptum factum legimus; et in Mardochæo apud Assuerum ; ut in utrâque gente haberent captivi et peregrinantes Judæi solatia, videntes hominem gentis suæ Ægyptiorum esse principem vel Chaldæorum, p 1082.

rise, and in the place of his captivity be made chief of all 'the Chaldeans, that the divine omnipotence might be made 'known.' Jerom goes on to say, 'That the like favours 'had been shown to Joseph in Egypt in the time of 'Pharaoh, and to Mordecai in the time of Ahasuerus; that in both places the Jewish people, who were there captives and strangers, might be comforted and supported, beholding a man of their own nation made lord of the Egyptians ' and Chaldæans.'

5. Having recited the first three verses of the fourth chapter, Jerom says: The letter of Nebuchadnezzar is inserted in the volume of the prophets, that the book might 'not be afterwards thought to be a forgery, as a certain 'sycophant pretends, but might be known to be the book • of Daniel himself."

P

6. Ch. v. ver. 10, "Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king, and his lords, came into the banquetinghouse." 'Her, Josephus reckons the grandmother of Bel'shazzar; Origen calls her his mother. She therefore was acquainted with the things past in former times, which the king was ignorant of. Let Porphyry then awake, who dreams that she was Belshazzar's wife; and ridicules her 'for knowing more than her husband.'

6

6

6

q

6

7. Ch. vii. ver. 7, " After this I saw in the night-visions, and behold, a fourth beast-and it had ten horns." Porphyry,' says Jerom, puts the two last beasts, that of the Macedonians and Romans, in the one kingdom of the Macedonians; and then divides it in this manner. By the ' leopard he understands Alexander himself, and the beast "diverse from the others," he supposes to mean the four 'successors of Alexander; and then he computes ten kings, 'till the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, who were 'exceeding cruel: and those kings he reckons not of one and the same kingdom, for instance, Macedonia, Syria,

ი

Epistola Nebuchodonosor in prophetæ volumine ponitur; ut non fictus alio postea liber, sicut sycophanta mentitur, sed ipsius Danielis esse credatur, p. 1087. P Hanc Josephus aviam Balthasaris, Origenes matrem scribunt. Unde et novit præterita, quæ rex ignorabat. Evigilet ergo Porphyrius, qui eam Balthasaris somniat uxorem; et illudit, plus scire quam maritum, p. 1093.

4 Porphyrius duas posteriores bestias, Macedonum et Romanorum, in uno Macedonum regno ponit, et dividit; pardum volens intelligi ipsum Alexandrum; bestiam autem dissimilem cæteris bestiis, quatuor Alexandri successores; et deinde usque ad Antiochum, cognomento Epiphanen, decem reges enumerat, qui fuerunt sævissimi: ipsosque reges non unius ponit regni, verbi gratiâ, Macedoniæ, Syriæ, Asiæ, et Ægypti: sed de diversis regnis unum efficit regum ordinem; ut videlicet ea quæ scripta sunt, "Os loquens ingentia,” non de antichristo, sed de Antiocho, dicta credantur. p. 1100, 1101.

Asia, or Egypt; but out of divers kingdoms he forms one 'succession of kings; this he does, that those words, 'mouth speaking great things," may be understood to relate, not to Antichrist, but to Antiochus,"

66 a

Doubtless, this way of interpretation best suited Porphyry's notion, that the book of Daniel was not prophetical, but only related events to the time of Antiochus. However, it may not be amiss to consult Grotius, as well as other commentators upon this place.

8. ver. 9, "I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn-And, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things."

In vain does Porphyry imagine, that the little horn 'which came up after the ten horns denotes Antiochus Epiphanes. Therefore let us say, as all the writers of the • church have delivered it to us, that in the end of the world, when the Roman empire is to be destroyed, there shall be 'ten kings, who will divide the Roman government among ⚫ themselves.'- -And what follows. Upon this place likewise Grotius might be consulted by such as are curious.

9. ver. 14, "And there was given him a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion-and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Lets Porphyry answer, to whom among men this can agree; or, who is so powerful as to break in pieces and trample upon the little horn, which he takes to be Antiochus? If he answers, that the generals of Antiochus were ' overcome by Judas Maccabæus, he ought to show, "how 'he came with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man ; and how he was brought before the Ancient of days; and power, and a kingdom was given unto him, so that all 'people, and nations, and language, should serve him:" ' and his kingdom should be everlasting, and without end.'

Frustra Porphyrius cornu parvulum, quod post decem cornua ortum est, Epiphanem Antiochum suspicatur-Ergo dicamus quod omnes scriptores ecclesiastici tradiderunt: in consummatione mundi, quando regnum destruendum est Romanorum, decem futuros reges, qui orbem Romanum inter se dividant--&c. p. 1101.

s Hoc cui potest hominum convenire, respondeat Porphyrius: aut quis tam potens sit, qui cornu parvulum, quem Antiochum interpretatur, fregerit, atque contriverit? Si responderit, Antiochi principes a Judâ Maccabæo fuisse superatos, docere debet, quomodo cum cœli nubibus veniat, quasi filius hominis; et offeratur vetusto dierum, et detur ei potestas, et regnum, et omnes populi, tribus, ac linguæ serviant illi; et potestas ejus æterna sit, quæ nullo fine claudatur. p. 1103.

10. Ch. ix. 1, "In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldæans.' Ver. 2, "In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books."

This is Darius, who together with Cyrus overcame the • Chaldæans and Babylonians, and not that Darius, in whose second year the temple was built, as Porphyry 'pretends, that he may bring down the times of Daniel the lower; or he, who was overcome by Alexander the Mace'donian.'

This Darius, as learned moderns" observe, is the same who by heathen historians is called Cyaxares, the son of Astyages. Porphyry is here much blamed by Grotius, for his insinuation to the prejudice of the real time of Daniel, writer of this book.

11. Ch. xi. ver. 20, " Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes, in the glory of the kingdom. But within a few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.'

6

"He" intends Seleucus, surnamed Philopater, son of Antiochus the Great, who did nothing worthy of his father, or the kingdom of Syria, and died ingloriously. Porphyry will have this person not to be Seleucus, but Ptolemy Epiphanes against which Jerom proceeds to argue. For this likewise Porphyry is corrected by * Grotius.

12. Upon ch. xi. 21-24, Jerom remarks. Suchy is

Hic est Darius, qui cum Cyro Chaldæos Babyloniosque superavit, ne putemus illum Darium, cujus secundo anno templum ædificatum est, (quod Porphyrius suspicatur, ut annos Danielis extendat) vel eum, qui ab Alexandro, Macedonum rege, superatus est. p. 1107.

" See Prideaux, Connexion, at the year before Christ, 612. vol. i. p. 48. and Lowth upon Dan. ix. 1.

▾ In anno primo Darii :'] id est, Nabonnedi, ut supra dictum. Improbe Porphyrius, ut Danielem serius vixisse imperitis persuadeat, hunc Darium eum vult esse, ab quo templum est restitutum. Gr. in Dan. ix. 1.

W

w Seleucum dicit, cognomento Philopatorem, filium magni Antiochi, qui nihil dignum Syriæ et patris gessit imperio, et absque ullis prœliis inglorius periit. Porro Porphyrius non vult hunc esse Seleucum, sed Ptolemæum Epiphanem--p. 1126.

* Illud,stabat in loco ejus,' et Porphyrium refutat, qui hæc ad Ptolemæum Epiphanem Egypti regem trahebat, et Hebræos, qui ad Tryphonem, Antiochi Sedetæ tutorem. Gr. ad cap. xi. 20.

y Hucusque ordo historiæ sequitur, et inter Porphyrium ac nostros nulla contentio est. Cætera, quæ sequuntur usque ad finem voluminis, ille interpretatur super personâ Antiochi, qui cognominatus est Epiphanes, filius Antiochi Magni, qui post Seleucum undecim annis regnavit in Syriâ, obtinuitque Judæam; sub quo legis persecutio, et Maccabæorum bella narrantur. Nostri autem hæc omnia de antichristo prophetari arbitrantur, qui ultimo tempore

1

6

'the order of the history; nor is there here any difference between Porphyry and our people. The rest, which follows to the end of the volume, he interprets of Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of Seleucus, son of Antiochus the Great, who after Seleucus reigned eleven years in Syria, • who subdued Judea; in whose time happened the perse'cution of the Jewish laws, and the wars of the Maccabees. Our people suppose, that all these things are prophetical of Antichrist, who will appear in the last days of the world. As many things in the following part of this 'book agree to Antiochus, they say, he was a type of Antichrist; and that those things which were partly verified in him, will be more fully accomplished in Antichrist. This,' as Jerom says, is the manner of scripture, which be'forehand represents in types what will be more completely • fulfilled afterwards. So what is said in the 72d Psalm of • Solomon cannot all agree to him; in part, and as in a 'shadow and figures, they are said of him, but are more completely fulfilled in our Lord and Saviour. As there'fore our Saviour had for types Solomon and other saints, 'so Antichrist is to be thought to have had a type of him'self in that bad prince Antiochus, who persecuted the saints, and profaned the temple. However,' says Jerom, let us observe Porphyry's exposition as well as our own. "In the room of Seleucus, as he and his followers say, came up his brother Antiochus Epiphanes, who did such and such things.All these things which I have thus rehearsed compendiously, Porphyry, following the guidance of Suctorius, has drawn out with great prolixity in an insinuating manner; but our people more truly and justly

futurus est. Quumque multa, quæ postea lecturi et exposituri sumus, super Antiochi personâ conveniunt, typum eum volunt antichristi habere; et quæ in illo ex parte præcesserint, in antichristo ex toto esse complenda. Et hunc esse morem scripturæ sanctæ, ut futurorum veritatem præmittat in typis, juxta illud, quod, in Domino Salvatore, in septuagesimo primo psalmo dicitur, qui prænotatur Salomonis; et omnia quæ de eo dicuntur, Salomoni non valent convenire.--Ex parte autem, et quasi in umbrâ et imagine veritatis in Salomone præmissa sunt, ut in Domino Salvatore perfectius implerentur. Sicut igitur Salvator habet, et Salomonem, et cæteros sanctos in typum adventûs sui; sic et antichristus pessimum regem Antiochum, qui sanctos persecutus est, et templum violavit, recte typum sui habuisse credendus est. Sequamur igitur expositionis ordinem, et juxta utramque explanationem, quid adversariis, quid nostris videatur breviter annotemus. Stabit, inquiunt, in loco Seleuci frater ejus Antiochus Epiphanes.--Hæc Porphyrius sequens Suctorium sermone laciniosissimo prosecutus est, quæ nos brevi compendio diximus. Nostri autem et melius interpretantur, et rectius: quod in fine mundi hæc sit facturus antichristus, p. 1127, 1128.