A Few Words on the Dimbleby System of Prophetic Dates, Chiefly in Daniel.

1897 266 I have hitherto hesitated to write on the scheme diligently and confidently urged by Mr. J. B. Dimbleby. He is earnest in confessing his faith in the prophetic word, and consequently in looking for the coming and kingdom of our Lord and Saviour. In this it would give one pleasure rather to strengthen him, than even seem to be adverse. But as he has certainly erred in ways of moment, which involve him, like some dead and living, in misleading others and perhaps to his own stumbling ere long, it is no breach, but rather an exercise, of charity to give simple and solid grounds of dissent.

Take the overthrow of the Turkish power as the first example, with which he begins the late issue of "The New Era at Hand" (11th ed. now before me), on the inside of the title-page telling us of about 5000 "testimonials" received, one of the latest of which he gives, though it is in the most extreme and irreverent rhodomontade of our Yankee friends. Passing over this or the like, let us come to God's word and the facts. "We are also told in Dan. 7:25, that the little horn (evidently the Mohammedan power by the facts of history) was to have saints given into his hands for a time, times, and a half, which is the other 1260 years. We have only to put them together:

Babylon   … … … continued 90 years from 3376.5 to 3466.5.

Medo-Persians  continued 200 years from 3466.5 to 3666.5.

Grecians … … … continued 304 years from 3666.5 to 3970.5.

Romans … … …  continued 666 years from 3970.5 to 4636.5.

                             Total 1260 Jerusalem taken by
                                                           Saracens, in 4636.5.

     Mohammedan period 1260 from 4636.5 to 5896.5.
                                                               our … … … 1898.5.

                                     2520 years."

The apparent simplicity of the result has deceived not only Mr. D. but his friends. Scripture truth is another thing, which faith alone discovers by subjection to the written word. Now the word in this case leaves no room for Mohammedanism in Dan. 7. For the vision speaks of "four great beasts" (not five as Mr. D. imagines), the last of which is the Roman, out of which arise ten horns, and another after them, diverse and subduing them, whose haughty words lead to a divine destruction of Gentile empire, in contrast with the providential transition of the previous Beasts. How possibly intercalate the Ottoman Porte? It is the same Roman power which played its part in crucifying the Lord of glory when He first appeared, which will rise up against Him when He appears from heaven the second time, the glorified Son of man.

It will be objected that the Roman Beast has ceased to be; but here Rev. 17:8 supplies added light of the utmost importance, and informs us how perfectly the difficulty is removed, and explains why that Beast should have a place so unique. "The beast which thou sawest was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss, and go into destruction: and they who dwell on the earth, whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, shall wonder, seeing the beast, that it was, and is not, and shall be present" (I give the acknowledged critical correction). This is confirmed by ver. 11, as well as by Rev. 13:3.

The mystery of the Roman Beast is thus solved. That empire which once was, and now is not, must yet be, clothed with a hellish character beyond what it ever knew before. It is the Beast of seven heads, and ten horns, and so characterised to the close, which excludes Mohammedanism or any other power. The last leader of this empire, of whom Daniel speaks, is a little horn at first, before whom three of the first horns were uprooted, who blasphemes the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the high places, and think to change times and laws. He meddles with God's rights as asserted among His ancient people. It is these "times and laws" which are said to be given into his hand; for the indignation was not yet ended against Israel. The mistake is common that "the saints" are given into the hands of this wicked prince. He is said to make war with the saints (ver. 21) and to prevail against them. But this is a very different thing. God permits tribulation and persecution; but He never gives His own into the enemy's hand. His sheep are in His own hand; and He never leaves — no, never forsakes them, even if He allows their death in a terrible form. The passage is important; because it shows the last Roman emperor in his lawlessness putting down the worship of the Jews when seeking to set it up again in that day. Whatever the towering will on his part, God does not interpose to hinder yet, till they are truly penitent and own the Lord Jesus. Hence their orderly services according to the set times are given into his hands for a short time. This is confirmed by the true sense of Dan. 9:27; but we need say no more now, as this will come up again in its place.

And the nature of the case goes far to confirm the short space of three years and a half, as against the assumption of 1260 years. For it is a question not of the duration of an empire, but of the excessive outburst of the last chief of the Roman empire, when revived, to show its character under the power of Satan at the end of the age, and bring upon that empire generally, as well as its guilty leader, the long threatened bolt of divine judgment beyond all previous example. Now 33 years, 42 months, or 1260 days, are very readily understood of the most awful instrument of the enemy's blasphemous uprising against God. To conceive anything so extreme allowed to go on for 1260 years is a hard saying. I am aware of the Protestant system which applies it in that protracted period to the papacy. This Mr. D. justly rejects; but his own idea of Mohammedanism is still less tenable; for outwardly, the Roman pontiff did substitute, himself gradually into a sort of continuation of quasi-imperial power after the extinction of the last petty civil claimant at Rome. But Mohammedanism is absolutely foreign to Dan. 7. Enough is said to disprove any reference but to the Roman empire in Daniel's fourth Beast, and to point out the sure and invaluable supplement in Rev. 17, which also shuts out the Turk.

This is quite confirmed by Nebuchadnezzar's vision (chap. 2), where we have the same Roman empire, superseded by God's kingdom introduced by the little Stone: four empires of man, not five, succeeded by Christ in power and glory. Mohammedanism is not here either.

1897 282 Before passing onward, I would direct attention Lo the manipulation of the periods Mr. D. assigns to the Four Empires, already cited in full from his page 3. There can be no doubt as to the end of Babylon's imperial power by the Medo-Persians under Cyrus in B.100:538. But what is the groundwork for giving "90 years" to the empire of Babylon? Mr. D. furnishes neither authority nor proof. It is his assumption of the starting-point, or terminus a quo. But why at that point? Scripture, I am bold to affirm, does not say so. Profane history, extremely indistinct and precarious for that era, is (as far as I am aware) wholly silent as to any epoch adequate. The Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy is indeed a human document of unusual importance, of high interest in its way, and in my judgment far more reliable than the monuments set up by vainglorious monarchs, as anxious to omit and disguise disasters as to exaggerate successes. But the Canon is too general for the conveyance of short or concurrent reigns and other important details; and the names of the Babylonian rulers are modified naturally by the famous Egyptian scientist of the second century A.D.

One could conceive a person reasoning from Nabonassar's accession as a new era in the history of Babylon; but this was in 747 B.100. which is out of the question. So is that of Mardocempadus in 721 B.100., the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture in Hezekiah's day, of course far too early. But "90 years" would suppose a beginning of the Empire under the reign of a singularly obscure prince, of whom nothing is known but the name Chyniladan or Chinaladinus, his accession in 647 B.100., and his regnant term of years 22. What can any reasonable mind infer but that Mr. D. attributed the "90 years" to Babylon from this imaginary epoch, simply and solely in order to make up the desired theory of 1260 years? What mighty and far reaching event occurred "90 years" before the fall of Babylon, or before the first year of Cyrus, to justify the notion of Babylon's rise to be the imperial world-power at that particular point?

Turning to scripture, we do and another period well and repeatedly defined in O.T. prophecy, which necessitated the momentous dealing of Jehovah when He gave over His people in their last and weightiest representatives (Judah and David's house, Jerusalem and the land and the sanctuary) to the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar. The captivity in Babylon resulted, only ending with the Medo-Persian Empire of Cyrus who proclaimed liberty to the captive Jew. Here began a change of incalculable gravity. God's centre for the earth and the nations was His people Israel (Deut. 32:8-9). In them as His portion and inheritance He took His place as Lord of all the earth (Joshua 3:13). But Israel, yea Judah, (people, priests, kings) became apostate after wondrous patience; and the wrath of Jehovah rose against His people, "and there was no remedy." Jehovah thereon, till a brighter day dawn, withdrew the sign of His presence, revoked their title as His people, and retired as it were meanwhile into His indefeasible name of "the God of the heavens," as He is called in Daniel, etc., when the times of the Gentiles proceed. His ancient people are Lo-ammi (not-My-people) till in the end of the age they welcome the rejected Messiah, Who will then say, My people thou, as they will say, My God. Meanwhile the "Beasts" reign and ravage; and since redemption God has not a family only in relationship with Himself as Father, but His church, Christ's body, baptised in virtue of one Spirit into that blessed unity. God no longer associates Himself as He once did with the earth.

It is this, the most solemn fact in the O.T. that should or could befall His earthly people, which accompanied the rise of Babylon to be, not a powerful kingdom (which it had been growingly for a hundred years or more), but the first of the four imperial powers of the Gentiles. These in God's sovereignty fill up the vacuum for the world created by His present disowning of His people Israel, till they are restored in His mercy by-and-by to everlasting and more than pristine blessing, and to glory here below, a blessing to all the nations and a joy to all the earth. During the "Beasts," government (which we see in Dan. 2 formally given of God to the captor of Jerusalem and the Jews, and of course inherited by all that succeeded) was severed from God's calling. Both were united in Israel, as they will be for ever under Messiah and the new covenant ere long. Meanwhile the Gentile powers have the government; as the calling enjoyed by the godly remnant expanded in due time (after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ) into Christianity and the church. This the N.T. proves.

What more certain and evident than that this fact so notable and involving principles of the greatest weight in God's ways for man on the earth, is the true initiating epoch of the imperial system, or "times of the Gentiles?" "Thou, O King (says the prophet Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar), art king of kings unto whom the God of the heavens hath given the kingdom and the strength and the glory; and wheresoever dwell the children of men, the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, He hath given them into thy hands, and hath made thee to rule over them all; thou art the head of gold" (Dan. 2:37-38). Hence none had such a gift and place from God before Nebuchadnezzar, not even Nabopolassar his father who appears to have brought in a new dynasty distinct from his predecessors, and helped to destroy Nineveh, the seat of the Assyrian power, within the "90 years."

But this leads to the assured conclusion that the true period of Babylonish imperialism according to scripture is not 90 but 70 years, including the two years when Nebuchadnezzar (being associate king), in the third year of Jehoiakim first ravaged Jerusalem and its temple, and the two years of Darius before Cyrus in his first year gave liberty to the Jews. In fact the preliminary and the sequel tell how much, even at that depression because of their sins, God's heart yearned over His poor guilty people; and this is worthy of Himself. But the conclusion from scripture is serious for Mr. D.'s system of dates, which is overthrown, not only by the error of the end, already pointed out — tacking on to the Four Empires the "Mohammedan of 1260 years," without proof and against the testimony of the prophet, but also by comprising 20 years too much within the Babylonish empire if we believe Daniel. For I give Mr. D. so much credit for figures that I readily assume a more candid mind than his striving to raise a cloud of dust on it. It is an error due to his confidence in a plausible theory helped out by a faith in arithmetic, astronomy, and history, due only to God's word. His scheme even at the start breaks down indubitably and hopelessly at both ends. It is against all the evidence of Dan. 2. and 7. to bring in Mohammedanism as having part in the four Gentile Empires, before the kingdom of God come in Christ's power to set aside the entire system by divine judgment, and to fill the whole earth, as not Daniel only but the prophets in general fully predict.

There is another and twofold assumption as to "seven times," yet earlier in this opening page of the tract, which ought to be proved if it can be, instead of being taken for granted. But this may be reserved for a later moment when it will be more convenient to bring it to the test. What we have discussed in this paper is of gravity quite sufficient to stand alone for such as weigh the word of God in the balance of the sanctuary.

1897 298 Much is assumed without proof even in the first page (3), more in the next two consisting of diagrams (4, 5). But time fails for noticing every questionable statement, nor have such discussions a just title to a place in a journal like this. Pass we on to the opening sentence of p. 6: — "This 2520 is therefore the seven times of the Gentile period thrice mentioned in Dan. 4:23, 25 and 32; also by our Lord in Luke 21:24, and St. Paul in Rom. 11:25." Is this correct or well founded? Let us weigh these scriptures.

Be it noticed that the alleged complete period of Gentile domination occurs in no natural place for it; if intended by God, this one might look for. Neither Dan. 2. nor Dan. 7. intimates anything of the sort. The latter has only the "time, times, and half a time" (1260 days, as all agree), which comprise the audacious doings of that last chief of the fourth or Roman empire. This entails the final catastrophe of divine judgment on the entire system of Gentile power, the transition to the everlasting and universal kingdom of the Son of man. We have seen that the introduction of the Saracens, as displacing the Romans, is unknown to both visions, and involves a greater harshness than the Protestant scheme of the Papacy. Either error is due to not possessing the divine key afforded in the Revelation, — that the Roman empire which played its part against the Lord of glory, as its predecessors did not, is to rise up under Satanic agency against His return to take the world-kingdom (Rev. 11:15, Rev. 17:8-14, Rev. 19:19-20). Thus Mr. D. stumbles at the threshold of prophecy and sets up a scheme from the start antagonistic to the plain and unmistakable revelation of God.

It is Dan. 4:23, 25, and 32, to which he might have added 26, where the phrase "seven times" is found. The question is, what does it mean? Seven years, none need doubt, though some have reduced it one half, as Theodoret tells us in his Commentary. One can understand the further idea, especially from Dan. 7 compared with chap. 12, of a comprehensive term embracing the whole Gentile lease of power. The late Mr. G. S. Faber in his Sacred Calendar expressed the same thought; and Mr. Elliott cursorily accepts it in his Horae Apocalypticae. But where is the proof? The assumption of it, without scriptural evidence, misled Mr. D. as we have seen, no less than Mr. Faber, as could easily be shown. The fact is, that not a solitary text of scripture applies such a term prophetically. The chapter, which exhibits it four times, uses it solely of Nebuchadnezzar in a literal and therefore quite different sense. Not even in Dan. 11:13 can such a prophetic sense be extracted, "at the end of times" being explained by "years," and "years" in the ordinary sense. This surely confirms our taking Dan. 12:7-12 in the same sense.

Nowhere does it appear that any solid proof has ever been given for regarding even Dan. 7:25 as anything more than the 3.5 years of the peculiarly blasphemous and violent monarch in the future crisis of the revived Roman empire before God judges it, and destroys him so signally at Christ's appearing. If so, the dates in the twelfth chapter as well as in chap. 8. (though the latter be somewhat singularly expressed) claim, if we would be consistent, to be understood similarly. That is, they were not meant to express the long providential history of medieval and modern times, of which men make so much. They in fact converge (save "the morning-evenings" of Dan. 8) on the unexampled tribulation in store for the Jews under Gentile persecution before the Lord interferes for their deliverance from heaven and notably in Jerusalem and the land. For it is in the typical part that we read this extraordinary expression of time, not in the verses which look on to the closing antitype. And the time expressed in no way speaks of the long period of Gentile empires, as Mr. D. assumes with others, but solely of the peculiar enormity of one profane oppressor of the Jews and their religion. Natural days therefore are in question, and not so many years.

And note well, what many have overlooked, that in Rev. 12, which (6) speaks of the 1260 days and "a time, times, and half a time" (14), this very period is described in ver. 12 as "but a short time." Now in a prophecy where times and seasons are spoken of definitely and in their relative proportion, this is evidently of the utmost importance. It is not a possibly long while made short by the power of faith, as Christ's waiting to the Christian, but an absolute statement which could hardly be if 1260 years were meant. In the same book the reign of the saints with Christ is declared to be 1000 years. Why not "days" if this always be the symbol? If "days" mean "days," all is clear and consistent.

We may add (as a further confirmation that the dates of Dan. 12 refer to the brief and awful crisis yet future, and are therefore not to be allegorised into long periods of the past), that our Lord directs attention in Matt. 24:15-22 to Daniel's last prophecy, and uses these remarkable words, "except those days should be shortened," etc. How could His words fit in with long ages of divine providence? If they apply to God's "short work" of judgment at the end of the age, they are plain and appropriate.

It is only in Dan. 9 where we are assured that "week" means seven years. Had this been the earliest chapter of the prophecy, it might, with some show of plausibility, have been taken to rule all that followed. Instead of this the two and only two general prophecies were already revealed; and the first of the special communications (chap. 8) where is prominent Gentile meddling with the Jews and even the sanctuary. Dan. 9. is yet more filled with Jewish piety and has an answer of the deepest moment vouchsafed to the prophet (humbling himself before Jehovah on the eve of the return from captivity), suited to guard the faithful from unwarranted expectations just then. Even when Messiah came, they must prepare for His rejection, with the horrors that followed, not only in the Roman destruction of the city and temple, but worse still to come in the closing week. Yet shall the salvation of Israel come out of Zion. For God bringeth back the captivity of His people, and Jacob shall rejoice, Israel be glad. So exceptional a prophecy as this chapter contains cannot legitimately furnish the rule for interpreting the ordinary and differently conveyed times in other cases. There ought at any rate to be some attempt at a demonstration; and we may at the least conclude that the sense of 2520 years assigned to "the seven times" in Dan. 4 is without even a show of proof; though to convince others cogent and commanding evidence from scripture is requisite.

Mr. D. indeed refers also to Luke 21:24. But in our Lord's lips it is wholly general, and wears not the smallest semblance of a chronological expression. Both "times" and "Gentiles," or nations, are without the article. The prediction is the more interesting because it differs from Matt. 24. and Mark 13. in presenting from ver. 20 to 24 the Roman siege and capture; and in the clause quoted gives us the state of Jerusalem that followed up to the present time. This may serve to show how little it conveys a specific date. Then from ver. 25 to 37 we have the end of the age when the Son of man will be seen coming in a cloud with great power and glory, after striking signs above and below to warn men and encourage the faithful in those circumstances. Instead of the siege under Titus, and the subsequent continuous treading down of Jerusalem by Gentiles till their times are fulfilled, Matthew and Mark were led to dwell on the future and still more awful tribulation.

There remains Rom. 11:25; but how Mr. D. could cite the entrance of "the fulness of the Gentiles" to help his dates is marvellous; for with these it has not the remotest connexion. He is probably misled by tradition, and the habit of men in following each other under a mere shadow or a sound of words; and this applies to writers on prophecy as much as to their neighbours. The true bearing of the apostle is unquestionable. He shows that hardness or obduracy in part (for it was never total) has happened to Israel, until the fulness of the nations shall have come in i.e. the complement of the Gentiles that believe the gospel. What has this to do with chronology? When God has filled up the present purpose of His grace, "all Israel" (in contrast with any actual remnant) "shall be saved." For He has made known through the prophets His intention of saving His ancient people as a whole. Meanwhile as touching the gospel, they are enemies for our sake (the complement of the Gentiles); but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling of God are not subject to change of mind. Whatever Israel's demerits, mercy shall glory over judgment. Such is the evident drift of the passage.

1897 316 It is hard to gather or even guess what Mr. D. means by the next paragraph (p. 6) after the brief one already reviewed. "In connexion with the first 1260 years, let me point out what must be regarded as a remarkable prophecy in the Book of Daniel. There is in the British Museum a copy of the scriptures which I often look at, and which all antiquarians know was written in the fourth century of the Christian era, say about 350 A.D. According to this copy, which is the same as our. English Bible, the fourth beast had to begin to dominate over the saints in the year 39702, and cease in 4636.5. Now what are the facts of history? Jerusalem became tributary to Rome in 3970.5 and in 4636.5 the Saracens, who were Mohammedans, took possession of the city, it having been rebuilt. The Roman supremacy was therefore 666 years, as prophesied in. Rev. 13:18, and ended about 286 years after this copy of the scriptures in the Museum was written! The following is another point of importance. In Rev. 13. the Mohammedan power is called a beast, and ranks with Pagan Rome. One beast continues 42 months, which are 1260 years, and another 666 years. The two together make 1926, which added to the fore-mentioned 3970.5, the beginning of the universal empire of Rome, we again have 5896.5 (our 1898.25) as the fulfilment of the triple prophecy! Let him scoff who dares." This paragraph affords as much matter for reflection as one can find room for just now.

We have already seen that 1260 "years" cannot be affirmed without a proof, which is wholly wanting. Scripture speaks in Rev. 11:3, 12:6 of 1260 days; in Rev. 11:2, 13:5, of 42 months; and in Dan. 7:25, 12:7, Rev. 12:14, of 3.5 years (time, times, and half a time) which are substantially equivalent terms. Again, it is too much to say "the first 1260 years," inasmuch as scripture only speaks of 1260 days, or its equivalent, just before the end of the age. It was pointed out last month that there is no proof of any "first" 1260 days in these scriptures, still less of so many years.

Unfeignedly and thankfully is it acknowledged that all the prophecies given by Daniel are "remarkable," though this may seem a rather cold expression for such divine communications. But who can imagine to which of these Mr. D. refers, unless it be Dan. 7:25? Yet this date self-evidently brings us up to the end by the divine judgment which terminates the age; and therefore it cannot be "the first 1260 years." The language seems utterly obscure if not unintelligible.

Next, the allusion to the Alexandrine MS. in the British Museum is not less dark. For I presume Mr. D. refers to the open N.T. vol. of this Codex which is publicly shown there under glass. But "all antiquarians" of weight in such a question now know that it is about a century or more younger than Mr. D. says, its real date being not earlier than 450 A.D. And it may be added that "this copy" is far from being the same as our English Bible. It has the Apocryphal books, and even of Clem. Rom. the first or genuine Epistle, with a fragment of a second suspected one, to say nothing of such an omission as the beginning of John 8. If Mr. D. only means that it gives Dan. 7. no less than the A.V., he is not entitled to say that "according to this copy," more than any other copy in the world, "the fourth beast, pagan Rome, had to begin to dominate over the saints in the year 3970.5 and cease in 4636.5." Nor is it a question of history, but of "what saith the scriptures?" What does the Alex. MS. say more than any other? Where does any copy whatsoever, or in any tongue, teach the beginning and the ceasing at these dates? Indeed so curiously mistaken is Mr. D. that the Alexandrian copy of Dan. 7:25 differs in this particular respect both from our A.V. and from every other copy known to me. For it adds by evident error kai, kairou, which would add another year, that is, as he interprets it, 360 years.

The only semblance of evidence that Mr. D. seems to allege (for the language is singularly incoherent and illogical) is that "the Roman supremacy was therefore (?) 666 years, as prophesied in Rev. 13:18, and ended about 286 years after this copy in the Museum was written!" The connexion of ideas here is bewildering. For every one can see that in the verse referred to, the only occasion in scripture when it occurs at all, it is no question of date, but of the mystical number of a man, which wisdom will understand when God pleases, but assuredly without relation to a chronological period. Yet Mr. D. is not quite alone in this strange application of 666 to duration for so many years. Pope Innocent 3. appears to have lit on the idea, but with the notable difference of applying it, not to the Roman power, but to the Mohammedan, the close of which period and evil was at hand; and on this ground of alleged historical fact, and of his construction of Rev. 13:18, he sought to arouse Christendom to a crusade against the Turks, from whom God was about to free the Holy Land. Of learned men Bengel is one who adopted the idea but applied it to the length of the beast's power, looking for the end in 1836. But why dwell on these unfounded guesses?

The chief importance of what follows is the proof that Mr. D. has not a ray of divine light on Rev. 13, the first beast of which he fancies to be pagan Rome, the second to be the Mohammedan power. Neither the one nor the other approaches the truth. Pagan Rome had not seven heads any more than ten horns. Pagan Rome was in full power when John saw a beast thus characterised rise up out of the sea, his deadly wound healed, so that all the earth wondered after him. Such is the last phase of the Roman Empire, as made plain in Rev. 17, when it is resuscitated for Satan's grand effort against the Lamb, the King of kings and Lord of lords, in the closing catastrophe of this age.

Quite as plain, if not more so, is the misconception of the other beast that comes up out of the earth. The Mohammedan power! Why, it is the ally and religious power in active collusion with the future revived empire; and so he is said to exercise all the authority of the first or Roman beast before him or in his presence. Mr. D. fancies it to be by the Saracen power displacing the Roman! Did the Mohammedan power cause the earth and its inhabitants to worship the first beast? Not even their prophet Mohammed pretended to do great signs or miracles, still less did his successors when Jerusalem was taken by the Saracens. Whereas the other beast of Rev. 13. is even to make fire come down out of heaven before men; and this to deceive the dwellers on earth by reason of the signs done before the first beast, and to promote an image worshipped in his honour. This too the Mohammedan power, Mr. D.!

Apply it to the future crisis; and all becomes simple. The Antichrist in Palestine is to work with the last ruler of the Roman empire revived: the one the civil head, the other the religious one, each helping the other in his own sphere, but both devoted to blasphemy, both antagonistic in the highest degree to the Lord and His Anointed. These accordingly are the two whose awful judgment is announced in Rev. 19:20, both cast alive without the need of future or formal judgment into the lake of fire. Far be it from one's heart to "scoff" at Mr. D.'s words but it is permissible and a duty to deplore mistakes as to God's holy word, so palpable in themselves, and so perilous to those that lend a credulous ear.

Not a shade of unkindness mingles with the caution against so haphazard a way of understanding scriptural dates and of manipulating them historically. In this case, for example, as most of us read history, Jerusalem was captured by the Roman Pompey in B.C. 63; and it was not till about A. D. 638 that it capitulated to the Khalif Omar (as given in the Benedictine "Art de verifier les dates"), after some vicissitudes before and much more since. There is not the smallest connexion between the 666 of scripture and that event. The western Roman Empire too had ceased to be pagan long before the rising Mohammedan power came into collision with Jerusalem; and the eastern empire, from which it was really taken, had always been nominally Christian, never pagan. What then can one think of such an interpretation, but that it is lame on both feet?

1897 332 We are told that "there is another way of reaching the same result," i.e., 5896.5, or our 1898.25, "viz., by dealing with Babylon" (p. 6). But this is only ringing a change without giving new evidence. It repeats what we have already had in substance with a variation of phrase. There is no proof here any more than before, but looseness in confounding Babylon with Babylonia, and its fall with that of the Beast, which quite differs. The prominence given to Babylonia introduces a fresh element of error of no small moment, which not only misleads but directly contradicts the warning of the Holy Spirit. The following is the new way of making out the case: —

"3466.5 Babylon, with King Belshazzar, fell by the sword of Cyrus.

 200 years the Medo-Persians continued to hold Babylon,

 304 the Grecians held Babylon.

 666 the Roman power dominated over Babylonia.

 1260 the Mohammedans succeeded, and are to hold Babylonia 1260 years.

 5896.5 again.

"Hence we see that the fall of Turkey will also literally be the fall of Babylonia, for the city of Babylon has no existence except by Constantinople its head, as described most graphically in Rev. 18."

We have already discussed briefly the assumptions unproved and the actual mistakes, in these alleged periods, wrong in the starting-point, and still more flagrantly in blotting out the predicted revival of the Roman Empire, on which final judgment is to be executed. We have shown the absurdity of the 666 "years" assigned to the Roman power on the ground of a scripture entirely misunderstood and in no way chronological; and also the anti-scriptural interpolation of an evil fifth power into Dan. 7; whereas the prophet distinctly intimates no more than four beasts, the last of which by its last chief's "great words," brings us, not a mere change of dynasty as before, but definitive and divine judgment when the Ancient of days comes, and the Son of man's universal and everlasting dominion. The simple statement of Daniel excludes Mohammedanism from having anything to say to the "time, times, and half a time" of Dan. 7:25. Besides reasons were given why that term should be understood of 1260 days in the great future crisis.

But this dream of here introducing Turkey has misled Mr. D. to substitute the comparatively unimportant Babylonia for the portentous Babylon of Rev. 18. , which is clearly not on the literal plain of Shinar, but that more corrupt system against which the great book of christian prophecy so energetically testifies, having its central seat in Rome, and in Rome, not Pagan, but since it tortured the gospel into what a famous Pope called truly their "profitable fable." For the corruption of the best thing is admittedly the worst corruption. No spiritual eye can contemplate what God says of Babylon in the Book of the Revelation without learning that of all objects of divine displeasure none is so disgusting to God, none so roused the wonder of the prophet, none has so large notice in the latest inspiration, none filled heaven with a louder or more reiterated Hallelujah over her judgment. "The Beast" may be fuller of proud self will, violence, and blasphemy, the second or false prophet Beast more audaciously impious and lawless; and both suffer the due reward of their deeds in being cast alive together into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone. But she on whose forehead was written "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth," she who was drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus, has a character of loathsome hypocrisy, of shameless idolatry, and of gloating cruelty, which coupled with the highest pretension to truth, holiness, and title of universal rule, elicited the holy indignation of heavenly minds, even beyond the open madness of self-exaltation with which Satan filled the first Beast or his wicked ally claiming to be God in His temple.

How absurd then is this error about Turkey, which lands in the notion that Babylonia or the land of the Chaldeans is described in Rev. 18. Babylon of old was indeed the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldean's pride; but it has for ages been, according to Isaiah, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It has, as Jeremiah predicted, "become heaps," "an astonishment and a hissing without an inhabitant"; "jackals lie there," and "owls dwell there." No Arab pitches his tent there, nor there does "shepherd fold sheep." Hillah's being built out of its ruins, like other greater places further off, in no way conflicts with the utter waste. "Thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith Jehovah" (Jer. 51:26, 62). Babylon, not Babylonia, was by the inspiring Spirit made symbolic of another city, characterised in John's day as seated on "seven mountains," in marked contrast with the Chaldean prototype, but even more emphatically than it, "the great city that reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 17:9-18). Further, the Beast, or Roman empire, was said to "carry her" (ver. 7), which is as inapplicable to Mohammedanism as to Babylonia. And how possibly make Babylonia in Mohammedan times to be the mother, not only of the harlots, but of "the abominations (or idols) of the earth? A horrid imposture is Islam, a sensual brutal system of vain, self-righteousness; but of all systems it is the most notoriously iconoclastic. The identification of it which Mr. D. desires with the Apocalyptic Babylon is therefore grotesquely false and impossible.

But there is more to observe. The error has the deplorable result of blinding souls to the hateful plague-spot of Rome, the great harlot, drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. Here again it is Rome, Popery in its central seat, that is characteristically thus branded far beyond Mohammedanism which expended its rage on idolators. One may not go with the dates as applied by the pious Fleming, or the late learned and God-fearing E. B. Elliott; but at least they were sound and godly in their abhorrence of the Roman harlot and her abominations. Ought we not to detest what God detests? Here was no "unchristian spirit," but bright zeal against idolatrous Christendom, the guiltiest, haughtiest, and least scrupulous idolatry under the sun. It is no wonder that Pagans should persecute those that preached and lived the truth that condemned themselves; nor is it strange that Muslims should despise and hate image-worshippers, who were the worse for calling themselves Christian. But that a corrupt and worldly-minded system, claiming to be Christ's bride, should play the strumpet with the kings, intoxicate the masses, and persecute the faithful with an ingenuity of torture beyond either Pagan or Turk, could not but fill the prophet with extreme amazement. I do not believe that the little horn of Dan. 7. is the papacy, but the last apostate chief of the Roman empire when revived and filled with Satanic energy. I believe that "the harlot" is to be destroyed by the kings and the Beast before he is hurled into perdition, in God's judgment under the seventh vial (Rev. 16) Much that these Protestant expositors say of Babylon is true and wholesome; but what Mr. D. in this page writes of Babylon in the future is unmitigated error, and mischievous in its palliation of Rome. And here closes this notice of "The New Era at hand," with more than sufficient proof given of its unreliability. There is no wish to add more.