Daniel Chapter XI
Unrolling the Scroll of the Future
Verse1 Also I in the first year of Darius the
Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2 And now will I
show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in
Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his
strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of
We now enter upon a prophecy of future events,
clothed not in figures and symbols, as in the visions of Daniel 2, 7,
and 8, but given mostly in plain language. Many of the signal events of
the world's history from the days of Daniel to the end of the world, are
here brought to view. This prophecy, as Thomas Newton says, may not
improperly be said to be a comment on and explanation of Daniel 8, a
statement showing how clearly he perceived the connection between that
vision and rest of the book of Daniel. 
Daniel's Last Vision Interpreted.--The angel
Gabriel, after stating that he had stood in the first year of Darius to
confirm and strengthen him, turns his attention to the future. Darius
was dead, and Cyrus was now reigning. Three kings would yet stand up, or
reign, in Persia, doubtless the immediate successors of Cyrus. These
were Cambyses, son of Cyrus; Smerdis, an impostor; and Darius Hystaspes.
Xerxes Invades Greece.--The fourth king after
Cyrus was Xerxes, son of Darius Hystaspes. He was famous for his wealth,
a direct fulfillment of the prophecy stating that he should be "far
richer than they all." He was determined to conquer the Greeks;
therefore he set about organizing a mighty army, which Herodotus says
numbered 5,283,220 men.
Xerxes was not content to stir up the East alone. He
also enlisted the support of Carthage in the West. The Persian king
fought Greece successfully at the famous battle of Thermopylae; but the
mighty army was able to overrun the country only when the three hundred
brave Spartans who held the pass were betrayed by traitors. Xerxes
finally suffered disastrous defeat at the battle of Salamis in the year
480 B.C., and the Persian army made its way back again to its own
Verse 3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that
shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4 And when
he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided
toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according
to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up,
even for others beside those.
Xerxes was the last Persian king to invade Greece;
and now the prophecy passes over six minor rulers to introduce the
"mighty king." Alexander the Great.
After overthrowing the Persian Empire, Alexander
"became absolute lord of that empire in the utmost extent in which
it was ever possessed by any of the Persian kings."  His
dominion comprised "the greater portion of the then-known habitable
world." How well he has been described as "a mighty king,. . .
that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will"!
But he exhausted his energies in rioting and drunkenness, and when he
died in 323 B.C., his vainglorious and ambitious projects when into
sudden and total eclipse. The Grecian Empire did not go to Alexander's
sons. Within a few years after his death, all his posterity had fallen
victims to the jealousy and ambition of his leading generals, who tore
the kingdom into four parts. How short is the transit from the highest
pinnacle of earthly glory to the lowest depths of oblivion and death!
Alexander's four leading generals--Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and
Ptolemy--took possession of the empire.
"After the death of Antigonus [301 B.C.], the
four confederated princes divided his dominions between them; and hereby
the whole empire of Alexander became parted, and settled into four
kingdoms. Ptolemy had Egypt, Libya, Arabia, Coele-Syria, and Palestine;
Cassander, Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus, Thrace Bithynia, and some
other of the provinces beyond the Hellespont and the Bosphorus; and
Selecus all the rest. And these four were the four horns of the he-goat
mentioned in the prophecies of the prophet Daniel, which grew up after
the breaking off of the first horn. That first horn was Alexander, king
of Grecia, who overthrew the kingdom of the Medes and Persians; and the
other four horns were these four kings, who sprung up after him, and
divided the empire between them. And these also were the four heads of
the leopard, spoken of in another place of the same prophecies. And
their four kingdoms were the four parts, into which, according to the
same prophet, the 'kingdom of the mighty king (i.e., of Alexander)
should be broken, and divided toward (i.e., according to the number of)
the four winds of heaven,' among those four kings, 'who should not be of
his posterity,' as neither of the four above-mentioned were. And
therefore, by this last partition of the empire of Alexander, were all
these prophecies exactly fulfilled." 
Verse 5 And the king of the south shall be strong,
and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have
dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.
King of the South.--The king of the north and
the king of the south are many times referred to in the rest of this
chapter. Therefore it is essential to an understanding of the prophecy
to identify these powers clearly. when Alexander's empire was divided,
the portions lay toward the four winds of heaven--north, south, east,
est. These divisions may well be reckoned from Palestine, the central
part of the empire. That division of the empire lying west of Palestine
would thus con-
stitute the kingdom of the west; that lying north,
the kingdom of the north; that lying east, the kingdom of the east; and
that lying south, the kingdom of the south.
During the wars and revolutions which followed for
long ages, geographical boundaries were frequently changed or
obliterated; old ones were wiped out, and new ones instituted. But
whatever changes might occur, these first division of the empire must
determine the names which these portions of territory should ever
afterward bear, or we have no standard by which to test the application
of the prophecy. In other words, whatever power at any time should
occupy the territory which at first constituted the kingdom of the
north, that power would be king of the north as long as it occupied that
territory. Whatever power should occupy that which at first constituted
the kingdom of the south, that power would so long be the king of the
south. We speak of only these tow, because they are the only ones
afterward spoken of in the prophecy, and because, in fact, almost the
whole of Alexander's empire finally resolved itself into these two
The successors of Cassander were very soon conquered
by Lysimachus, and his kingdom, Greece and Macedon, was annexed to
Thrace. Lysimachus was in turn conquered by Seleucus, and Macedon and
Thrace were annexed to Syria.
These facts prepare the way for an application of the
text before us. The king of the south, Egypt, shall be strong. Ptolemy
Soter annexed Cyprus, Phoenicia, Caria, Cyrene, and many islands and
cities to Egypt. Thus was his kingdom made strong. But another of
Alexander's princes is introduced in the expression, "one of his
princes." This must refer to Seleucus Nicator, who, as already
stated, by annexing Macedon and Thrace to Syria became possessor of
three parts out of four of Alexander's dominion, and established a more
powerful kingdom than that of Egypt.
Verse 6 And in the end of years they shall join
themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south shall come to
the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the
power of the arm; neither shall
he stand, nor his arm: but she shall be given up,
and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that
strengthened her in these times.
King of the North.--There were frequent wars
between the kings of Egypt and of Syria. Especially was this the case
with Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second king of Egypt, and Antiochus Theos,
third king of Syria. They at length agreed to make peace upon condition
that Antiochus should put away his former wife, Laodice, and her two
sons, and should marry Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Ptolemy accordingly brought his daughter to Antiochus, bestowing with
her an immense dowry.
"But she shall not retain the power of the
arm;" that is, her interest and power with Antiochus. So it proved;
for shortly afterward, Antiochus brought back to the court his former
wife Laodice and her children. Then says the prophecy, "Neither
shall he [Antiochus] stand, nor his arm," or posterity. Laodice,
being restored to favor and power, feared lest in the fickleness of his
temper Antiochus should again disgrace her by recalling Berenice.
Concluding that nothing short of his death would be an effectual
safeguard against such a contingency, she caused him to be poisoned
shortly afterward. Neither did his children by Berenice succeed him in
the kingdom, for Laodice so managed affairs as to obtain the throne for
her eldest son Seleucus Callinicus.
"But she [Berenice] shall be given up."
Laodice, not content with poisoning her husband Antiochus, caused
Berenice and her infant son to be murdered. "They that brought
her." All of her Egyptian women and attendants, in endeavoring to
defend her, were slain with her. "He that begat her," margin,
"whom she brought forth," that is, her son, who was murdered
at the same time by order of Laodice. "He that strengthened her in
these times," was doubtless her husband, Antiochus, or those who
took her part and defended her.
Verse 7 But out of a branch of her roots shall one
stand up in his estate, which shall come with an army, and shall enter
into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them,
and shall prevail: 8 and shall also
carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their
princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he
shall continue more years than the king of the north. 9 So the king of
the south shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own
The branch out of the same root with Berenice was her
brother, Ptolemy Euergetes. He had no sooner succeeded his father
Ptolemy Philadelphus in the kingdom of Egypt, than, burning to avenge
the death of his sister Berenice, he raised an immense army and invaded
the territory of the king of the north, Seleucus Callinicus, who with
his mother Laodice reigned in Syria. He prevailed against them, even to
the conquering of Syria, Cilicia, the upper parts beyond the Euphrates,
and eastward to Babylon. But hearing that a sedition was raised in Egypt
requiring his return home, he plundered the kingdom of Seleucus by
taking forty thousand talents of silver and precious vessels and two
thousand five hundred images of gods. Among these were the images which
Cambyses had formerly taken from Egypt and carried into Persia. The
Egyptians, being wholly given to idolatry, bestowed upon Ptolemy the
title Euergetes, or the Benefactor, as a compliment for restoring their
captive gods after many years.
"There are authors still extant," says
Thomas Newton, "who confirm several of the same particulars. Appian
informs us that Laodice having killed Antiochus, and after him both
Berenice and her child, Ptolemy the son of Philadelphus to revenge these
murders invaded Syria, slew Laodice, and proceeded as far as to Babylon.
From Polybius we learn that Ptolemy, surnamed Euergetes, being greatly
incensed at the cruel treatment of his sister, Berenice, marched with an
army into Syria, and took the city of Seleucia, which was kept for some
years afterward by the garrisons of the kings of Egypt. Thus did he
'enter the fortress of the king of the north.' Polyaenus affirms that
Ptolemy made himself master of all the country from Mount Taurus as far
as to India without war or battle; but he ascribes it by mistake to the
father instead of the son. Justin asserts that if Ptolemy had not been
recalled by a
domestic sedition into Egypt, he would have possessed
the whole kingdom of Seleucus. So the king of the south came into the
kingdom of the north, and then returned into his own land. He likewise
'continued more years than the king of the north;' for Seleucus
Callinicus died in exile of a fall from his horse, and Ptolemy Euergetes
survived him about four or five years." 
Verse 10 But his sons shall be stirred up, and
shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly
come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be
stirred up, even to his fortress.
The first part of this verse speaks of sons, in the
plural; the last part, of one, in the singular. The sons of Seleucus
Callinicus were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. These both
entered with zeal upon the work of vindicating and avenging the cause of
their father and their country. The elder of these, Seleucus, first took
the throne. He assembled a great multitude to recover his father's
dominions; but was poisoned by his generals after a short, inglorious
reign. His more capable brother, Antiochus Magnus, was thereupon
proclaimed king. He took charge of the army, recovered Seleucia and
Syria, and made himself master of some places by treaty and of others by
force of arms. Antiochus overcame Nicolas, the Egyptian general, in
battle and had thoughts of invading Egypt itself. However, a truce
followed, wherein both sides treated for peace, yet prepared for war.
Here is the "one" who should certainly "overflow and pass
Verse 11 And the king of the south shall be moved
with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king
of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the
multitude shall be given into his hand.
Kings of the North and South in Conflict.--Ptolemy
Philopator succeeded his father Euergetes in the kingdom of Egypt, being
advanced to the crown not long after Antiochus Magnus had succeeded his
brother in the government of Syria. He was an ease-loving and vicious
prince, but was at length
aroused at the prospect of an invasion of Egypt by
Antiochus. He was indeed "moved with choler" because of the
losses he had sustained and the danger which threatened him. He
marshaled a large army to check the progress of the Syrian king, but the
king of the north was also "to set forth a great multitude."
The army of Antiochus, according to Polybius, amounted to 62,000
footmen, 6,000 horsemen, and 102 elephants. In this conflict, the Battle
of Raphia, Antiochus was defeated, with nearly 14,000 soldiers slain and
4,000 taken prisoner, and his army was given into the hands of the king
of the south--a fulfillment of prophecy.
Verse 12 And when he hath taken away the
multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten
thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.
Ptolemy lacked the prudence to make good use of his
victory. Had he followed up his success, he would probably have become
master of the whole kingdom of Antiochus; but after making only a few
threats, he made peace that he might be able to give himself up to the
uninterrupted and uncontrolled indulgence of his brutish passions. Thus
having conquered his enemies, he was overcome by his vices, and
forgetful of the great name which he might have established, he spent
his time in feasting and sensuality.
His heart was lifted up by his success, but he was
far from being strengthened by it, for the inglorious use he made of it
caused his own subjects to rebel against him. But the lifting up of his
heart was especially made manifest in his transactions with the Jews.
Coming to Jerusalem, he offered sacrifices, and was desirous of entering
into the most holy place of the temple contrary to the law and religion
of the Jews. But being restrained with great difficulty, he left the
place, burning with anger against the whole nation of the Jews, and
immediately began against them a relentless persecution. In Alexandria,
where Jews had resided since the days of Alexander, enjoying the
privileges of the most favored citizens, forty thousand according to
Eusebius, sixty thousand according to Jerome,
were slain. The rebellion of the Egyptians and the
massacre of the Jews certainly were not calculated to strengthen Ptolemy
in his kingdom, but were sufficient rather to ruin it almost totally.
Verse 13 For the king of the north shall return,
and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall
certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much
The events predicted in this verse were to occur
"after certain years." The peace concluded between Ptolemy
Philopator and Antiochus Magnus lasted fourteen years. Meanwhile Ptolemy
died from intemperance and debauchery, and was succeeded by his son
Ptolemy Epiphanes, then five years old. Antiochus suppressed rebellion
in his kingdom during the same time, and reduced the eastern provinces
to obedience. He was then at leisure for any enterprise when young
Epiphanes came to the throne of Egypt. Thinking this too good an
opportunity for enlarging his dominion to let slip, he raised an immense
army, "greater than the former," and set out against Egypt,
expecting to have an easy victory over the infant king.
Verse 14 And in those times there shall many stand
up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall
exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.
Antiochus Magnus was not the only one who rose up
against the infant Ptolemy. Agathocles, his prime minister, having
possession of the king's person and conducting the affairs of the
kingdom in his stead, was so dissolute and proud in the exercise of his
power that the provinces which before were subject to Egypt, rebelled.
Egypt itself was disturbed by seditions, and the Alexandrians, rising up
against Agathocles, caused him, his sister, his mother, and their
associates, to be put to death. At the same time, Philip of Macedon
entered into a league with Antiochus to divide the dominions of Ptolemy
between them, each proposing to take the parts which lay nearest and
most convenient to him. Here was a rising up against the king of the
south sufficient to fulfill the prophecy,
and it resulted, beyond doubt, in the exact events
which the prophecy forecast.
A new power is now introduced--"the
robbers of thy people;" literally, says Thomas Newton, "the
sons of the breakers . . . of thy people."  Far away on the
banks of the Tiber, a kingdom had been nourishing ambitious projects and
dark designs. Small and weak at first, it grew in strength and vigor
with marvelous rapidity, reaching out cautiously here and there to try
its prowess and test its warlike arm, until with consciousness of its
power it boldly reared its head among the nations of the earth, and
seized with invincible hand the helm of affairs. Henceforth the name of
Rome stands upon the page of history, destined for long ages to control
the world, and to exert a might influence among the nations even to the
end of time.
Rome spoke--and Syria and Macedonia soon found
a change coming over the aspect of their dream. The Romans interfered in
behalf of the young king of Egypt, determined that he should be
protected from the ruin devised by Antiochus and Philip. This was 200
B.C., and was one of the first important interferences of the Romans in
the affairs of Syria and Egypt. Rollin furnishes the following succinct
account of this matter:
"Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of
Macedonia, during the reign of Ptolemy Philopator, had discovered the
strongest zeal for the interest of that monarch, and were ready to
assist him on all occasions. Yet no sooner was he dead, leaving behind
him an infant, whom the laws of humanity and justice enjoined them not
to disturb in the possession of his father's kingdom, than they
immediately join in a criminal alliance, and excite each other to take
off the lawful heir, and divide his dominions between them. Philip was
to have Caria, Libya, Cyrenaica, and Egypt; and Antiochus, all the rest.
With this view, the latter entered Coele-Syria and Palestine,
and in less than two campaigns made an entire
conquest of those two provinces, with all their cities and dependencies.
Their guilt, says Polybius, would not have been quite so glaring, had
they, like tyrants, endeavored to gloss over their crimes with some
specious pretense; but so far from doing this, their injustice and
cruelty were so barefaced, that to them was applied what is generally
said of fishes, that the large ones, though of the same species, prey on
the lesser. One would be tempted, continues the same author, at seeing
the most sacred laws of society so openly violated, to accuse Providence
of being indifferent and insensible to the most horrid crimes; but it
fully justified its conduct by punishing those two kings according to
their deserts; and made such an example of them as ought in all
succeeding ages to deter others from following their example. For,
whilst they are meditating to dispossess a weak and helpless infant of
his kingdom by piecemeal, Providence raised up the Romans against them,
who entirely subverted the kingdoms of Philip and Antiochus, and reduced
their successors to almost as great calamites as those with which they
intended to crush the infant king." 
"To establish the vision." The Romans more
than any other people are the subject of Daniel's prophecy. Their first
interference in the affairs of these kingdoms is here referred to as
being the establishment, or demonstration, of the truth of the vision
which predicted the existence of such a power.
"But they shall fall" is referred by some
to those mentioned in the first part of the verse, who should stand up
against the king of the south; others, to the robbers of Daniel's
people, the Romans. It is true in either case. If those who combined
against Ptolemy are referred to, all that need be said is that they did
speedily fall. If it applies to the Romans, the prophecy simply pointed
to the period of their final overthrow.
Verse 15 So the king of the north shall come, and
cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the
south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall
there be any strength to withstand.
The education of the young king of Egypt was
entrusted by the Roman Senate to M. Emilius Lepidus, who appointed
Aristomenes, an old and experienced minister of that court, to be his
guardian. His first act was to provide against the threatened invasion
of the two confederated kings, Philip and Antiochus.
To this end he dispatched Scopas, a famous general of
Aetolia then in the service of the Egyptians, into his native country to
raise reinforcements for the army. After equipping an army, he marched
into Palestine and Coele-Syria (Antiochus being engaged in a war with
Attalus in Lesser Asia), and reduced all Judea to the authority of
Thus affairs were brought about for the fulfillment
of the verse before us. Desisting from his war with Attalus at the
dictation of the Romans, Antiochus took speedy steps for the recovery of
Palestine and Coele-Syria from the hands of the Egyptians. Scopas was
sent to oppose him. Near the sources of the Jordan, the two armies met.
Scopas was defeated, pursued to Sidon, and there closely besieged. Three
of the ablest generals of Egypt, with their best forces, were sent to
raise the siege, but without success. At length Scopas, meeting a foe in
the specter of famine with which he was unable to cope, was forced to
surrender on the dishonorable terms of life only. He and his ten
thousand men were permitted to depart stripped and destitute. Here was
the taking of the "most fenced cities" by the king of the
north, for Sidon was in its situation and defenses one of the strongest
cities of those times. Here was the failure of the arms of the south to
withstand, and the failure also of the people which the king of the
south had chosen; namely Scopas and his Aetolian forces.
Verse 16 But he that cometh against him shall do
according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall
stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.
Rome Conquers Syria and Palestine.--Although
Egypt had not been able to stand before Antiochus Magnus, the king of
the north, Antiochus Asiaticus could not stand before the Romans,
who came against him. no kingdoms could resist this
rising power. Syria was conquered, and added to the Roman Empire, when
Pompey in 65 B.C. deprived Antiochus Asiaticus of his possessions and
reduced Syria to a Roman province.
The same power was also to stand in the Holy Land,
and consume it. The Romans became connected with the people of God, the
Jews, by alliance in 161 B.C. From this date Rome held a prominent place
in the prophetic calendar. It did not, however, acquire jurisdiction
over Judea by actual conquest until 63 B.C.
On Pompey's return from his expedition against
Mithridates Eupator, king of Pontus, two competitors, sons of the high
priest of the Jews in Palestine, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, were
struggling for the crown of Judea. Their cause came before Pompey, who
soon perceived the injustice of the claims of Aristobulus, but he wished
to defer decision in the matter until after his long-desired expedition
into Arabia. He promised then to return, and settle their affairs as
should seem just and proper. Aristobulus, fathoming Pompey's real
sentiments, hastened back to Judea, armed his subjects, and prepared for
a vigorous defense, determined at all hazards to keep the crown which he
foresaw would be adjudicated to another. After his Arabian campaign
against King Aretas, Pompey learned of these warlike preparations and
marched on Judea. As he approached Jerusalem, Aristobulus, beginning to
repent of his course, came out to meet Pompey, and endeavored to arrange
matters by promising entire submission and large sums of money.
Accepting this offer, Pompey sent Gabinius at the head of a detachment
of soldiers, to receive the money. But when that lieutenant arrived at
Jerusalem, he found the gates shut against him, and was told from the
top of the walls that the city would not stand by the agreement.
Not to be deceived in this way with impunity, Pompey
put Aristobulus in irons, and immediately marched against Jerusalem with
his whole army. The partisans of Aristobulus were for defending the
city; those of Hyrcanus, for opening the
gates. The latter, however, being in the majority,
prevailed, and Pompey was given free entrance into the city. Whereupon
the adherents of Aristobulus retired to the temple fortress, as fully
determined to defend that place as Pompey was to reduce it. At the end
of three months a breach was made in the wall sufficient for an assault,
and the place was carried at the point of the sword. In the terrible
slaughter that ensued, twelve thousand persons were slain. It was an
affecting sight, observes the historian, to see the priests, engaged at
the time in divine service, with calm hand and steady purpose pursue
their accustomed work, apparently unconscious of the wild tumult, until
their own blood was mingled with that of the sacrifices they were
After putting an end to the war, Pompey demolished
the walls of Jerusalem, transferred several cities from the jurisdiction
of Judea to that of Syria, and imposed tribute on the Jews. For the
first time Jerusalem was by conquest placed in the hands of Rome, that
power which was to hold the "glorious land" in its iron grasp
till it had utterly consumed it.
Verse 17 He shall also set his face to enter with
the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall
he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but
she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.
Thomas Newton furnishes another reading for this
verse, which seems to express more clearly the meaning: "He shall
also set his face to enter by force the whole kingdom." 
Rome Overruns the Kingdom of the South.--Verse
16 brought us to the conquest of Syria and Judea by the Romans. Rome had
previously conquered Macedon and Thrace. Egypt was now all that remained
of the "whole kingdom" of Alexander which had not been brought
into subjection to the Roman power. Rome now set her face to enter by
force into the land of Egypt.
Ptolemy Auletes died in 51. B.C. He left the crown
and kingdom of Egypt to his eldest surviving daughter, Cleopatra,
and his elder son, Ptolemy XII, a lad of nine or ten
years. It was provided in his will that they should marry each other and
reign jointly. Because they were young, they were placed under the
guardianship of the Romans. the Roman people accepted the charge, and
appointed Pompey as guardian of the young heirs of Egypt.
Soon a quarrel broke out between Pompey and Julius
Caesar, which reached its climax in the famous battle of Pharsalus.
Pompey, being defeated, fled into Egypt. Caesar immediately followed him
thither; but before his arrival Pompey was basely murdered at the
instigation of Ptolemy. Caesar now assumed the guardianship of Ptolemy
and Cleopatra. He found Egypt in commotion from internal disturbances,
for Ptolemy and Cleopatra had become hostile to each other, since she
had been deprived of her share in the government.
The troubles daily increasing, Caesar found his small
source insufficient to maintain his position, and being unable to leave
Egypt on account of the north wind which blew at that season, he sent
into Asia for all the troops he had in that region.
Julius Caesar decreed that Ptolemy and Cleopatra
should disband their armies, appear before him for a settlement of their
differences, and abide by his decision. Since Egypt was an independent
kingdom, this haughty decree was considered an affront to its royal
dignity, and the Egyptians, highly incensed, took up arms. Caesar
replied that he acted by the authority of the will of their father,
Ptolemy Auletes, who had put his children under the guardianship of the
senate and people of Rome.
The matter was finally brought before him, and
advocates were appointed to plead the cause of the respective parties.
Cleopatra, aware of the foible of the great Roman general, decided to
appear before him in person. To reach his presence undetected, she had
recourse to the following stratagem: She laid herself at full length in
a carpet, and Appolodorus, her Sicilian servant, wrapped her up in a
cloth, tied the bundle
with a thong, and raising it upon his Herculean
shoulders, sought the apartments of Caesar. Claiming to have a present
for the Roman general, he was admitted into the presence of Caesar, and
deposited the burden at his feet. When Caesar unbound this animated
bundle, the beautiful Cleopatra stood before him.
Of this incident F. E. Adcock writes: "Cleopatra
had a right to be heard if Caesar was to be judge, and she contrived to
reach the city and to find a boatman to take her to him. She came, saw,
and conquered. To the military difficulties of the withdrawal in the
face of the Egyptian army was added the fact that Caesar no longer
wished to go. He was past fifty, but he retained an imperious
susceptibility which evoked the admiration of his soldiers. Cleopatra
was twenty-two, as ambitious and high-mettled as Caesar himself, a woman
whom he would find it easy to understand and admire as well as to
Caesar at length decreed that the brother and the
sister should occupy the throne jointly, according to the intent of the
will. Pothinus, the chief minister of state, principally instrumental in
expelling Cleopatra from the throne, feared the result of her
restoration. He therefore began to excite jealousy and hostility against
Caesar by insinuating among the populace that he designed eventually to
give Cleopatra the sole power. Open sedition soon followed. The
Egyptians undertook to destroy the Roman fleet. Caesar retorted by
burning theirs. Some of the burning vessels being driven near the quay,
several of the buildings of the city took fire, and the famous
Alexandrian library, containing nearly 400,000 volumes, was destroyed.
Antipater the Idumean joined him with 3,000 Jews. The Jews, who held the
frontier gateways into Egypt, permitted the Roman army to pass without
interruption. The arrival of this army of Jews under Antipater helped
decide the contest.
A decisive battle was fought near the Nile by the
fleets of Egypt and Rome, resulting in a complete victory for Caesar.
Ptolemy, attempting to escape, was drowned in the river. Alexandria and
all Egypt then submitted to the victor. Rome had now entered into and
absorbed the entire original kingdom of Alexander.
By the "upright ones" of the text are
doubtless meant the Jews, who gave Caesar the assistance already
mentioned. Without this, he must have failed; with it, he completely
subdued Egypt in 47 B.C.
"The daughter of women, corrupting her" was
Cleopatra, who had been Caesar's mistress and the mother of his son. His
infatuation for the queen kept him much longer in Egypt than his affairs
required. He spent whole nights in feasting and carousing with the
dissolute queen. "But," said the the prophet, "she shall
not stand on his side, neither be for him." Cleopatra afterward
joined herself to Antony, the enemy of Augustus Caesar, and exerted her
whole power against Rome.
Verse 18 After this shall he turn his face unto
the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall
cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he
shall cause it to turn upon him.
War in Syria and Asia Minor against Pharnaces, king
of the Cimmerian Bosphorus, drew Julius Caesar away from Egypt. "On
his arrival where the enemy was," says Prideaux, "he, without
giving any respite either to himself or them, immediately fell on, and
gained an absolute victory over them; an account whereof he wrote to a
friend of his in these three words: Veni, vidi, vici! 'I came, I saw, I
overcame.' "  The latter part of this verse is involved in some
obscurity, and there is difference of opinion in regard to its
application. Some apply it further back in Caesar's life, and think they
find a fulfillment in his quarrel with Pompey. But preceding and
subsequent events clearly defined in the prophecy, compel us to look for
the fulfillment of this part of the prediction between the
victory over Pharnaces, and Caesar's death at Rome,
as brought to view in the following verse.
Verse 19 Then he shall turn his face toward the
fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
After his conquest of Asia Minor, Caesar defeated the
last remaining fragments of Pompey's party, Cato and Scipio in Africa,
and Labienus and Varus in Spain. Returning to Rome, the "fort of
his own land," he was made dictator for life. Other powers and
honors were granted him which made him in fact the absolute sovereign of
the empire. But the prophet had said that he should stumble and fall.
The language implies that his overthrow would be sudden and unexpected,
like a person accidentally stumbling in his walk. So this man, who it is
said had fought and won fifty battles, taken one thousand cities, and
slain one million one hundred ninety-two thousand men, fell, not in the
din of battle and the hour of strife, but when he thought his pathway
was smooth and danger far away.
"On the evening before the Ides Caesar dine with
Lepidus, and as the guests sat at their wine someone asked the question,
'What is the best death to die?' Caesar who was busy signing letters
said, 'A sudden one.' By noon the next day, despite dreams and omens, he
sat in his chair in the Senate House, surrounded by men he had cared
for, had promoted or spared, and was struck down, struggling, till he
fell dead at the foot of Pompey's statue."  Thus he suddenly
stumbled and fell, and was not found, in 44 B.C.
Verse 20 Then shall stand up in his estate a
raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he
shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.
Augustus the Raiser of Taxes Appears.--Octavius
succeeded his uncle, Julius, by whom he had been adopted. He publicly
announced his adoption by his uncle, and took his name. He
joined Mark Antony and Lepidus to avenge the death of
Julius Caesar. The three formed what is called the triumvirate form of
government. After Octavius was firmly established in the empire, the
senate conferred upon him the title "Augustus," and the other
members of the triumvirate now being dead, he became supreme ruler.
He was emphatically a raiser of taxes. Luke, speaking
of events that took place at the time when Christ was born, says:
"It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from
Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2: 1.
That taxing which embraced all the world was an event worthy of notice,
for the person who enforced it has certainly a claim above every other
competitor to the title of "a raiser of taxes." During the
reign of Augustus "fresh taxation" was imposed, one quarter of
the annual income from all citizens and a capital levy of one eighth on
all freedmen." 
He stood up "in the glory of the kingdom."
Rome reached the pinnacle of its greatness and power during the
"Augustan Age." The empire never saw a brighter hour. Peace
was promoted, justice maintained, luxury curbed, discipline established,
and learning encouraged. During his reign, the temple of Janus was shut
three times, signifying that all the world was at peace. Since the
founding of the Roman Empire this temple had been closed but twice
previously. At this auspicious hour our Lord was born in Bethlehem of
Judea. In a little less than eighteen years after the taxing brought to
view, seeming but a "few days" to distant gaze of the prophet,
Augustus died in A.D. 14, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. His life
ended not in anger or battle, but peacefully in his bed, at Nola,
whither he had gone to seek repose and health.
Verse 21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile
person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he
shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
Tiberius Cuts Off the Prince of the Covenant.--Tiberius
Caesar followed Augustus on the Roman throne. He was raised to the
consulate at the age of twenty-nine. It is recorded that as Augustus was
about to nominate his successor, his wife, Livia, besought him to
nominate Tiberius, her son by a former husband. But the emperor said,
"Your son is too vile to wear the purple of Rome." Instead,
the nomination was given to Agrippa, a virtuous and much-respected Roman
citizen. But the prophecy had foreseen that a vile person should succeed
Augustus. Agrippa died; and Augustus was again under the necessity of
choosing a successor. Livia renewed her intercessions for Tiberius, and
Augustus, weakened by age and sickness, was more easily flattered, and
finally he consented to nominate that "vile" young man as his
colleague and successor. But the citizens never gave him the love,
respect, and "honor the kingdom" due to an upright and
How clear a fulfillment is this of the prediction
that they should not give him the honor of the kingdom. But he was to
come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. A paragraph
from the Encyclopaedia Americana shows how this was fulfilled:
"During the remainder of the life of Augustus,
he [Tiberius] behaved with great prudence and ability, concluding a war
with the Germans in such a manner as to merit a triumph. After the
defeat of Varus and his legions, he was sent to check the progress of
the victorious Germans, and acted in that was with equal spirit and
prudence. On the death of Augustus, he succeeded (A.D. 14), without
opposition, to the sovereignty of the empire; which, however, with his
characteristic dissimulation, he affected to decline, until repeatedly
solicited by the servile senate." 
Dissimulation on his part, flattery on the part of
the "servile senate," and a possession of the kingdom without
opposition were the circumstances attending his
accession to the throne, thus fulfilling the words of the prophecy.
The person brought to view in the text is called
"a vile person." Was such the character sustained by Tiberius?
Let another paragraph from the Encyclopaedia Americana answer:
"Tacitus records the events of this reign,
including the suspicious death of Germanicus, the detestable
administration of Sejanus, the poisoning of Drusus, with all the
extraordinary mixture of tyranny with occasional wisdom and good sense
which distinguished the conduct of Tiberius, until his infamous and
dissolute retirement (A.D. 26), to the isle of Capreae, in the bay of
Naples, never to return to Rome. . . . The remainder of the reign of
this tyrant is little more than a disgusting narrative of servility on
the one hand, and of despotic ferocity on the other. That he himself
endured as much misery as he inflicted, is evident from the following
commencement of one of his letters to the senate: 'What I shall write to
you, conscript fathers, or what I shall not write, or why I should write
at all, may the gods and goddesses plague me more than I feel daily that
they are doing, if I can tell.' 'What mental torture,' observes Tacitus,
in reference to this passage, 'which could extort such a confession!'
Tyranny, hypocrisy, debauchery, and uninterrupted
intoxication--if these traits and practices show a man to be vile,
Tiberius exhibited that character to perfection.
Verse 22 And with the arms of a flood shall they
be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the Prince
of the covenant.
Thomas Newton presents the following reading of the
text as a more accurate translation of the original: "And the arms
of the overflower shall be overflown from before him, and shall be
broken."  This signifies revolution and violence; and in
fulfillment we should look for the arms of Tiberius the overflower to be
overflown, or, in other words, for him to suffer a
violent death. To show how this was accomplished, we
again cite the Encyclopaedia Americana:
"Acting the hypocrite to the last, he disguised
his increasing debility as much as he was able, even affecting to join
in the sports and exercises of the soldiers of his guard. At length,
leaving his favorite island, the scene of the most disgusting
debaucheries, he stopped at a country house near the promontory of
Micenum, where on the sixteenth of March, 37, he sunk into a lethargy,
in which he appeared dead; and Caligula was preparing with a numerous
escort to take possession of the empire, when his sudden revival threw
them into consternation. At this critical instant, Macro, the pretorian
prefect, caused him to be suffocated with pillows. Thus expired the
emperor Tiberius, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, and twenty-third
of his reign, universally execrated." 
After taking us down to the death of Tiberius, the
prophet now mentions an event to take place during his reign which is so
important that it should not be passed over. It is the cutting off of
the "Prince of the covenant," or the death of our Lord Jesus
Christ, "the Messiah the Prince," who was to confirm the
covenant" one week with His people. (Daniel 9: 25-27.)
According to the Scripture, Christ's death took place
in the reign of Tiberius. Luke informs us that in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Caesar, John the Baptist began his ministry. (Luke
3: 1-3.) According to Prideaux , Dr. Hales , and others, the
reign of Tiberius is to be reckoned from his elevation to the throne to
reign jointly with Augustus, his stepfather, in August, A.D. 12. His
fifteenth year would therefore be from August, A.D. 26, to August, A.D.
27. Christ was six months younger than John, and is supposed to have
begun His ministry six months later, both, according to the law of the
priesthood, entering upon their work when they were thirty years of age.
If John began in the spring, in the
latter part of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, it
would bring the beginning of Christ's ministry in the autumn of A.D. 27.
Right here the best authorities place the baptism of Christ, the exact
point where the 483 years from 457 B.C., which were to extend to the
Messiah the Prince, terminated. Christ then went forth proclaiming that
the time was fulfilled. From this point we go forward three years and a
half to find the date of the crucifixion, for Christ attended but four
Passovers, and was crucified at the last one. Three and a half years
from the autumn of A.D. 27 brings us to the spring of A.D. 31. The death
of Tiberius is placed but six years later, in A.D. 37. (See comments on
Daniel 9: 27-27.)
Verse 23 And after the league made with him he
shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong
with a small people.
Rome Makes a League With the Jews.--The
"him" with whom the league is made, must be the same power
which has been the subject of the prophecy from the 14th verse, the
Roman Empire. That this is true has been shown in the fulfillment of the
prophecy in the three individuals who successively ruled over the empire--Julius,
Augustus, and Tiberius Caesar.
Now that the prophet has taken us through the secular
events of the Roman Empire to the end of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9:
24, he takes us back to the time when the Romans became directly
connected with the people of God by the Jewish league in 161 B.C. From
this point we are then taken through a direct line of events to the
final triumph of the church and the setting up of God's everlasting
kingdom. Grievously oppressed by the Syrian kings, the Jews sent an
embassy to Rome to solicit the aid of the Romans and to join themselves
in "a league of amity and confederacy with them."  The
Romans listened to the request of the Jews, and granted them a decree
couched in these words:
" 'The decree of the senate concerning a league
of assistance and friendship with the nation of the Jews. It shall not
be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans to make war with the
nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending
them corn, or ships, or money; and if any attack be made upon the Jews,
the Romans shall assist them, as far as they are able; and again, if any
attack be made upon the Romans, the Jews shall assist them. And if the
Jews have a mind to add to, or to take away anything from, this league
of assistance, that shall be done with the common consent of the Romans.
And whatsoever addition shall thus be made, it shall be of force.' This
decree was "written by Eupolemus, the son of John, and by Jason,
the son of Eleazer, when Judas was high priest of the nation, and Simon,
his brother, was general of the army. And this was the first league that
the Romans made with the Jews, and was managed after this manner."
At this time the Romans were a small people, and
began to work deceitfully, or with cunning, as the word signifies. But
from this time they rose steadily and rapidly to the height of power.
Verse 24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the
fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers
have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the
prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices
against the strong holds, even for a time.
Before the days of Rome, nations entered upon
valuable provinces and rich territory by war and conquest. Rome was now
to do what had not been done by the fathers of the fathers' fathers,
namely, receive these acquisitions through peaceful means. The custom
was now inaugurated of kings' leaving their kingdoms to the Romans by
legacy. Rome came into possession of large provinces in this manner.
Those who thus came under the dominion of Rome
derived no small advantage. They were treated with kindness and
leniency. It was like have the prey and spoil distributed
among them. They were protected from their enemies,
and they rested in peace and safety under the aegis of the Roman power.
To the latter part of this verse, Thomas Newton gives
the thought of forecasting devices from strongholds, instead of against
them. This the Romans did from the strong fortress of their seven-hilled
city. "Even for a time" doubtless refers to a prophetic time,
360 years. From what point are these years to be dated? Probably from
the event brought to view in the following verse.
Verse 25 And he shall stir up his power and his
courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of
the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty
army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against
Rome Contends With the King of the South.--By
verses 23 and 24 we are brought down this side of the league made
between the Jews and the Romans, in 161 B.C., to the time when Rome had
acquired universal dominion. The verse now before us brings to view a
vigorous campaign against the king of the south, Egypt, and a notable
battle between mighty armies. Did such events as these take place in the
history of Rome about this time?--They did. The war was the war between
Egypt and Rome, and the battle was the battle of Actium. Let us consider
briefly the circumstances leading to this conflict.
Mark Antony, Augustus Caesar, and Lepidus constituted
the triumvirate which had sworn to avenge the death of Julius Caesar.
Antony became the brother-in-law of Augustus by marrying his sister
Octavia. Antony was sent into Egypt on government business, but fell a
victim to the charms of Cleopatra, Egypt's dissolute queen. So strong
was the passion he conceived for her that he finally espoused the
Egyptian interest, rejected his wife Octavia to please Cleopatra, and
bestowed province after province upon her. He celebrated triumphs at
Alexandria instead of at Rome, and otherwise so affronted the Roman
people that Augustus had no difficulty
in leading them to engage heartily in a war against
Egypt. This was was ostensibly against Egypt and Cleopatra, but it was
really against Antony, who now stood at the head of Egyptian affairs.
The true cause of their controversy, says Prideaux, was that neither of
them could be content with only half of the Roman Empire. Lepidus had
been deposed from the triumvirate, and the rule of the empire now lay
between the other two. Each being determined to possess the whole, they
cast the die of war for its possession.
Antony assembled his fleet at Samos. Five hundred
ships of war of extraordinary size and structure, having several decks
one above another, with towers upon the head and stern, made an imposing
and formidable array. These ships carried about one hundred twenty-five
thousand soldiers. The kings of Libya, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia,
Comagena, and Thrace were there in person, and those of Pontus, Judea,
Lycaonia, Galatia, and Media, had sent their troops. A more splendid
military spectacle than this fleet of war ships as they spread their
sails and moved out to sea, the world has rarely seen. Surpassing all in
magnificence came the galley of Cleopatra, floating like a palace of
gold beneath a cloud of purple sails. Its flags and streamers fluttered
in the wind, and trumpets and other musical instruments of war made the
heavens resound with notes of joy and triumph. Antony followed close
behind her in a galley of almost equal magnificence.
Augustus, on the other hand, displayed less pomp but
more utility. He had but half as many ships as Antony, and only eighty
thousand foot soldiers. But all his troops were chosen men, and on board
his fleet were none but experienced seamen; whereas Antony, not finding
sufficient mariners, had been obliged to man his vessels with artisans
of every class, men inexperienced and better calculated to cause trouble
than to do real service in time of battle. The season being far consumed
in these preparations, Augustus made his rendezvous at Brundusium, and
Antony at Corcyra, till the following year.
The next spring, both armies were put in motion on
land and sea. The fleets at length entered the Ambracian Gulf in Epirus,
and the land forces were drawn up on either shore in plain view.
Antony's most experienced generals advised him not to hazard a battle by
with his inexperienced mariners, but send Cleopatra back to Egypt, and
hasten at once into Thrace or Macedonia, and trust the issue to his land
forces, who were composed of veteran troops. But illustrating the old
adage, Quem Deus perdere vult, prius dementat ("Him whom God wishes
to destroy He first makes made"), and infatuated by Cleopatra, he
seemed desirous only of pleasing her; while she, trusting to appearances
only, deemed her fleet invincible, and advised immediate action.
The battle was fought September 2, 31 B.C., at the
mouth of the gulf of Ambracia, near the city of Actium. The world was
the stake for which these stern warriors, Antony and Augustus, now
played. The contest, long doubtful, was at length decided by the course
which Cleopatra pursued. Frightened at the din of battle, she took to
flight when there was no danger, and drew after her the Egyptian
squadron numbering sixty ships. Antony, beholding this movement, and
lost to everything but his blind passion for her, precipitately
followed, and yielded a victory to Augustus, which, had his Egyptian
forces proved true to him, and had he proved true to his own manhood, he
might had gained.
This battle doubtless makes the beginning of the
"time" mentioned in verse 24. As during this "time"
devices were to be forecast from the stronghold, or Rome, we should
conclude that at the end of that period western supremacy would cease,
or such a change take place in the empire that that city would no longer
be considered the seat of government. From 31 B.C., a prophetic
"time," or 360 years, would bring us to A.D. 330. Hence it
becomes a noteworthy fact that the seat of empire was removed from Rome
to Constantinople by Constantine the Great in that very year. 
Verse 26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his
meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall
Antony was deserted by his allies and friends, those
that fed "of the portion of his meat." Cleopatra as already
described suddenly withdrew from the battle, taking sixty ships of the
line with her. The land army, disgusted with the infatuation of Antony,
went over to Augustus, who received the soldiers with open arms. When
Antony arrived arrived at Libya, he found that the forces which he had
left there under Scarpus to guard the frontier, had declared for
Augustus, and in Egypt his forces surrendered. In rage and despair,
Antony then took his own life.
Verse 27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to
do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not
prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
Antony and Augustus were formerly in alliance. Yet
under the garb of friendship, they were both aspiring and intriguing for
universal dominion. Their protestations of friendship for each other
were the utterances of hypocrites. They spoke lies at one table. Octavia,
the wife of Antony and sister of Augustus, declared to the people of
Rome at the time Antony divorced her, that she had consented to marry
him solely with the hope that it would prove a pledge of union between
Augustus and Antony. But that counsel did not prosper. The rupture came,
and in the conflict that ensued Augustus was entirely victorious.
Verse 28 Then shall he return into his land with
great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he
shall do exploits, and return to his own land.
Two returnings from foreign conquest are here brought
to view. The first was after the events narrated in verses 26, 27, and
the second, after this power had had indignation against the holy
covenant, and had performed exploits. The first was fulfilled in the
return of Augustus after his expedition against Egypt and Antony. He
arrived in Rome with abundant honor
and riches, for "at this time such vast riches
were brought to Rome from Egypt on the reducing of that country, and on
the return of Octavianus [Augustus] and his army from thence, that the
value of money fell one half, and the prices of provisions and all
vendible wares were doubled thereon." 
Augustus celebrated his victories in a three-days'
triumph--a triumph which Cleopatra herself would have graced as one
of the royal captives, had she not artfully caused herself to be bitten
fatally by an asp.
Rome Destroys Jerusalem.--The next great
enterprise of the Romans after the overthrow of Egypt, was the
expedition against Judea and the capture and destruction of Jerusalem.
The holy covenant is doubtless the covenant which God has maintained
whit his people under different forms in different ages of the world.
The Jews rejected Christ, and according to the prophecy that all who
would not hear that Prophet should be cut off, they were destroyed out
of their own land and scattered to every nation under heaven. While Jews
and Christians alike suffered under the oppressive hand of the Romans,
it was doubtless in the reduction of Judea especially that the exploits
which are mentioned in the sacred text were exhibited.
Under Vespasian the Romans invaded Judea, and took
the cities of Galilee, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, where Christ
had been rejected. They destroyed the inhabitants, and left nothing but
ruin and desolation. Titus besieged Jerusalem, and drew a trench around
it, according to the prediction of the Saviour. A terrible famine
ensued. Moses had predicted that appalling calamities would come upon
the Jews if they departed from God. It had been prophesied that even the
tender and delicate woman would eat her own children in the straitness
of the siege. (Deuteronomy 28: 52-55.) Under the siege of Jerusalem by
Titus, a literal fulfillment of this prediction occurred. Hearing of the
inhuman deeds, but
forgetting that he was the one who was driving the
people to such direful extremities, he swore the eternal extirpation of
the accursed city and people.
Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. As an honor to himself,
the Roman commander had determined to save the temple, but the Lord had
said, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24: 2. A Roman soldier seized a
brand of fire, and climbing upon the shoulders of his comrades, thrust
it into one of the windows of the beautiful structure. It was soon
ablaze, and the frantic efforts of the Jews to extinguish the flames,
seconded by Titus himself, were all in vain. Seeing that the temple
would be destroyed, Titus rushed in and bore away the golden candle-
stick, the table of shewbread, and the volume of the
law, wrapped in gold tissue. The candlestick was afterward deposited in
Vespasian's Temple of Peace and copied on the triumphal arch of Titus,
where its mutilated image is yet to be seen.
The siege of Jerusalem lasted five months. In that
siege eleven hundred thousand Jews perished, and ninety-seven thousand
were taken prisoners. The city was so amazingly strong that Titus
exclaimed when viewing the ruins, "We have fought with the
assistance of God." It was completely leveled, and the foundations
of the temple were plowed up by Tarentius Rufus. The duration of the
whole war was seven years, and almost a million and a half persons are
said to have fallen victims to its awful horrors.
Thus this power performed great exploits, and again
returned to his own land.
Verse 29 At the time appointed he shall return,
and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the
The time appointed is probably the prophetic time of
verse 24, which has been previously mentioned. It closed, as already
shown, in A.D. 330, at which time this power was to return and come
again toward the south, but not as on the former occasion, when it went
to Egypt, nor as the latter, when it went to Judea. Those were
expeditions which resulted in conquest and glory. This one led to
demoralization and ruin. The removal of the seat of empire to
Constantinople was the signal for the downfall of the empire. Rome then
lost its prestige. The western division was exposed to the incursions of
foreign enemies. On the death of Constantine, the Roman Empire was
divided among his three sons, Constantius, Constantine II, and Constans.
Constantine II and Constans quarreled, and the victorious Constans
gained the supremacy of the entire West. The barbarians of the North
soon began their incursions and extended their conquests until the
imperial power of the West expired in A.D. 476.
Verse 30 For the ships of Chittim shall come
against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have
indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even
return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
Rome Pillaged by Barbarians.--The prophetic
narrative still has reference to the power which has been the subject of
the prophecy from the sixteenth verse; namely, Rome. What were the ships
of Chittim that came against this power, and when was this movement
made? What country or power is meant by Chittim? Adam Clarke has this
note on Isaiah 23: 1, "From the land of Chittim it is revealed to
them:" "The news of the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar
is said to be brought to them from Chittim, the islands and coasts of
the Mediterranean; 'for the Tyrians,' says Jerome on verse 6, 'when they
saw they had no other means of escaping, fled in their ships, and took
refuge in Carthage and in the islands of the Ionian and AEgean sea.' . .
. So also Jarchi on the same same place."  Kitto  gives the
same locality to Chittim, the coast and islands of the Mediterranean;
and the mind is carried by the testimony of Jerome to a definite and
celebrated city situated in that region, that is, Carthage.
Was a naval warfare with Carthage as a base of
operations ever waged against the Roman Empire? We think of the terrible
onslaught of the Vandals upon Rome under the fierce Genseric, and answer
readily in the affirmative. Every spring he sallied forth from the port
of Carthage at the head of his large and well-disciplined naval forces,
spreading consternation through all the maritime provinces of the
empire. That this is the work brought to view is further evident when we
consider that we are brought down in the prophecy to this very time. In
verse 29, the transfer of empire to Constantinople we understood to be
mentioned. Following in due course of time as the next remarkable
revolution, came the irruptions of the barbarians of the North,
which was the Vandal war already mentioned. The years
A.D. 428-477 mark the career of Genseric.
"He shall be grieved, and return" may have
reference to the desperate efforts which were made to dispossess
Genseric of the sovereignty of the seas, the first by Majorian, the
second by Pope Leo I, both of which were utter failures. Rome was
obliged to submit to the humiliation of seeing its provinces ravaged,
and its "eternal city" pillaged by the enemy. (See comments on
Revelation 8: 8.)
"Indignation against the holy covenant."
This doubtless refers to attempts to destroy God's covenant by attacking
the Holy Scriptures, the book of the covenant. A revolution of this
nature was accomplished in Rome. The Heruli, Goths, and Vandals, who
conquered Rome, embraced the Arian faith, and became enemies of the
Catholic Church. It was especially for the purpose of exterminating this
heresy that Justinian decreed the pope to be the head of the church and
the corrector of heretics. The Bible soon came to be regarded as a
dangerous book that should not be read by the common people, but all
questions in dispute were to be submitted to the pope. Thus was
indignity heaped upon God's word.
Says the historian, in commenting upon the attitude
of the Catholic Church toward the Scriptures:
"One would have thought that the Church of Rome
had removed her people to a safe distance from the Scriptures. She has
placed the gulf of tradition between them and the Word of God. She has
removed them still farther from the sphere of danger, by providing an
infallible interpreter, whose duty it is to take care that the Bible
shall express no sense hostile to Rome. But, as if this were not enough,
she has laboured by all means in her power to prevent the Scriptures
coming in any shape into the hands of her people. Before the Reformation
she kept the bible locked up in a dead language, and severe laws were
enacted against the reading of it. The Reformation unsealed the precious
volume. Tyndale and Luther, the one from his retreat at Vildorfe in the
Low Countries, and the
other from amid the deep shades of the Thuringian
forest, sent forth the Bible to the nations in the vernacular tongues of
England and Germany. A thirst was thus awakened for the Scriptures,
which the Church of Rome deemed it imprudent openly to oppose. The
Council of Trent enacted ten rules regarding prohibited books, which,
while they appeared to gratify, were insidiously framed to check, the
growing desire for the Word of God. In the fourth rule, the Council
prohibits any one from reading the Bible without a license from his
bishop or inquisitor; that license to be founded on a certificate from
his confessor that he is in no danger of receiving injury from so doing.
The Council adds these emphatic words:--'That if any one shall dare to
read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he
shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary.'
These rules are followed by the bull of Pius IV., in which he declares
that those who shall violate them shall be held guilty of mortal sin.
Thus did the Church of Rome attempt to regulate what she found it
impossible wholly to prevent. The fact that no Papist is allowed to read
the Bible without a license does not appear in the catechisms and other
books in common use among Roman Catholics in this country; but it is
incontrovertible that it forms the law of that Church. And, in
accordance therewith, we find that the uniform practice of the priests
of Rome, from the popes downwards, is to prevent the circulation of the
Bible,--to prevent it wholly in those countries, such as Italy and
Spain, where they have the power, and in other countries, such as our
own, to all the extent to which their power enables them. Their uniform
policy is to discourage the reading of the Scriptures in every possible
way; and when they dare not employ force to effect this object, they
scruple not to press into their service the ghostly power of their
Church, by declaring that those who presume to contravene the will of
Rome in this matter are guilty of mortal sin." 
The emperors of Rome, the eastern division of which
still continued, had intelligence, or connived, with the church of Rome,
which had forsaken the covenant and constituted the great apostasy, for
the purpose of putting down "heresy." The man of sin was
raised to his presumptuous throne by the defeat of the Arian Goths, who
then held possession of Rome, in A.D. 538.
Verse 31 And arms shall stand on his part, and
they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the
daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh
"They shall pollute the sanctuary of
strength," or Rome. If this applies to the barbarians, it was
literally fulfilled; for Rome was sacked by the Goths and Vandals, and
the imperial power of the West ceased through the conquest of Rome by
Odoacer. Or if it refers to those rulers of the empire who were working
in behalf of the papacy against the pagan and all other opposing
religions, it would signify the removal of the seat of empire from Rome
to Constantinople, which contributed its measure of influence to the
downfall of Rome. The passage would then be parallel to Daniel 8: 11 and
Revelation 13: 2.
Papacy Takes Away "the Daily."--It
was shown in comments on Daniel 8: 13, that "sacrifice" is a
word erroneously supplied. It should be "desolation." The
expression denotes a desolating power, of which the abomination of
desolation is but the counterpart, and to which it succeeds in point of
time. It seems clear therefore that the "daily" desolation was
paganism, and the "abomination of desolation" is the papacy.
But it may be asked, How can this be the papacy since Christ spoke of it
in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem? The answer is, Christ
evidently referred to Daniel 9, which predicts the destruction of
Jerusalem, and not to this verse in Daniel 11, which does not refer to
that event. In the ninth chapter, Daniel speaks of desolations and
abominations in the plural. More than one abomination, therefore, treads
down the church; that is, as far as the church is concerned, both
paganism and the papacy are abominations. But as
distinguished from each other, the language is restricted. One is the
"daily" desolation, and the other is pre-eminently the
transgression of "abomination" of desolation.
How was the "daily," or paganism, taken
away? As this is spoken of in connection with the placing or setting up
of the abomination of desolation, or the papacy, it must denote, not
merely the nominal change of the religion of the empire from paganism to
Christianity, as on the so-called conversion of Constantine, but to such
an eradication of paganism from all the elements of the empire that the
way would be entirely open for the papal abomination to arise and assert
its arrogant claims. Such a revolution as this was accomplished, but not
for nearly two hundred years after the death of Constantine.
As we approach the year A.D. 508, we behold a mighty
crisis ripening between Catholicism and the pagan influences still
existing in the empire. Up to the time of the conversion of Clovis, king
of France, in A.D. 496, the French and other nations of Western Rome
were pagan; but following that event, the efforts to convert idolaters
to Romanism were crowned with great success. The conversion of Clovis is
said to have been the occasion of bestowing upon the French monarch the
titles "Most Christian Majesty" and "Eldest Son of the
Church." Between that time and A.D. 508, by alliances,
capitulations, and conquests, the Arborici, the Roman garrisons in the
West, Brittany, the Burgundians, and the Visigoths, were brought into
From the time when these successes were fully
accomplished, in A.D. 508, the papacy was triumphant so far as paganism
was concerned; for though the latter doubtless retarded the progress of
the Catholic faith, yet it had not the power, if it had the disposition,
to suppress the faith, and hinder the encroachments of the Roman
pontiff. When the prominent powers of Europe gave up their attachment to
paganism, it was only to perpetuate its abominations in another form;
for Christianity as exhibited in the Roman
Catholic Church was, and is, only paganism baptized.
The status of the see of Rome was also peculiar at
this time. In 498, Symmachus ascended the pontifical throne as a recent
convert from paganism. He found his way to the papal chair by striving
with his competitor even unto blood. He received adulation as the
successor of St. Peter, and struck the keynote of papal assumption by
presuming to excommunicate the Emperor Anastasius.  The most servile
flatterers of the pope now began to maintain that he was constituted
judge in the place of God, and that he was the vicegerent of the Most
Such was the direction in which events were tending
in the West. In what state were affairs at the same time in the East? A
strong papal party now existed in all parts of the empire. The adherents
of this cause in Constantinople, encouraged by the success of their
brethren in the West, deemed it safe to begin open hostilities in behalf
of their master at Rome.
Let it be marked that soon after the year 508,
paganism had so far declined, and Catholicism had so far relatively
increased in strength, that the Catholic Church for the first time was
able to wage a successful war against both the civil authority of the
empire and the church of the East, which had for the most part embraced
the Monophysite doctrine, which Rome counted heresy. Partisan zeal
culminated in a whirlwind of fanaticism and civil war, which swept in
fire and blood through Constantinople. That such a war took place a few
years later will be seen in the following quotation from Gibbon in his
account of events under the years 508-518:
"The statues of the emperor were broken, and his
person was concealed in a suburb, till, at the end of three days, he
dared to implore the mercy of his subjects. Without his diadem, and in
the posture of a suppliant, Anastasius appeared on the throne of the
circus. The Catholics, before his face,
rehearsed their genuine Trisagion; they exulted in
the offer, which he proclaimed by the voice of a herald, of abdicating
the purple; they listened to the admonition, that since all could not
reign, they should previously agree in the choice of a sovereign; and
they accepted the blood of two unpopular ministers, whom their master,
without hesitation, condemned to the lions. These furious but transient
seditions were encouraged by the success of Vitalian, who, with an army
of Huns and Bulgarians, for the most part idolaters, declared himself
the champion of the Catholic faith. In this pious rebellion he
depopulated Thrace, besieged Constantinople, exterminated sixty-five
thousand of his fellow Christians, till he obtained the recall of the
bishops, the satisfaction of the pope, and the establishment of the
Council of Chalcedon, an orthodox treaty, reluctantly signed by the
dying Anastasius, and more faithfully performed by the uncle of
Justinian. And such was the event of the first of the religious wars
which have been waged in the name, and by the disciples, of the God of
We think it clear that the daily was taken away by
A.D. 508. This was preparatory to the setting up, or establishment, of
the papacy, which was a separate and subsequent event. Of this the
prophetic narrative now leads us to speak.
Papacy Sets Up an Abomination.--"They
shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Having shown
quite fully what we think constitutes the taking away of the daily, or
paganism, we now inquire, When was the abomination that maketh desolate,
or the papacy, placed, or set up? The little horn that had eyes like the
eyes of man was not slow to see when the way was open for his
advancement and elevation. from the year 508 his progress toward
universal supremacy was without a parallel.
When Justinian was about to begin the Vandal war in
A.D. 533, an enterprise of no small magnitude and difficulty,
he wished to secure the influence of the bishop of
Rome, who had then attained a position in which his opinion had great
weight throughout a large part of Christendom. Justinian therefore took
it upon himself to decide the contest which had long existed between the
sees of Rome and Constantinople as to which should have the precedence,
by giving the preference to Rome in an official letter to the pope,
declaring in the fullest and most unequivocal terms that the bishop of
that city should be chief of the whole ecclesiastical body of the
Justinian's letter reads: "Justinian, victor,
pious, fortunate, famous, triumphant, ever Augustus, to John, the most
holy Archbishop and Patriarch of the noble city of Rome. Paying honor to
the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, as always has been and is our
desire, and honoring your blessedness as a father, we hasten to bring to
the knowledge of Your Holiness all that pertains to the condition of the
churches, since it has always been our great aim to safeguard the unity
of your Apostolic See and the position of the holy churches of God which
now prevails and abides securely without any disturbing trouble.
Therefore we have been sedulous to subject and unite all the priests of
the Orient throughout its whole extent to the see of Your Holiness.
Whatever questions happen to be mooted at present, we have thought
necessary to be brought to Your Holiness's knowledge, however clear and
unquestionable they may be, and though firmly held and taught by all the
clergy in accordance with the doctrine of your Apostolic See; for we do
not suffer that anything which is mooted, however clear and
unquestionable, pertaining to the state of the churches, should fail to
be made known to Your Holiness, as being the head of the churches. For,
as we have said before, we are zealous for the increase of the honor and
authority of your see in all respects." 
"The emperor's letter must have been sent before
the 25th of March, 533. For, in his letter of that date to Epiphanius he
speaks of its having been already dispatched, and
repeats his decision that all affairs touching the church shall be
referred to the pope, 'head of all bishops, and the true and effective
corrector of heretics.' " 
"In the same month of the following year, 534,
the pope returned an answer repeating the language of the emperor,
applauding his homage to the see, and adopting the titles of the
imperial mandate. He observes that, among the virtues of Justinian, 'one
shines as a star, his reverence for the Apostolic chair, to which he has
subjected and united all the churches, it being truly the Head of all;
as was testified by the rules of the Fathers, the laws of the Princes,
and the declarations of the Emperor's piety.'
"The authenticity of the title receives
unanswerable proof from the edicts in the 'Novellae' of the Justinian
code. The preamble of the 9th states that 'as the elder Rome was the
founder of the laws; so was it not to be questioned that in her was the
supremacy of the pontificate.' The 131st, On the ecclesiastical titles
and privileges, chapter ii, states: 'We therefore decree that the most
holy Pope of the elder Rome is the first of all the priesthood, and that
the most blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold
the second rank after the holy Apostolic chair of the elder Rome.'
Toward the close of the sixth century, John of
Constantinople denied the Roman supremacy, and assumed for himself the
title of universal bishop; whereupon Gregory the Great, indignant at the
usurpation, denounced John and declared, without being aware of the
truth of his statement, that he who would assume the title of universal
bishop was the Antichrist. In 606, Phocas suppressed the claim of the
bishop of Constantinople, and vindicated that of the bishop of Rome. But
Phocas was not the founder of papal supremacy. "That Phocas
repressed the claim of the bishop of Constantinople is beyond a doubt.
But the highest authorities among the civilians
and annalists of Rome spurn the idea that Phocas was
the founder of the supremacy of Rome; they ascend to Justinian as the
only legitimate source, and rightly date the title from the memorable
year 533." 
George Croly makes this further statement: "On
reference to Baronius, the established authority among the Roman
Catholic annalists, I found Justinian's grant of supremacy to the pope
formally fixed to that period. . . . The entire transaction was of the
most authentic and regular kind, and suitable to the importance of the
Such were the circumstances attending the decree of
Justinian. But the provisions of this decree would not at once be
carried into effect; for Rome and Italy were held by the Ostrogoths, who
were Arians in faith, and strongly opposed to the religion of Justinian
and the pope. It was therefore evident that the Ostrogoths must be
rooted out of Rome before the pope could exercise the power with which
he had been clothed. To accomplish this object, the Italian was began in
534. The management of the campaign was entrusted to Belisarius. On his
approach toward Rome, several cities forsook Vitiges, their Gothic and
heretical sovereign, and joined the armies of the Catholic emperor. The
Goths, deciding to delay offensive operations until spring, allowed
Belisarius to enter Rome without opposition. The deputies of the pope
and the clergy, of the senate and the people, invited the lieutenant of
Justinian to accept their voluntary allegiance.
Belisarius entered Rome on December 10, 536. But this
was not an end of the struggle, for the Goths rallied their forces and
resolved to dispute his possession of the city by a regular siege, which
they began in March, 537. Belisarius feared despair and treachery on the
part of the people. Several senators, and Pope Silverius, on proof or
suspicion of treason, were sent into exile. The emperor commanded the
clergy to elect a new bishop. After solemnly invoking the Holy
Ghost they elected the deacon Vigilius, who, by a
bribe of two hundred pounds of gold, had purchased the honor. 
The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled
for the siege of Rome, but success did not attend their efforts. Their
hosts melted away in frequent and bloody combats under the city walls,
and the year and nine days during which the siege lasted, witnessed
almost the entire destruction of the nation. In the month of March, 538,
dangers beginning to threaten them from other quarters, they raised the
siege, burned their tents, and retired in tumult and confusion from the
city, with numbers scarcely sufficient to preserve their existence as a
nation or their identity as a people.
Thus the Gothic horn, the last of the three, was
plucked up before the little horn of Daniel 7. Nothing now stood in the
way of the pope to prevent his exercising the power conferred upon him
by Justinian five years before. The saints, times, and laws were now in
his hands, not in purpose only, but in fact. This must therefore be
taken as the year when this abomination was placed, or set up, and as
the point from which to date the beginning of the prophetic period of
1260 years of papal supremacy.
Verse 32 And such as do wickedly against the
covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know
their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
A People Who "Know Their God."--Those
who forsake the book of the covenant, the Holy Scriptures, who think
more of the decree of popes and the decisions of councils than they do
of the word of God--these shall he, the pope, corrupt by flatteries.
That is, they shall be led on in their partisan zeal for the pope by the
bestowment of wealth, position, and honors.
At the same time a people shall exist who know their
God, and these shall be strong, and do exploits. These were Christians
who kept pure religion alive in the earth during the
Dark Ages of papal tyranny, and performed marvelous
acts of self-sacrifice and religious heroism in behalf of their faith.
Prominent among these stand the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the
Verse 33 And they that understand among the people
shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by
captivity, and by spoil, many days.
The long period of papal persecution against those
who were struggling to maintain the truth and instruct their fellow men
in ways of righteousness, is here brought to view. The number of the
days during which they were thus to fall is given in Daniel 7: 25; 12:
7; Revelation 12: 6, 14; 13: 5. The period is called "a time, and
times, and the dividing of time;" "a time, times, and a
half;" "a thousand two hundred and threescore days;" and
"forty and two months." All these expressions are various ways
of denoting the same 1260 years of papal supremacy.
Verse 34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be
holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with
In Revelation 12, where this same papal persecution
is brought to view, we read that the earth helped the woman by opening
her mouth and swallowing up the flood which the dragon cast out after
her. The Protestant Reformation let by Martin Luther and his co-workers
furnished the help here foretold. The German states espoused the
Protestant cause, protected the reformers, and restrained the work of
persecution carried on by the papal church. But when the Protestants
were helped, and when their cause began to be popular, many were to
cleave unto them with flatteries, or embrace the faith from unworthy
Verse 35 And some of them of understanding shall
fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the
time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
Though restrained, the spirit of persecution was not
destroyed. It broke whenever there was opportunity.
Especially was this the case in England. The
religious state of that kingdom was fluctuating, it being sometimes
under Protestant and sometimes under papal jurisdiction, according to
the religion of the ruling monarch. "Bloody Queen Mary" was a
mortal enemy to the Protestant cause, and multitudes fell victims to her
relentless persecutions. This condition of affairs was to last more or
less "to the time of the end." The natural conclusion would be
that when the time of the end should come, this power which the Church
of Rome had possessed to punish heretics, which had been the cause of so
much persecution, and which for a time had been restrained, would now be
taken entirely away. The conclusion would be equally evident that this
taking away of papal supremacy would mark the beginning of the period
here called the "time of the end." If this application is
correct, the time of the end began in 1798; for then, as already
noticed, the papacy was overthrown by the French, and has never since
been able to wield all the power it before possessed. The oppression of
the church by the papacy is evidently referred to here because that is
the only one, with the possible exception of Revelation 2: 10, connected
with "a time appointed," or a prophetic period.
Verse 36 And the king shall do according to his
will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,
and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall
prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is
determined shall be done.
A King Magnifies Himself Above Every God.--The
king here introduced cannot denote the same power that was last noticed,
namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if
applied to that power.
Take a declaration in the next verse: "Nor
regard any god." This has never been true of the papacy. God and
Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been
professedly set aside and rejected from that system of religion.
Three peculiar features must appear in the power
which fulfills this prophecy: It must assume the character here de-
lineated near the beginning of the time of the end,
to which we were brought down in the preceding verse. It must be a
willful power. It must be an atheistical power. Perhaps the two latter
specifications might be united by saying that its willfulness would be
manifested in the direction of atheism.
France Fulfils the Prophecy.--A revolution
exactly answering to this description did take place in France at the
time indicated in the prophecy. Atheists sowed the seeds which bore
their logical and baleful fruit. Voltaire, in his pompous but impotent
self-conceit, had said, "I am weary of hearing people repeat that
twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man
may suffice to overthrow it." Associating with himself such men as
rousseau, D'Alembert, Diderot, and others, he undertook to accomplish
his threat. They sowed to the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Then, too,
the Roman Catholic Church was notoriously corrupt in France during this
period, and the people were anxious to break the yoke of ecclesiastical
oppression. their efforts culminated in the "reign of terror"
of 1793, when France discarded the Bible and denied the existence of the
A modern historian thus describes this great
"Certain members of the Convention, too, had
been the first to attempt to replace Christian worship in the provinces
by civic ceremonial, in the autumn of 1793. At Abbeville, Dumont, having
informed the populace that the priests were 'harlequins and clowns in
black garments, who showed off marionettes,' had set up the Worship of
Reason, and, with a not uncommon inconsistency, organized a 'marionette
show' of his own of a most imposing description, with dances in the
cathedral every decadi, and civic festivals on the 'observance' of which
he greatly insisted. Fouche was the next to abolish Christian worship;
speaking from the pulpit of the cathedral at Nevers he formally erased
all spiritualism from the republican programme, promulgated the famous
order which declared 'death an eternal slumber,' and thus turned the key
on heaven and hell alike. . . . In his congratulatory
address to the ex-bishop, the President declared that as the Supreme
Being 'desired no worship other than the worship of Reason, that should
in future be the national religion!' " 
But there are other and still more striking
specifications which were fulfilled by France.
Verse 37 Neither shall he regard the God of his
fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall
magnify himself above all.
The Hebrew word for woman is also translated wife;
and Thomas Newton observes that this passage would be more properly
rendered "the desire of wives."  This would seem to
indicate that this government, at the same time it declared that God did
not exist, would trample underfoot the law which God had given to
regulate the marriage institution. And we find that the historian has,
unconsciously perhaps, and if so all the more significantly, coupled
together the atheism and licentiousness of this government in the same
order in which they are presented in the prophecy. He says:
"The family had been destroyed. Under the old
regime it had been the very foundation of society. . . . The decree of
September 20, 1792 which established divorce, and was carried still
further by the Convention in 1794, had borne fruit within four years of
which the Legislature itself had never dreamt: an immediate divorce
could be pronounced on the score of incompatibility of temper, to come
into force within a year at farthest, if either of the couple should
refuse to separate before that period elapsed.
"There had been a rush for divorce; by the end
of 1793--fifteen months after the passing of the decree--5,994 divorces
had been granted in Paris. . . . Under the Directory we see women passed
from hand to hand by a legal process. What was the fate of the children
born of these successive unions? Some people got rid of them: the number
of foundlings in the Year V rose to 4,000 in Paris and to 44,000 in
ments. When the parents kept the children a tragi-comical
confusion was the result. A man would marry several sisters, one after
the other: one citizen presented a petition to the Five Hundred for
leave to marry the mother of the two wives he had already possessed. . .
. The family was dissolved." 
"Nor regard any god." In addition to the
testimony already presented to show the utter atheism of the nation at
this time, we present the following:
The "constitutional bishop of Paris was brought
forward to play the principal part in the most impudent and scandalous
farce ever acted in the face of a national representation. . . . He was
brought forward in full procession, to declare to the Convention that
the religion which he had taught so many years was, in every respect, a
piece of priestcraft, which had no foundation either in history or
sacred truth. He disowned, in solemn and explicit terms, the existence
of Deity to whose worship he had been consecrated, and devoted himself
in future to the homage of liberty, equality, virtue, and morality. He
then laid on the table his episcopal decorations, and received a
fraternal embrace from the president of the Convention. Several apostate
priests followed the example of this prelate." 
"Hebert, Chaumette, and their associates
appeared at the bar, and declared that 'God did not exist.' " 
The fear of God was said to be so far from the
beginning of wisdom that it was the beginning of folly. All worship was
prohibited except that of liberty and the country. The gold and silver
plate of the churches were seized and desecrated. The churches were
closed. The bells were broken and cast into cannon. The Bible was
publicly burned. The sacramental vessels were paraded through the
streets on an ass, in token of contempt. A week of ten days instead of
seven was established, and death was declared, in conspicuous letters
burial places, to be an eternal sleep. But the
crowning blasphemy, if these orgies of hell admit of degrees, remained
to be performed by the comedian Monvel, who, as a priest of Illuminism,
" 'God! if you exist, . . . avenge your injured
name. I bid you defiance. You remain silent; you dare not launch your
thunders; who, after this, will believe in your existence? ' " 
Behold what man is when left to himself, and what
infidelity is when the restraints of law are thrown off, and it has the
power in its own hands! Can it be doubted that these scenes are what the
Omniscient One foresaw and noted on the sacred page, when He pointed out
a kingdom to arise which should exalt itself above every god, and
disregard them all?
Verse 38 But in his estate shall he honor the God
of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold,
and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
We meet a seeming contradiction in this verse. How
can a nation disregard every god, and yet honor the god of forces? It
could not at one and the same time hold both these positions, but it
might for a time disregard all gods, and then subsequently introduce
another worship and regard the god of forces. Did such a change occur in
France at this time?--It did. The attempt to make France a godless
nation produced such anarchy that the rulers feared the power would pass
entirely out of their hands, and therefore perceived that as a political
necessity, some kind of worship must be introduced. But they did not
intend to introduce any movement which would increase devotion, or
develop any true spiritual character among the people, but only such as
would keep themselves in power, and give them control of the national
forces. A few extracts from history will show this. Liberty and country
were at first the objects of adoration. "Liberty, equality, virtue,
and morality," the very opposites of anything the possessed in fact
or exhibited in practice, were words which they set
forth as describing the deity of the nation. In 1793 the worship of the
Goddess of Reason was introduced, and is thus described by the
"One of the ceremonies of this insane time
stands unrivaled for absurdity combined with impiety. The doors of the
Convention were thrown open to a band of musicians, preceded by whom,
the members of the Municipal Body entered in solemn procession, singing
a hymn in praise of liberty, and escorting, as the object of their
future worship, a veiled female, whom they termed the Goddess of Reason.
Being brought within the bar, she was unveiled with great form, and
placed on the right hand of the president; when she was generally
recognized as a dancing girl of the opera, with whose charms most of the
persons present were acquainted from her appearance on the stage, while
the experience of individuals was farther extended. To this person, as
the fittest representative of of that Reason whom they worshiped, the
National Convention of France rendered public homage. This impious and
ridiculous mummery had a certain fashion; and the installation of the
Goddess of Reason was renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in
such places where the inhabitants desired to show themselves equal to
all the heights of the Revolution." 
The modern French historian, Louis Madelin, writes:
"The Assembly having excused itself from
attendance on the score of business, a procession (of a very mixed
description) attended the goddess to the Tuileries, and in her presence
forced the deputies to decree the transformation of Notre Dame into the
Temple of Reason. This not being deemed sufficient, another goddess of
Reason, the wife of Momoro, a member of the Convention, was installed at
Saint-Sulpice on the following decadi. Before long these Liberties and
Reasons were swarming all over France: wantons, only too often, with
here and there a goddess of good family and decent behaviour.
If it be true that the brow of one of these Liberties
was bound with a fillet bearing the words 'Turn me not into License!'
the suggestion, we may say, would hardly have been superfluous in any
part of France: for saturnalia of the most repulsive kind were the
invariable rule: at Lyons, we are told, an ass was given drink out of a
chalice. . . . Payan cried out upon 'these goddesses, more degraded than
those of fable.' " 
During the time while the fantastic worship of reason
was the national craze, the leaders of the revolution are known to
history as "the atheists." But it was soon perceived that a
religion with more powerful sanctions than the one then in vogue must be
instituted to hold the people. A form of worship therefore followed in
which the object of adoration was the "Supreme Being." It was
equally hollow so far as any reformation of life and vital godliness
were concerned, but it took hold upon the supernatural. And the Goddess
of Reason was indeed a "strange god," the statement in regard
to honoring the "God of forces," may perhaps more
appropriately be referred to this latter phase.
Verse 39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds
with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory:
and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for
The system of paganism which had been introduced into
France, as exemplified in the worship of the idol set up in the person
of the Goddess of Reason, and regulated by a heathen ritual which had
been enacted by the National Assembly for the use of the French people,
continued in force till the appointment of Napoleon to the provisional
consulate of France in 1799. The adherents of this strange religion
occupied the fortified places, the strongholds of the nation, as
expressed in this verse.
But that which serves to identify the application of
this prophecy to France perhaps as clearly as any other particular, is
the statement made in the last clause of the verse, that they
should "divide the land for gain." Previous
to the Revolution, the landed property of France was owned by the
Catholic Church and by a few landlords in immense estates. These estates
were required by the law to remain undivided, so that no heirs or
creditors could partition them. But revolution knows no law, and in the
anarchy that now reigned, as noted also in Revelation 11, the titles of
the nobility were abolished, and their lands disposed of in small
parcels for the benefit of the public exchequer. The government was in
need of funds, and these large landed estates were confiscated, and sold
at auction in parcels to suit purchasers. The historian thus records
this unique transaction:
"The confiscation of two thirds of the landed
property in the kingdom, which arose from the decrees of the Convention
against the emigrants, clergy, and persons convicted at the
Revolutionary Tribunals . . . placed funds worth above L700,000,000
sterling at the disposal of the government." 
When did ever an event take place and in what
country, fulfilling a prophecy more completely than this?
As the nation began to come to itself, a more
rational religion was demanded, and the heathen ritual was abolished.
The historian thus describes that event:
"A third and a bolder measure was the discarding
of the heathen ritual, and reopening the churches for Christian worship;
and of this the credit was wholly Napoleon's, who had to oppose the
philosophic prejudices of almost all his colleagues. He, in his
conversations with them, made no attempt to represent himself as a
believer in Christianity; but stood only on the necessity of providing
the people with the regular means of worship wherever it meant to have a
state of tranquillity. The priests who chose to take the oath of
fidelity to government were readmitted to their functions; and this wise
measure was followed by the adherence of not less than 20,000 of
these ministers of religion, who had hitherto
languished in the prisons of France." 
Thus terminated the Reign of Terror and the French
Revolution. Out of the ruins rose Bonaparte, to guide the tumult to his
own elevation, place himself at the head of the French government, and
strike terror to the hearts of nations.
Verse 40 And at the time of the end shall the king
of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against
him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many
ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and
Kings of South and North Again in Conflict.--After
a long interval, the king of the south and the king of the north again
appear on the stage of action. We have met with nothing to indicate that
we are to look to any locations for these powers other than those which
shortly after the death of Alexander constituted respectively the
southern and the northern divisions of his empire. The king of the south
was at that time Egypt, and the king of the north was Syria, including
Thrace and Asia Minor. Egypt continued to rule in the territory
designated as belonging to the king of the south, and Turkey for more
than four hundred years ruled over the territory which first constituted
the domain of the king of the north.
This application of the prophecy calls for a conflict
to spring up between Egypt and France, and between Turkey and France, in
17983, which year, as we have seen, marked the beginning of the time of
the end. If history testifies that such a triangular war did break out
in that year, it will be conclusive proof of the correctness of the
We inquire, therefore, Is it a fact that at the time
of the end, Egypt did "push," or make a comparatively feeble
resistance, while Turkey did come like a resistless
"whirlwind," against "him," that is, the government
of France? We have already produced some evidence that the time of the
end began in 1798; and no reader of history need be informed that in
that year a state of open hostility between France
and Egypt was developed.
To what extent this conflict owed its origin to the
dreams of glory deliriously cherished in the ambitious brain of Napoleon
Bonaparte, the historian will form his own opinion; but the French, or
Napoleon at least, contrived to make Egypt the aggressor. "In a
skillfully worded proclamation he [Napoleon] assured the peoples of
Egypt that he had come to chastise only the governing caste of Mamelukes
for their depredations on French merchants; that, far from wishing to
destroy the religion of the Muslim, he had more respect for God,
Mohammed, and the Koran than the Mamelukes had shown; that the French
had destroyed the Pope and the Knights of Malta who levied war on the
Muslim; thrice blessed, therefore, would be those who sided with the
French, blessed even those who remained neutral, and thrice unhappy
those who fought against them." 
The beginning of the year 1798 found the French
indulging in immense projects against the English. The Directory desired
Bonaparte to undertake at once the crossing of the Channel and an attack
upon England; but he saw that no direct operations of that kind could be
judiciously undertaken before the autumn, and he was unwilling to hazard
this growing reputation by spending his summer in idleness.
"But," says the historian, "he saw a far-off land, where
glory was to be won which would gain a new charm in the eyes of his
countrymen by the romance and mystery which hung upon the scene. Egypt,
the land of the Pharaohs and Ptolemies, would be a noble field for new
But while still broader visions of glory opened
before the eyes of Bonaparte in those Eastern historic lands, covering
not Egypt only, but Syria, Persia, Hindustan, even to the Ganges itself,
he had no difficulty in persuading the Directory that
Egypt was the vulnerable point through which to
strike at England by intercepting her Eastern trade. Hence on the
pretext above mentioned, the Egyptian campaign was undertaken.
The downfall of the papacy, which marked the
termination of the 1260 years, and according to verse 35 showed the
beginning of the time of the end, occurred in February, 1798, when Rome
fell into the hands of Berthier, the general of the French. On the 5th
of March following, Bonaparte received the decree of the Directory
relative to the expedition against Egypt. He left Paris May 3, and set
sail from Toulon the 19th, with a large naval armament consisting of
"thirteen ships-of-the-line, fourteen frigates (some of them
unarmed), a large number of smaller vessels of war, and about 300
transports. Upwards of 35,000 troops were on board, along with 1230
horses. If we include the crews, the commission of savants sent to
explore the wonders of Egypt, and the attendants, the total number of
persons aboard was about 50,000; it has even been placed as high as
July 2, Alexandria was taken, and immediately
fortified. On the 21st the decisive Battle of the Pyramids was fought,
in which the Mamelukes contested the field with valor and desperation,
but were no match for the disciplined legions of the French. Murad Bey
lost all his cannon, 400 camels, and 3,000 men. The loss of the French
was comparatively slight. On the 25th, Bonaparte entered Cairo, the
capital of Egypt, and only waited the subsidence of the floods of the
Nile to pursue Murad Bey to Upper Egypt, whither he had retired with his
shattered calvary, and so make a conquest of the whole country. Thus the
king of the south was able to make but a feeble resistance.
At this juncture, however, the situation of Napoleon
began to grow precarious. The French fleet, which was his only channel
of communication with France, was destroyed by the
English under Nelson at Aboukir. On September 11,
1798, the sultan of Turkey, under feeling of jealousy against France,
artfully fostered by the English ambassadors at Constantinople, and
exasperated that Egypt, so long a semi-dependency of the Ottoman Empire,
should be transformed into a French province, declared war against
France. Thus the king of the north (Turkey) came against him (France) in
the same year that the king of the south (Egypt) "pushed," and
both "at the time of the end." This is another conclusive
proof that the year 1798 is the year which begins that period--all of
which is a demonstration that this application of the prophecy is
correct. So many events meeting accurately the specifications of the
prophecy could not take place together and not constitute a fulfillment
of the prophecy.
Was the coming of the king of the north, or Turkey,
like a whirlwind in comparison with the pushing of Egypt? Napoleon had
crushed the armies of Egypt, and essayed to do the same thing with the
armies of the sultan which were threatening an attack from the side of
Asia. He began his march from Cairo to Syria, February 27, 1799, with
18,000 men. He first took the Fort El-Arish in the desert, then Jaffa
(the Joppa of the Bible), conquered the inhabitants of Naplous at Zeta,
and was again victorious at Jafet. Meanwhile, a strong body of Turks had
intrenched themselves at St. Jean d'Acre, while swarms of Mussulmans
gathered in the mountains of Samaria, ready to swoop down upon the
French when they should besiege Acre. Sir Sidney Smith at the same time
appeared before St. Jean d'Acre with two English ships, reinforced the
Turkish garrison of that place, and captured the apparatus for the siege
which Napoleon had sent across by sea from Alexandria. A Turkish fleet
soon appeared in the offing, which with the Russian and English vessels
then co-operating with them constituted the "many ships" of
the king of the north.
On the 18th of March the siege began. Napoleon was
twice called away to save some French divisions from falling into the
hands of the Mussulman hordes that filled the
country. Twice also a breach was made in the wall of
the city, but the assailants were met with such fury by the garrison
that they were obliged, despite their best efforts, to give over the
struggle. After a continuance of sixty days, Napoleon raised the siege,
sounded the note of retreat, for the first time in his career, and on
the 21st of May, 1799, began to retrace his steps to Egypt.
"He . . . shall overflow and pass over." We
have found events which furnish a very striking fulfillment of the
pushing of the king of the south, and the whirlwind onset of the king of
the north against the French power. Thus far there is quite a general
agreement in the application of the prophecy. We now reach a point where
the views of expositors begin to diverge. To whom do the words he
"shall overflow and pass over," refer--to France or to the
king of the north? The application of the remainder of this chapter
depends upon the answer to this question. From this point two lines of
interpretation are maintained. Some apply the words to France, and
endeavor to find a fulfillment in the career of Napoleon. Others apply
them to the king of the north, and accordingly point for a fulfillment
to events in the history of Turkey. We speak of these two positions
only, as the attempt which some make to bring in the papacy here is so
evidently wide of the mark that it need not be considered. If neither of
these positions is free from difficulty, as we presume no one will claim
that it is absolutely, it only remains that we take that one which has
weight of evidence in its favor. We shall find one in favor of which the
evidence does so greatly preponderate to the exclusion of all others, as
scarcely to leave any room for doubt in regard to the view here
Turkey Becomes King of the North.--Respecting
the application of this portion of the prophecy to Napoleon or to France
under his leadership, we do not find events which we can urge with any
degree of assurance as the fulfillment of the remaining part of this
chapter. Hence we do see how it can be thus applied. It must, then, be
fulfilled by Turkey, unless it can be shown
that the expression "king of the north"
does not apply to Turkey, or that there is some other power besides
either France or the king of the north which fulfilled this part of the
prediction. But if Turkey, now occupying the territory which constituted
the northern division of Alexander's empire, is not the king of the
north of this prophecy, then we are left without any principle to guide
us in the interpretation. We presume all will agree that there is no
room for the introduction of any other power here. France and the king
of the north are the only ones to whom the prediction can apply. The
fulfillment must lie between them.
Some considerations certainly favor the idea that
there is in the latter part part of verse 40 a transfer of the burden of
the prophecy from the French power to the king of the north. The latter
is introduced just before as coming forth like a whirlwind, with
chariots, horsemen, and many ships. The collision between this power and
the French we have already noticed. The king of the north with the aid
of his allies gained the day in this contest; and the French, foiled in
their efforts, were driven back into Egypt. Now it would seem to be the
more natural application to refer the "overflowing and passing
over" to that power which emerged in triumph from that struggle,
and that power was Turkey.
Verse 41 He shall enter also into the glorious
land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out
of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Abandoning a campaign in which one third of the army
had fallen victims to war and the plague, the French retired from St.
Jean d'Acre, and after a fatiguing march of twenty-six days re-entered
Cairo in Egypt. They thus abandoned all the conquests they had made in
Judea, and the "glorious land," Palestine, with all its
provinces, here called "countries," fell back again under the
oppressive rule of the Turk, Edom, Moab, and Ammon (lying outside the
limits of Palestine, south and east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, were out
of the line of march of the Turks from Syria to Egypt, and so escaped
ravages of that campaign. On this passage, Adam
Clarke has the following note: "These and other Arabians, they [the
Turks] have never been able to subdue. They still occupy the deserts,
and receive a yearly pension of forty thousand crowns of gold from the
Ottoman emperors to permit the caravans with the pilgrims for Mecca to
have a free passage." 
Verse 42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon
the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
On the retreat of the French to Egypt, a Turkish
fleet landed 10,000 men at Aboukir. Napoleon immediately attacked the
place, completely routing the Turks, and re-establishing his authority
in Egypt. But at this point, severe reverses to the French arms in
Europe called Napoleon home to look was left with General Kleber, who,
after a period of untiring activity for the benefit of the army, was
murdered by a Turk in Cairo, and the command was left with Abdallah
Menou. With an army which could not be recruited, every loss was
Meanwhile, the English government, as the ally of the
Turks, had resolved to wrest Egypt from the French. March 13, 1801, and
English fleet disembarked a body of troops at Aboukir. The French gave
battle the next day, but were forced to retire. On the 18th Aboukir
surrendered. On the 28th reinforcements were brought by a Turkish fleet
and the grand vizier approached from Syria with a large army. On the
19th, Rosetta surrendered to the combined forces of the English and the
Turks. At Ramanieh a French corps of 4,000 men was defeated by 8,000
English and 6,000 Turks. At Elmenayer 5,000 French were obliged to
retreat, May 16, by the vizier, who was pressing forward to Cairo with
20,000 men. The whole French army was now shut up in Cairo and
Alexandria. Cairo capitulated June 27, and Alexandria,
September 2. Four weeks afterward, October 1, 1801,
the preliminaries of peace were signed in London.
"Egypt shall not escape" were the words of
the prophecy. This language seems to imply that Egypt would be brought
into subjection to some power from whose dominion it would desire to be
released. As between the French and the Turks, how did this question
stand with the Egyptians?--they preferred French rule. In R. R. Madden's
Travels in Turkey, Egypt, Nubia, and Palestine it is stated that the
French were much regarded by the Egyptians, and extolled as benefactors;
that for the short period they remained, they left traces of
amelioration; and that, if they could have established their power,
Egypt, would now be comparatively civilized.  In view of this
testimony, the language of the Scripture would not be appropriate if
applied to the French, for the Egyptians did not desire to escape out of
their hands. They did desire to escape from the hands of the Turks, but
Verse 43 But he shall have power over the
treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of
Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
In illustration of this verse we quote the following
statement from the historian concerning Mehemet Ali, the Turkish
governor of Egypt who rose to power after the defeat of the French:
"The new Pasha set about strengthening himself
in his position so as to insure a permanent hold upon the government of
Egypt for himself and his family. First, he saw that he must exact a
large revenue from his subjects, in order to send such sums of tribute
to Constantinople as would propitiate the Sultan, and make it clearly
for his interest to sustain the power of the Egyptian governor. Acting
upon this principle he used many unjust means to obtain possession of
large estates; he denied the legitimacy of many successions; he burned
title deeds, and seized properties; in short, he set at defiance all
universally acknowledged rights of landholders. Great
disturbances followed, but Mohammed Ali was prepared for these, and, by
his wonderful firmness he made it appear that the bare assertion of
claims was an aggression on the part of the Sheikhs. The taxes were
constantly increased, and their collection put into the hands of the
military governors; by this means the peasantry were ground to the very
lowest point." 
Verse 44 But tidings out of the east and out of
the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury
to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
King of the North in Trouble.--On this verse
Adam Clarke has a note which is worthy of mention. He say: "This
part of the prophecy is allowed to be yet unfulfilled."  His
note was printed in 1825. In another part of his comment, he says:
"If the Turkish power be understood, as in the preceding verses, it
may mean that the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north,
will at some time greatly embarrass the Ottoman government."
Between this conjecture by Adam Clarke, written in
1825, and the Crimean War of 1853-1856, there is certainly a striking
coincidence, inasmuch as the very powers he mentions, the Persians on
the east, and the Russians on the north, were the ones which instigated
the conflict. Tidings from these powers troubled him (Turkey). Their
attitude and movements incited the sultan to anger and revenge. Russia,
being the more aggressive party, was the object of attack. Turkey
declared war on her powerful northern neighbor in 1853. The world looked
on in amazement to see a government which had long been called "the
Sick Man of the East," a government whose army was dispirited and
demoralized, whose treasuries were empty, who rulers were vile and
imbecile, and whose subjects were rebellious and threatening secession,
rush with such impetuosity into the conflict. The prophecy said that
should go forth with "great fury," and when
they thus went forth in the war aforesaid, they were described, in the
profane vernacular of an American writer, as "fighting like
devils." England and France, it is true, soon came to the help of
Turkey; but she went forth in the manner described, and as reported,
gained important victories before receiving the assistance of these
Verse 45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his
palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come
to his end, and none shall help him.
King of the North to Come to His End.--We have
now traced the prophecy of the 11th chapter of Daniel step by step to
this last verse. As we see the divine predictions meeting their
fulfillment in history, our faith is strengthened in the final
accomplishment of God's prophetic word.
The prophecy of verse 45 centers in that power known
as the king of the north. It is the power that shall hold the territory
possessed originally by the king of the north (See pages 235, 236.)
It is predicted of the king of the north that
"he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Just how
and when and where his end will come, we may watch with solemn interest,
knowing that the hand of Providence guides the destiny of nations.
Time will soon determine this matter. When this even
takes place, what follows?--events of the most momentous interest to all
the inhabitants of this world, as the next chapter immediately shows.
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, p. 335.
 Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament
Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. I, p. 378.
 Ibid., p. 415.
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, pp. 345, 346.
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, pp. 352.
 Charles Rollin, Ancient History, Vol. V, pp. 305,
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, pp. 356.
 The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX, p. 670.
By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
 Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament
Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 312.
 The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. IX, p. 738.
By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
 Ibid., Vol. X, pp. 96, 97.
 Encyclopaedia Americana, 1849 ed., Vol. XII, p.
251, art. "Tiberius."
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, p. 363.
 Encyclopaedia Americana, 1849 ed., Vol. XII, p.
251, 252 art. "Tiberius."
 Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament
Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 423.
 William Hales, A New Analysis of Chronology,
Vol. III, p. 1.
 See 1 Maccabees 8; Humphrey Prideaux, The Old
and New Testament Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 166.
 Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the
Jews," book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6, The Works of Flavius Josephus, p.
 See Encyclopaedia Americana, 11th edition, Vol.
VII, p. 3, art. "Constantinople."
 Humphrey Prideaux, The Old and New Testament
Connected in the History of the Jews, Vol. II, p. 380.
 Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament,
Vol. IV, pp. 109, 110, note on Isaiah 23: 1.
 See John Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Literature, art. "Chittim," p. 196.
 J. A. Wylie, The Papacy, pp. 180, 181.
 See Louis E. Dupin, A New History of
Ecclesiastical Writers, Vol. V, pp. 1-3, "Pope Symmachus."
 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, Vol. IV, chap. 47, p. 526.
 Codex Justiniani, lib. 1, tit. 1; translation as
given by R. F. Littledale The Petrine Claims, p. 293.
 George Croly, The Apocalypse of St. John, p.
 Ibid., pp. 170, 171.
 Ibid., pp. 172, 173.
 Ibid., pp. 12, 13.
 Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, Vol. IV, chap. 41, pp. 168, 169.
 Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, pp. 387,
 Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies,
Vol. I, pp. 388-390.
 Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, pp. 552,
 Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon
Buonaparte, Vol. 1, p. 239.
 Archibald Alison, History of Europe, Vol. III,
 Ibid., p. 24.
 Sir Walter Scott, The Life of Napoleon
Buonaparte, Vol. 1, p. 239, 240.
 Louis Madelin, The French Revolution, p. 389.
 Archibald Alison, History of Europe, Vol. III,
pp. 25, 26.
 John Gibson Lockhart, The History of Napoleon
Buonaparte, Vol. I, p. 154.
 The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII, p. 599.
By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the United States.
 James White, History of France, p. 469
 The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. VIII, pp.
597, 598. By permission of the Macmillan Company, publishers in the
 Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament,
Vol. IV, p. 618, note on Daniel 11: 41.
 Richard Robert Madden, Travels in Turkey, Egypt,
Nubia, and Palestine , Vol. I, p. 231.
 Clara Erskine Clement, Egypt, pp. 389, 390.
 Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Old Testament,
Vol. IV, p. 618, note on Daniel 11: 44.