army, the reason may be, because this army was not to be any army, but the army of the leader to come; and the ensigns of this army were not to be ensigns of any description, but ensigns which were properly abominations, in a ceremonial or legal point of view : that is, the objects of an idolatrous worship. The ensigns of the Roman armies, it is well known, were only of two sorts, the vexilla, or onuaiai, and the aquila, or aeroí; the former, at this period of their history, carrying the head, πρотоμǹ, or bust of the reigning emperor, the latter, figures of the eagle itself. Both these in the eyes of Jews would be abominations—because such likenesses or representations as their own law forbade them to make-but they would be especially so, under the circumstances of the case, because they were objects of worship on the part of the Roman soldiers, with whom it was the commonest article of military duty to offer Divine adoration, to bow down, and to burn incense or perform sacrifice to the images of their emperors on their standards, and to their eagles *.

* See the well known story in Josephus, of the golden eagle, dedicated by Herod over one of the gates of the temple: Ant. Jud. xvii. vi. 2. De Bello, i. xxxiii. 2 which illustrates the abomination in which figured representations of any description. of animals were held by the Jews. Similar to this, in the inference to which it leads, is Philo's account of the dedication of the shields by Pilate, in the prætorium at Jerusalem: Operum ii. 589. 1. 38-591. 1. 10. De Virtutibus. That the onμaiai, or vexilla, of the legions of the time, also, bore the роTоμn of the emperor for the time being, and by the Jews were regarded as abomina

tions on that very account, the appearance of which either in or about Jerusalem, or any where in their own country, they considered a pollution, appears from the incident mentioned by Josephus in the administration of Pilate, Ant. Jud. xviii. iii. 1. De Bello, ii. ix. 2: and from the similar incident in the last year of Tiberius, when Vitellius was on his march through Judæa, U. C. 790, A. D. 37, to make war upon Aretas: Ant. Jud. xviii. v. 3. In proof of the Divine worship paid to both see Jos. De Bello, vi. vi. 1: and Dio, xl. 18, and other authorities which might be quoted.

Now in what manner, we might ask, could the moving about of a large army over the face of the country in every direction-an army marshalled in battle array-an army consisting of horse and footan army divided into squadrons and companies, under their proper military commanders and leaders-and distinguished by their proper military ensigns and badges be more fitly as well as more graphically expressed, than by the idea of an army of that description moving about on the wings of its ensigns? And if that army was a Roman army, and those ensigns were Roman ensigns-moving about upon wing of ensigns that were abominations, and consequently, upon wing of abominations?

An army, as an army, and more especially an army in battle array, can neither be said to move about nor to stand still, except as its ensigns do one or the other. An army, as an army, whether in motion or at rest, is not to be distinguished from its ensigns and standards, as in motion or at rest also. It was the duty of the Roman signifer at least, to set the example to the rest of the army, both in marching and in halting. A Roman army, on duty, stirred not until its standardbearers had set forward, and halted not while their standards continued in motion. If it must be represented as moving about, therefore, and consequently in conformity to the idiom of the Hebrew language, as borne upon wings of some kind or another; it must be represented as moving about upon wings of its ensigns: and those ensigns being idols, or abominations, upon wings of abominations. And this is so natural an explanation of the meaning of the phrase in this instance, that under the idea of an army moving about upon wings of its ensigns, and those ensigns, ensigns of abomination, we need not suppose an allusion was pur

posely intended to the motion of an army whose ensigns should consist of eagles, and those eagles be the objects of worship to the army itself-though such an allusion, if really intended, might account for the origin of the figure at once.

The events, which constitute the second class of futurities spoken of in the prophecy, briefly stated are the following: I. Messiah the Prince: II. The cutting off of Messiah: III. The confirmation of the covenant with many: IV. The cessation of sacrifice and oblation. And the connection between these, too, composing as they do one and the same continuous representation of the facts of the Christian ministry, would be rendered perceptibly clear in this instance also, if we might take the liberty of setting out of view, for the present, the matter interposed between the beginning of verse 26, and the beginning of verse 27: matter which has been found to relate exclusively to the events of the other class, combined with this, the facts of the Jewish war. With this omission for the present, the order of disclosures in the prophecy will stand, in the words of the Bible Text version, as follows:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: ...

And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.

Now to consider these particulars in the above order -though there is no mention by name of such an event as the coming or appearance of Messiah; we

may notwithstanding take it for granted, that when it is stated, at the outset, there should be such and such an interval of time, from such and such a point of commencement, unto Messiah the Prince; this must be understood to mean unto the coming or appearance, the advent or Tapovσía, of Messiah the Prince: and we may also conclude that such is the mode of connecting the coming in question with the lapse of the interval in question; that is, such are the terms employed to define both the beginning and the end of the interval in question, nyn 10 ('Aπò é§ódov λóyou, Ab exitu sermonis, From going forth of a word) on the one hand, Dy on the other; (which Theodotion renders by Ἕως Χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου, the Vulgate by Usque ad Christum ducem, and our own Bible by Unto the Messiah the Prince-a version strictly literal in all but the articles before the words Messiah and Prince;) that as the course and succession of the specified time must begin to proceed with the going forth of the word in question, so it must come to an end with the coming and appearance of Messiah in question: the prophecy would be convicted of falsehood if the event should turn out to be otherwise; if the coming in question should take place either before or after the specified interval in question; if the interval should be come to an end, and Messiah be not yet come, or if the interval should still be current, and Messiah have already appeared.

Now this being the case, it must obviously make a considerable difference to the future interpretation of the prophecy, whether we suppose the coming and appearance of Messiah, which is thus restricted to a fixed point of time, to be meant of the birth of the future Messiah, or of his appearance in the discharge of his ministry. Either of these things, at first sight,

might appear to be equally capable of being intended by the allusion to Messiah the Prince; but it is certain that both could not possibly be meant: for it is certain that both the nativity, and the public appearance in his ministry, of one and the same person-between which periods of his history there was always to be a determinate interval of time, of no inconsiderable extent-could not possibly be each intended, as that one and the same event, which was to happen neither earlier nor later than the end of that one and the same lapse of time, dated from some one and the same commencement thereof. If the birth of Christ was the event intended, at the end of the sixty-nine weeks, by Messiah the Prince, his public appearance in the discharge of his ministry must be excluded from the scope of the prophecy: if his public appearance in the discharge of his ministry, at the end of the time in question, was the thing contemplated, then his nativity as such must be totally left out of sight.

Among the other preliminary questions, then, which would necessarily require to be considered before we could advance a step towards the final explanation of this celebrated prophecy, one would manifestly be, and not the least important of all: Supposing by Messiah the Prince, what all commentators are agreed upon, the coming, appearance, and Tapovσía of our Saviour to be meant; and supposing, what is too plainly determined by the prophecy itself to admit of a doubt, this coming, appearance, and πapovσía to be fixed to the end of a specified interval of time; is this coming, appearance, and aρovoia of the Messiah, at the end of this time, to be understood of the coming, appearance, and Taρovoia of our Saviour at his birth, or at his entrance upon his ministry?

The answer to this question, it appears to me, is